Sitting of 13 February 1997

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

    Endangered Species
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to make additional resources available to Customs and Excise to combat trafficking in endangered species and products. [14169]
    The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): The control of endangered species is a priority, and one to which I give my strongest support. Customs has just increased the staffing of the specialist Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species enforcement team at Heathrow airport.
    An important issue is to increase public awareness of the problem to prevent unintended imports. To that end, Customs and Excise—in partnership with the World Wide Fund for Nature and the Department of the Environment—is providing an endangered species video which most, although not all, of the airlines we have asked have already agreed to show in-flight, and I hope that others will follow suit.
    Mr. Banks: First, I pay tribute to the work of Customs and Excise in trying to stamp out the trade in endangered species and wildlife products. I also thank the Minister for his commitment to the cause.
    What specific resources are made available for the training of staff so that they can recognise the products that are coming in? Will there be an increase in specifically allocated staff? Clearly, the trade is now so large and growing that we need more people doing the job. The Minister referred to the CITES team at Heathrow. Will that model be extended to other airports, such as Manchester?
    Finally, what is being done to stop the illegal importation of bear bile, rhino horn and tiger bone products, which are coming into this country for traditional Chinese medicine shops and are now available in London?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions, all of them important. Each of the 14 customs regions now has an expert CITES liaison and intelligence officer. The team at Heathrow—which has just been expanded to eight people—is the only
    448
    dedicated team, but all other customs areas are being given training and computer-aided recognition systems so that they can recognise snake skins and other products. We wish to increase resources in that area.
    The hon. Gentleman mentioned Chinese medicine, and I agree that no nation can be complacent about this matter. In addition, no nation has an unblemished record on the issue. There is a particularly serious problem worldwide with Chinese medicines and aphrodisiacs. It is sad paradox that the most populous nation on earth sometimes seems determined to wipe out the last rhino because some of its menfolk seem incapable of performing. That is sad and ironic.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Reverting to a serious aspect of this important question, what is my hon. Friend doing—apart from providing manpower—to educate the public about the dangers of bringing in endangered species, as this seems to be the crux of the situation?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The Government are developing a package of leaflets, posters and videos, with the help and support of wildlife and animal welfare groups. Almost all the travel agents and tour groups that we have approached have agreed to send these out with tickets, and to send posters to their reps abroad. Most of the airlines that we have asked have agreed to show the videos on their flights, including British Airways. The only major UK airline not to have agreed yet is Virgin Airways which, when reminded, said that Mr. Branson was currently too busy to respond.

    Share Ownership
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to promote wider share ownership; and if he will make a statement. [14170]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): In addition to the recent changes made to the three tax-approved employee share schemes, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has issued a challenging target to our largest businesses that he would like to see half their employees holding shares in their own companies by 2000.
    Mr. Bellingham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents own shares in the companies for which they work and that many also own shares in privatised utilities that operate locally, such as Railtrack, British Telecom, British Gas and Anglian Water? Does he agree that those shareholders need confidence and that the one thing that would destroy that confidence would be a windfall tax which, apart from possibly being illegal, would amount to a straightforward confiscation of wealth from small shareholders?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right. If we follow what the shadow Chancellor said on the "Today" programme, it would be the equivalent of levying another 2p in tax. The shadow Chancellor's explanation on the radio this morning of the windfall tax was a cynical attempt to dodge the issue. He must have briefed the legal advice that he claims to justify it with all the details about the tax, so why does he not come out and tell the truth about which of the companies to which my hon. Friend referred

    449
    would be affected, how much would be raised and who would pay? My hon. Friend is right to postulate uncertainty about the tax.
    Mr. Corbett: As the Minister made a plea for truth, will he tell us how the Government propose to pay for their share match scheme, which we are told is intended to spread wider share ownership? Will he give the House an assurance that it will not be done by extending value added tax on food, children's clothing, public transport, and so on? If he will give that undertaking, will he say where the money will come from to pay for it?
    Mr. Jack: I would be happy to give a straight answer to that question, in contrast to the efforts of the shadow Chancellor to dodge any question about the windfall tax. The share match scheme requires a change in the regulation of an already existing mechanism in the approved profit-sharing scheme, and we are considering how precisely to achieve that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a windfall tax could be considered an increase in price for the vital necessities of life, such as gas, electricity and water? Will not the increase therefore bear down most heavily on pensioners and those on low incomes?
    Mr. Jack: For the shadow Chancellor to smile at the conclusion of my hon. Friend's question shows his cynical disregard for pensioners, who would have to pay for the tax—which could cost households about £100 a year—but he will not come clean on it. My hon. Friend has exposed the Opposition's cynical attempt to raise money through a utilities tax.
    Mr. Darling: Is it not clear that the Conservatives are not particularly bothered about pensioners, but are keener to climb into bed with the boardroom fat cats? Does the Financial Secretary recall that it was the Tory party that pioneered the windfall tax in 1981, and that the idea was supported by the chairman of the 1922 Committee? If the Financial Secretary is in the business of giving straight answers, can he confirm—given that stability, more than anything else, affects share ownership—that the Chancellor will meet his inflation target of 2½ per cent. by the end of this Parliament?
    Mr. Jack: Let me say to the hon. Gentleman, who has just put up another smokescreen to dodge answering questions about the windfall tax, that it is not only fat cats who would have to pay: many pensioners and people on low incomes would be the victims of the windfall tax. The hon. Gentleman knows what my right hon. and learned Friend's target is; he is confident of meeting it.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that not only shareholders but pensioners would suffer from the introduction of a windfall tax, because the fundholders of pension schemes invest heavily in the privatised utilities? Will he further confirm that the costs of the utilities for consumers are bound to go up in the event of a windfall tax, simply because, if the prices were too high now, the regulators would have intervened to force them down? [Interruption.]
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right. Opposition Members scoff, but Professor Littlechild, the electricity regulator, told a Commons Select Committee that he would have to take into account the windfall tax and its effect on utility prices when prices came to be set in the future. There can be no stronger endorsement of the line that my hon. Friend took. All the speculation and concern of Conservative Members are the direct result of the cynical attempt by the shadow Chancellor to dodge putting on the record the information that he gave to Mr. Beloff, who is said to have provided a legal opinion justifying his tax. He should make it public and be answerable for it.

    Value Added Tax
    Ms Eagle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him about recent levels of VAT receipts. [14171]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I receive a large number of representations on this and other subjects.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain how many times his Government have extended the scope of VAT and increased its rate since 1979?
    Mr. Clarke: That would involve the history of many Budgets. The Labour party has committed itself to our spending plans. It has obviously belatedly come around to approving the Government's fiscal policy. As far as I know, it is making no commitments to reduce any tax. Instead, it proposes to introduce a windfall tax, about which it is singularly unable to answer any questions but which would add to the tax burdens of many households.
    Sir Terence Higgins: On the collection of VAT and other Customs and Excise taxes, has my right hon. and learned Friend seen the article in the Financial Times the day before yesterday and the leader in the early editions of the Evening Standard yesterday that suggest that clauses 51 to 54 of the Finance Bill would make it possible for customs to take money direct and forthwith from bank accounts and, if people have no money in their bank accounts, from other people who owe them money? Is that story true? If it is, does he appreciate that that would not be acceptable?
    Mr. Clarke: I, too, read the article in the Financial Times and the editorial of the Evening Standard, as did my colleagues. I discussed it with my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, among others. We are aware of the concerns and are considering them. I am not sure that I totally recognise the proposals in the newspaper reports, but I do not dismiss them.
    Sir James Molyneaux: On the July capping of VAT refunds, will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give sympathetic consideration to the settlement of claims that had been accepted and promised before the announcement was made in July?
    Mr. Clarke: We are carefully examining that. My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will take a close interest in the matter. Where people were promised refunds in writing before July, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will honour those promises.
    Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend will have seen the posters put up by the Labour party advertising that the Government are to put up VAT on fuel. [Interruption.] I am glad that Opposition Members are listening. The mistake was mine. I meant VAT on food. Has my right hon. and learned Friend also heard that Labour proposes to abide by all our tax and spending plans? Does it follow that Labour advocates VAT on food?
    Mr. Clarke: I very much doubt whether my hon. and learned Friend will get an answer to a question of that sort from the Labour party. I have no plans to impose VAT on food. I have never had any such plans. The Labour party knows perfectly well that I have not had any plans to impose VAT on food. The people who put up the poster did not believe it. The Labour party should advertise the answer to a straightforward question: will a windfall tax be imposed on British Telecom and on our telephone bills? We already know that it will be a tax on fuel, to go back to my hon. and learned Friend's slip of the tongue.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledge that his inability to forecast VAT receipts correctly is a significant factor in his inability to get borrowing down? Unless the situation has improved, does he accept that one way that would immediately help to bring down the cost of borrowing would be to make the Bank of England independent and, as a result, reduce the base of interest rates by between 0.5 and 0.75 per cent. and Government debt by £1.4 billion this year, according to the Library?
    Mr. Clarke: First, estimates of VAT are always difficult. Treasury estimates have been going wide of the mark for some years, since about 1990. The hon. Gentleman will know that we set out the reasons for that in the Red Book. We have introduced measures to deal with many of them in the current Finance Bill, including a three-year cap on retrospective claims. We have also taken steps to improve collection. We have in hand the task of getting right the estimates of receipts, although it will always be difficult.
    With regard to making the Bank of England independent, I believe that the present arrangements work extremely well. I find myself subjected to more debate than we used to have on the subject, because I made the process transparent by ending Treasury editing of the Bank's inflation report and by publishing regular minutes. The Governor and I are agreed that there is only a small difference of judgment between us—of one quarter of 1 per cent. He thinks that I put a little too much emphasis on the present strength of sterling and I think that he puts a little less emphasis on the strength of sterling than he should. We will continue to consider the matter. We are both confident that we will hit the target and maintain the best inflation record that Britain has had for 50 years.
    452
    The Governor's own forecast—the one that caused all the dispute—estimates that inflation will fall to 2¼ per cent. in the latter half of this year.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I revert to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). Will my right hon. and learned Friend go just a little further and give an unequivocal undertaking that the forecast in the Financial Times will never come to pass while he is Chancellor?
    Mr. Clarke: We will have to consider what the Financial Times said. I have very high respect for that newspaper, but I will not sign up immediately to its assertions of what will follow. However, we are looking closely at those clauses of the Finance Bill and reflecting on the concerns raised in the Financial Times. Were those concerns fully borne out, we would wish to address them, but I do not want to concede the whole way until we have given more thought to them.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the Chancellor confirm that the commitments that he has just made on VAT on food were exactly the same commitments that the Prime Minister made on VAT on fuel in 1992 and then cynically broke? Given that VAT receipts depend on levels of spending and inflation, will the Chancellor repeat the commitment that he made before—that inflation would be at or below 2½ per cent. by the end of the Parliament? Will he repeat that promise, or is it yet another Tory broken promise?
    Mr. Clarke: My recollection is that, at the last general election, a poster went up showing my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) dressed as "VAT man", in a Batman costume. The public were told by the then Labour spokesman, who did not believe a word that he was saying, that we had plans in the pipeline to increase VAT to 22½ per cent. A great deal of debate took place on that. Most of the quotations on which the Labour party relied were in response to a subordinate plot to that. It was a deceitful and incorrect campaign, which was never borne out by the facts.
    Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to answer a straight question about a tax which he has told everyone he proposes to introduce in a few weeks, if he gets the chance? Will I and every household in the country face the consequences of a windfall tax if it is imposed on telephone bills and British Telecom?

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the average public expenditure per head in (a) Scotland and (b) England in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [14172]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): In 1994–95—the last year for which figures are available—identifiable public expenditure per head was £4,505 in Scotland and £3,614 in England. This provision for Scotland is some 20 per cent. higher than the United Kingdom average.
    Mr. Luff: In the event of the creation of a Scottish Parliament, it would have full control of public

    453
    expenditure in Scotland and could levy a tartan tax, while Scottish Members continued to be over-represented in this Parliament of the United Kingdom and could vote on English public expenditure and tax levels. How does my right hon. Friend think that I could justify that enormous differential to my constituents?
    Mr. Waldegrave: With difficulty. The inevitable consequence of Labour's ill-thought-out plans, leaving aside the fact that they would be divisive between England and Scotland in many other ways, would be that the House would want to look at the basis of the financial deal between Scotland and England. There would be no way of stopping that, and it would not be to the benefit of Scotland.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the Chief Secretary aware that the Barnett formula, which was formulated by Lord Barnett, then Chief Secretary, when he and I were at the Treasury, was based on the population of Scotland? It was decided that it represented a fair allocation for the people of Scotland as a percentage of the total of Government expenditure throughout the United Kingdom. This is a serious matter. Is the Chief Secretary aware that, if we were to change that formula for any political considerations, it would cause serious danger to the unity of our country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am very familiar with the formula, which is, of course, based not only on population but on an assessment and an attempted assessment of need. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Luff), and it is a little odd for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) to say it, it is the right hon. Gentleman's party, the Labour party, that is putting forward proposals that are liable to threaten the arrangements between England and Scotland. It is his party that is putting the Union in danger. One of the least of the consequences of those proposals—although an extremely important one to the people of Scotland—would be that people in England would want to look at the figures with increased attention.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend understand that Scottish Members, too, are equally concerned about what they can say to their constituents? As I understand it, the Barnett formula is designed to remove progressively and slowly the differences in expenditure levels between parts of the United Kingdom, particularly Scotland and England. The Labour party proposes to change that virtually overnight; we would be faced with what could only be described as the most unfair proposals ever brought before Parliament, because they would mean that Scots would be running the Westminster Parliament and making decisions on English spending matters, and Scots would be running the Edinburgh Parliament and making decisions on Scottish spending matters, but English Members of Parliament would not be able to influence either.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember that, when I was Secretary of State for Health, my then opposite number, the current shadow Foreign Secretary, put that almost as eloquently as my hon. Friend has done; it has received no answer in the very badly thought out plans that the Labour party has since introduced. Those proposals would be disastrous for the Union, and also disastrous for Scottish taxpayers and for the standard of living in Scotland.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Given that public expenditure on agriculture affects every taxpayer in England and
    454
    Scotland, will the Chief Secretary confirm that £3.3 billion, or the equivalent of 2p on income tax, is the sum needed to deal with bovine spongiform encephalopathy? Is that a minimum or a maximum figure?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As far as I remember, the figures over two or three years are about £1.5 billion this year and then there will be a considerable refund from the European Union. The figures are set out and separately identified in the Red Book.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that public expenditure per head in Scotland, particularly on health and education, is unfair to England and unjustified? Does he accept that, if there were a Scottish Parliament, many Conservative Members like me who feel strongly about public expenditure would campaign vigorously to bring the level of expenditure per head in Scotland down to the level in England? That would benefit English taxpayers.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I will not go as far as my hon. Friend, because those matters are negotiated each year in relation to Wales and Northern Ireland as well as to Scotland. What I am saying, and what my hon. Friend has represented in his question, is that, if the Labour party's ill-thought-out, half-baked plans were to come about, there would be a huge reaction from England. That would be bound to damage the situation as my hon. Friend has described—it is only one of the matters in which the Union would be damaged, but it is one of the most important.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the total revenue raised from value added tax in (a) 1978–79 and (b) 1995–96. [14176]
    Mr. Jack: In constant 1995–96 prices, the receipts were £14.1 billion and £43.1 billion respectively.
    Mr. Williams: Can the Minister say what the Chancellor meant when he said in the Budget statement on 30 November 1993 that one of his options
    "must be to extend the VAT base. The main candidates are food, children's clothes, transport, sewerage and newspapers"?
    Is it not clear that, if we had another Conservative Government, just as the last one put VAT on heating, the next one would put VAT on food?
    Mr. Jack: I am intrigued that the hon. Gentleman has chosen to ask me that question, when he could have asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor a little earlier. I also notice that he was reading in order to get accuracy. If he had read my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget speech in 1993, he would have seen that it is perfectly true that, in that context, my right hon. and learned Friend rather teased the House of Commons when he talked about his views on how we should have a broader tax base. He reviewed a number of possibilities and then went on to describe his own solution to broaden the tax base at that time. He introduced the House to the

    455
    concept of the insurance premium tax and the air passenger duty. At the end of his speech, he said to the House of Commons:
    "I can now confirm that I have no need this year to propose any changes to the VAT base."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 940.]
    The hon. Gentleman asked the question. He read his question for accuracy and I read the reply for accuracy.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when we increased VAT to 17.5 per cent., the amount of that extra tax was refunded by way of subsidy to council tax payers? Does he also recall that, when we put tax on domestic gas and electricity, we fully compensated pensioners and people on low earnings by increasing their pensions and social security? Is he aware of any plans to compensate pensioners and people on low earnings for the consequences of a windfall tax?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is entirely right to remind the House of the steps that we took to protect the interests of pensioners when we had to take difficult economic decisions as we were recovering from a very deep recession. We have now got the economy on track—we have the fastest-growing major western economy—and it is doing extremely well. That would be damaged by the arrival of the tax to which my hon. Friend refers and, as far as I am aware, we have heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to tell us anything about the windfall tax, never mind about compensating pensioners.
    Ms Primarolo: Does the Financial Secretary remember the Prime Minister's promise at the last election not to extend the scope of VAT? Does he also remember that, in his Government's pre-election Budget, the then Chancellor promised not to put VAT on fuel? Can he explain to the House why his Government broke those promises and why the electorate should trust them at all on any tax issue, particularly VAT?
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend dealt very adequately with the question of VAT and the last election in his own very clear answer. However, I shall tell the hon. Lady because, when it comes to the economy, people should judge a Government not only on an individual item, but on whether they actually deliver. We have never hidden from the fact that putting VAT on fuel and power was a very difficult decision but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) reminded the House moments ago, we did help those who were most harshly hit, either through social security benefits or through direct help to pensioners. We have now delivered an economy that is the fastest-growing in western Europe, rapidly falling unemployment, the best inflation record for 50 years and the lowest mortgage rates for nearly 30 years. That is why people will believe us and not the Opposition.

    Household Incomes (Tax)
    Mr. Cash: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the average percentage of household income directed to tax payments in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU member states, in the most recent year for which figures are available. [14178]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): A family on average earnings
    456
    in the United Kingdom are expected to pay just over 35 per cent. of their earnings in tax next year. Although comparative figures are not available for other European Union countries, the overall burden of taxation on the economy in the United Kingdom, at 353/4 per cent. of gross domestic product last year, is one of the lowest levels in Europe and is below that of France, Germany and Italy.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept, first, that those excellent figures would have been even better, had we not spent so much on the disaster of the exchange rate mechanism; and, secondly, that we will never accept a Europe-wide tax system—unlike Labour Members, who are up to their eyes in the ERM the whole time, would take us back into it and would completely undermine the British economy?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is right to make those points about the strength of the British economy. I can assure him that the tax point to which he refers would be a matter of unanimity and that this country—this Government—will vote against that.

    European Monetary Union
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the German and French Finance Ministers to discuss the timetable for entry into European monetary union. [14179]
    Mr. Oppenheim: Preparations for economic and monetary union are regularly discussed at meetings of the Economic and Finance Council. The last such meeting, which I attended on the Chancellor's behalf, was on 27 January.
    Mr. Sheerman: Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor's weakness and vacillation are causing a great deal of concern in Europe about our commitment to Europe? Is he also aware that the leaders of major British businesses are concerned about their future, trading in a Europe with a common currency to which they do not belong? Is it not time that the Government and the Chancellor started running themselves, rather than allowing themselves to be run by right-wing Back Benchers who hate Europe and the ideal of Europe, despite the prosperity that it has brought us over 50 years?
    Mr. Oppenheim: When it comes to vacillation, I seem to remember that new Labour has changed its policy on tax, on spending and on grammar schools. As soon as we changed our policy on Europe, it poodled along behind us. In fact, new Labour's unique selling proposition seems to be, "Those guys have made such a mess of things that we are going to copy all their policies."
    Mr. Duncan Smith: When my hon. Friend next speaks to his counterparts in Europe, will he explain to them that the shadow Foreign Secretary's recent comments mean that if they do something, the Labour party will automatically follow them into the single currency on economic grounds? Will he explain to his counterparts that Conservatives approach the subject not

    457
    only as an economic issue but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, as an issue with constitutional implications?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Yes, my hon. Friend is broadly right. Any commitment to economic and monetary union would be the largest change in our economic affairs for many decades, but would not necessarily lead to political union. My hon. Friend can draw whatever conclusions he wants from that answer.

    VAT (Domestic Fuel)
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce VAT on domestic fuel. [14180]
    Mr. Waldegrave: No. VAT was applied to domestic fuel for sound environmental and necessary revenue reasons, which continue to apply.
    Mr. Winnick: Why not? Does not the Chief Secretary know that VAT on domestic fuel causes particular hardship to many pensioners and others on low income and should be reduced? But then a Chancellor who does not even know the price of a tin of baked beans would not worry about such matters, would he?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It takes a certain nerve for a party—the Labour party—s that is making its centrepiece today a new tax on gas and electricity to complain about VAT on fuel. It is perfectly clear that the new tax on gas and electricity proposed by the Labour party will not only hit pension funds and shares, but is bound to affect prices. The hon. Gentleman has a brass neck to complain about VAT.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that old people were given full protection against the extra costs arising from the introduction of VAT on fuel? If the VAT rate were reduced, the benefits would go to the largest consumers of fuel, who tend to be the richest people. The proposal so enthusiastically espoused by the Labour party is a way to rob poor people and help rich people, while wrecking the environment in the process.
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is quite right: pensioners, those on income support and others were fully compensated. My hon. Friend is also right that the bigger one's house, the more fuel tax one pays.
    Mr. Milburn: Does the Chief Secretary agree with the statement made by the Chancellor in September 1993 that VAT on fuel is a perfectly fair tax?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman is a member of a Front-Bench team that proposes a new tax on gas and electricity, he should ask whether his so-called windfall tax is fair.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the literature put out by the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats at the last general election, proposing carbon taxes to put up the price of fuel because it was too
    458
    cheap? Has he seen what consumers are paying today for gas and electricity? Even with VAT, the cost of fuel has been reduced, owing to the Government's policies.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The privatisations of the great fuel utilities, against which the Labour party voted on every occasion, have brought about a 2 per cent. real-terms decrease, after VAT, in the price of electricity and a 20 per cent. real-terms decrease, after VAT and everything else, in the price of gas. The Labour party opposed that, root and branch.

    European Monetary Union
    Mr. Ainger: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for Britain being one of the initial participants in European monetary union. [14181]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am confident that the United Kingdom will be able to achieve and sustain the convergence criteria of low inflation, low fiscal deficit and low public debt, and they will contribute to our policy of creating jobs and raising living standards in this country. At the moment, I believe that it is unlikely, although not impossible, that enough countries will be sufficiently convergent by 1 January 1999 for EMU to go ahead on that date. If EMU were to go ahead at any date without sufficient convergence, we would not be part of it.
    Mr. Ainger: Does the Chancellor agree with the Foreign Secretary's view that joining EMU would mean a loss of sovereignty, or does he agree with the head of Toyota and the chairman of Unilever that failure to join EMU would mean a loss of jobs? Which is it? Which is his position, and who speaks for the Government on EMU?
    Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, the answer that I just gave is an impeccable statement of the policy that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I last gave together outside Downing street, and the policy is perfectly clear. All international engagements involve some pooling of sovereignty, and the political implications of any international engagement are a matter that the House and the public always want to discuss whenever such an event occurs.
    As for the opinions of leading business men, they were not commenting on sovereignty; they were commenting, as they are entitled to do, on what they thought would be the implications for their businesses. I believe that both the gentlemen quoted are perfectly content with the Government's policy that we keep those options open, that we contribute to the evolution of policy and that we keep our eye on the ball, which is British jobs, British prosperity and the future well-being of this country.
    Mr. Sweeney: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Allensbach Opinion Research Institute's most recent survey in Germany revealed that only 5 per cent. of Germans are wholly in favour of the euro, about 15 per cent. are mildly in favour and 80 per cent. are against? Does he agree that the most important convergence criterion that needs to be satisfied is the deficit in public support?
    Mr. Clarke: I am not familiar with the Allensbach survey and I shall take the opportunity of catching up with

    459
    the figures. I doubt that people responding in Germany were concentrating on the key issues of British jobs, British prosperity and the well-being of UK Ltd. I hope that in this country we shall pay attention to British jobs and British prosperity to the same extent as German citizens pay attention, no doubt, to German jobs and German prosperity, when and if ever we have to take decisions on such matters.
    Mr. Shore: The prospect of Britain joining the single currency on 1 January 1999 appears to be receding, and I think that we are all grateful for that. I know that the Chancellor is fastidious about the integrity of the convergence criteria. Will he make it plain that he will not accept the type of fudge that the French have gone in for by transferring telecom pensions against their 3 per cent. deficit, and will he also say that, if the Germans do hit the 3½ per cent. of GDP in their borrowing requirement this year, as it now appears that they will, he will exert himself to put a stop to other European countries joining a fudge currency on 1 January 1999?
    Mr. Clarke: There is no point in commenting on whether the chances are advancing or receding on any of those things. We are pursuing a cautious and pragmatic approach based on our best judgment of British interests, ensuring that British influence is brought to bear on the evolution of policy, which is of great importance whatever happens to the future of the European market on which we so depend.
    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that accounting devices of the type that he describes and others should play no part whatever in such decisions. What matters is the underlying structural fiscal deficit that has been achieved by a specific country. What matters even more is whether a low structural deficit is likely to be sustained for the foreseeable future by that country, if it were to go into economic and monetary union. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall continue to argue that point as strongly in the councils of Europe, in respect of all member states, as I have in the past.

    National Income (Business Taxation)
    Sir John Hannam: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the proportion of national income taken in business taxation in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) in Germany, (c) in France, (d) in Italy and (e) as an average among European Union member states. [14182]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Organisation for Economic Corporation and Development estimates for 1994 show that the average EU tax burden on business is 10.6 per cent. of GDP. The tax burden for business in Germany is 9.4 per cent.; in Italy, 12.8 per cent.; in France, 16.8 per cent.; and in the United Kingdom, 8 per cent., one of the very lowest rates in Europe.
    Sir John Hannam: I thank my hon. Friend for that illuminating reply. Does not it show that Conservative low-tax policies have helped to produce the most successful economy in Europe? Would not all that be ruined if the Labour party ever came to power, with a windfall tax, a minimum wage and the social chapter?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is correct. Our tax system has created jobs, whereas many of our European
    460
    partners have been unable to do so. It was interesting to learn this week of two companies that propose to leave France and come to Britain, simply because our tax burden is lower and the cost of employment in France, in particular, is so much higher.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14159]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Has my right hon. Friend had time today to study the reported comments of European Union Competition Commissioner Karel van Miert on the respective levels of state subsidy within the European Union? Did my right hon. Friend note that the United Kingdom has the lowest level of state subsidy per worker within the European Union and that the Federal Republic of Germany has the highest annual disbursement per year of any EU country? Is it not noteworthy that the UK now has the lowest unemployment for six years and that it is falling, whereas the federal republic has the highest unemployment for 64 years and it is rising? What deductions does my right hon. Friend make from those figures?
    The Prime Minister: I have not yet seen the detail of what Commissioner van Miert said, but the conclusion, from what my hon. Friend says, is surely obvious. The fact is that state subsidies cannot hide the effect of high social costs. They add to the levels of taxation and, in so doing, they damage competitiveness and employment prospects. That is precisely what we have seen across continental Europe. It is a problem that we have avoided in the UK, which is why our unemployment is so much lower.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following: first, that since last June when he promised that the beef ban would be lifted by last November, no part of the beef ban has been lifted; secondly, that under the selective slaughter scheme, not a single animal has yet been slaughtered; thirdly, that no formal proposal has yet even been put to the European Commission about lifting the ban from the BSE-free certified herds in Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere; and, fourthly, that the cost of the BSE fiasco is now estimated at £3.3 billion and is currently running at £4 million a day?
    The Prime Minister: If I may take the last point first, which deals with cost, I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be more careful about what he says about that. If he recalls, it was the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) who first tried to stoke up the health scare about British beef right across Europe, despite the fact that British beef is safer than continental

    461
    beef, and it was the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) who supported the unjustified beef ban. I find the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour throughout the entire crisis absolutely astonishing. His behaviour would discredit a student debating society. Not once has he put the interests of the British beef industry in front of making petty party political points for his own party interests.
    Mr. Blair: Four specific questions, not one specific answer—that is about par for the course. I remind the Prime Minister that he was not obliged to stand at the Dispatch Box last June and promise that he would lift the beef ban by last November, but he made the promise. He broke the promise—like so many of his promises. He made the promise, not because he thought he could deliver on it, but because, as usual, he was in a tight spot and wanted to get out of it. Let me just put one of those specific questions and allow him to answer it: is the Minister of Agriculture right when he says that the cost is now £3.3 billion, or, as he put it, the equivalent of 2p on the standard rate of income tax? Is he right, or is he wrong?
    The Prime Minister: The cost is of that order. That is correct, and a substantial part of the reason for that is the health scares created by Opposition Members. Throughout the whole affair, the Government have been entirely open with the British nation, and the Labour party has repeatedly tried to stoke up health fears at home and abroad. If the Labour leader was really interested in restoring the British beef industry, he would be working with us to promote it, not undermining our position in the European Union just as we present plans on certified herds to the European Commission. But he is not interested in getting the ban lifted at all; he is interested in his own petty points.
    Mr. Blair: Rightly has it been said that BSE also stands for "blame somebody else". The Prime Minister would do a lot more credit to his office if, just for once, when his Government make a mistake, he would accept responsibility for it. That he will not do so is one part of the reason why that fiasco will stand as a symbol of the incompetence of the most incompetent Government in living memory.
    The Prime Minister: Even at this stage, the right hon. Gentleman takes the position of those who would do down the British beef industry. Before he does more damage to the British beef industry, he should reflect upon the damage that he has already done to it. It is British farmers and taxpayers who have helped pay the price for his posturing over the past few months. The bitter harvest has been reaped, partly because of the Labour party's domestic self-interest.
    Mr. Elletson: Has my right hon. Friend seen recent reports in the West Lancashire Evening Gazette and The Express about a little girl of 11 in my constituency who has been addicted to heroin since the age of nine? Will he order an urgent inquiry into how Lancashire social services failed to notice that that little girl was in danger, despite the fact that eight members of her immediate family, including her granny, have been convicted of offences relating to the supply of heroin? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case is an horrific example of the growing threat to children from drugs, and will he
    462
    reassure my constituents and the country that the Government continue to make the war against drugs a top priority?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance to my hon. Friend and the House. My hon. Friend highlights a truly tragic case, as he set it out. Although I am not familiar with all the details of the case, I was aware of it, and I understand that the director of social services in Lancashire is now reviewing the department's action, and that a report will be sent to the Department of Health's social services inspectorate, where we will examine it with great speed and great care. It is essential that, when a child needs protection, it receives protection from all the agencies concerned. On the evidence at present available—I emphasise that—it seems as though that may not have happened in that case.
    On the more general question of drugs, as my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are deeply concerned about the problem of drugs and young people in particular. That is why the Home Office is currently supporting more than 1,500 locally based schemes on drug protection.
    Mr. Ashdown: Surely the real issue is no longer the price that farmers have paid for one incompetent Minister, but the price that the country is paying for the whole squabbling herd of them. We are seeing rising inflation, the usual pre-arranged pre-election boost followed by the familiar post-election bust, sacked teachers, the health service plunged into crisis daily, and increasing class sizes. When will the Prime Minister realise that he has only one function left to perform that is of any interest to anyone: naming the day? When will he get on with it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to examine more carefully the litany that he recites. We have set an inflation target, which we shall meet, and which the right hon. Gentleman could only dream about. The average level of inflation under the last Lib-Lab Government was more than 15 per cent.—no wonder the shadow Chancellor dare not set an inflation target and tell the country what it is. He promises taxes, but he does not say who will pay them. He cannot tell us whether he would set an inflation target or what it would be. The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not seen today's annual economic report from the European Commission, which argues that we will meet our inflation target.
    Sir Alan Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend carried out studies to establish how much a reduction in value added tax on domestic fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. would be outweighed by the impact on prices of a windfall tax on energy suppliers, which would possibly leave consumers worse off?
    The Prime Minister: I would be very happy to carry out such an inquiry, if we were told who would bear the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. We are now told that the windfall tax is legal, but, despite the fact that Labour Front Benchers claim to be in favour of freedom of information, they will not release the information on which that assertion is based. I invite them to do so. I also invite the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to tell us who would pay

    463
    the windfall tax and at what rate it would be levied. He could then tell the consumers of electricity, gas and oil precisely what that would do to their bills.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14160]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister comment on the statement by the Employment Minister, the right hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), who admitted that only about half of the figures showing a fall in unemployment are genuine? Which half of those figures should we believe? As, at long last, a Minister has told us half the truth, will the Prime Minister inform us when just one Minister will tell us the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend said no such thing, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Opposition Members cannot bear the fact that unemployment is falling rapidly in this country, and has been falling for three years. There are now more people in work in each and every region.
    Mr. Janner: Four million unemployed.
    The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not a single shred of evidence to support his claim. That is fiddling the figures on a scale that not even the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) would contemplate. Unemployment is falling and people are in work. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) should recognise that fact. There has been a dramatic fall in unemployment in his constituency. He
    464
    should talk to his constituents who are now in work and who would lose their jobs under the policies that Opposition Front Benchers advocate.
    Mr. Day: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14162]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Day: Bearing it in mind that the new consensus in British politics seems to be based on the successful policies of 18 years of Conservative government, and given the fact that the Opposition have spent the past two years denying the previous 16 years and are now espousing all the policies that they voted against in the past, will my right hon. Friend inform the House and the country why the electorate should consider voting for the pale pink imitation opposite, when it has the real thing in the person of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. After 18 years of Conservative government, we have low taxes, low inflation, more jobs and tumbling unemployment. The Labour party may adopt our rhetoric, but Labour Members do not believe what they say, and neither should anybody else.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14163]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that, once he has had the guts to go to the country, for the first time in his political life he will be sitting on the Opposition Benches? I have been keeping this seat warm for him. After the election, at least half a dozen Tory ex-Ministers will put the knife into him, because they want his job. Then he will have the galling experience of having to vote for one of those Tory bastards. Which one will it be?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman comprehensively removes the thought that one mellows as one grows older. A report earlier this week said that people do not get cantankerous as they grow older; they are born that way. Remarks like the one that the hon. Gentleman has just made were repeatedly put to me before the last general election. He is still sitting there; I am still sitting here. I look forward to congratulating him on his 70th birthday, and he will still be there if he holds his seat.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 17 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [5th Allotted Day].
There will be a debate entitled "The BSE Crisis" on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 18 FEBRUARY—Consideration of supplemental allocation of time motion relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill.
Remaining stages of the National Heritage Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Social Security Benefits Up-Rating Order, the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-Rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order, the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations, the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order and the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations.
THURSDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Debate on the constitution on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 21 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting.
Madam Speaker, the House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 19 February there will be a debate on future noise policy in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
I regret that, once again, I am unable to give comprehensive information about the following week, but on Monday 24 February I expect to take Government business, including Second Reading of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords]. The House may like to know that on Thursday 27 February I intend that we should have the annual debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment.
[Wednesday 19 February:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Document: 11419/96, Future Noise Policy. Relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC 36-xi (1996–97).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that information. He announced that on Thursday there would be a debate on the constitution. He will know from previous exchanges at business questions that we welcome such a debate, but can he tell us who will speak for the Government? Who will explain the many and varied statements of Government policy on devolution that have been made in recent days? Will the Secretary of State for Health participate in the debate, or is it true that he has been sacked from his role as co-ordinator of policy in this area?
466
May we have a debate on the inspection rights of the National Audit Office, in the light of the Government's refusal to allow the NAO access to the books of private companies that contract to provide Government services? The expansion of Government services provided by the private sector has been so extensive and so rapid that often there is no real check on the expenditure of huge amounts of public money. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whether expenditure is in the private or the public sector, taxpayers' money should be properly accounted for, and the House should be able to ensure that that is the case? A debate might help in that regard.
Finally, will the Leader of the House find time before the general election for a debate on the collection and presentation of official statistics? There is widespread public scepticism about Government figures—scepticism that was reinforced yesterday by the admission by a senior Minister at the Department for Education and Employment that unemployment was a temporary phase because the Government had given the unemployment figures a boost in the short term, confirming what many people already knew.
It is no wonder that the public have no confidence in the Government's statistics. As Ministers claim to be anxious to debate various aspects of Labour party policy, may we make a bid for a debate, in Government time, on the need for an independent statistical service?
Mr. Newton: I shall take those questions in order. I anticipate that the Ministers speaking in the debate on the constitution will be the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, for obvious reasons. I shall consider what the hon. Lady said in her second question, but I assure her that the Government are always anxious for the National Audit Office to have the information that it needs in order to do its work—although other factors must be taken into account when that is being judged. As for the hon. Lady's question about official statistics, I echo what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said a few moments ago. There is a good deal more doubt about some of the exaggerated estimates of unemployment that we hear from Opposition Members than about any of the figures given by the Government when the signs of falling unemployment are so obvious.
Sir John Cope: My right hon. Friend has been very cautious in the last couple of weeks in responding to questions about the tax simplification procedure report from the Procedure Committee. Can he be more forthcoming this week? It is an extremely important matter, and I think that we ought to be getting on with it.
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the importance of the matter, but I cannot go beyond the cautious sympathy, or sympathetic caution, in which I have engaged for the past two weeks.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not think it entirely obvious that only the Secretaries of State for Scotland or for Wales should speak in a debate on the constitution. There are constitutional matters for the United Kingdom. One of the oddities of the present Government, however, is that no one appears to be in charge of constitutional matters—no one, that is, except the Prime Minister.

467
May I, too, request a debate on statistics? I think that that would be valuable. More urgently, before the end of the Session, may we have a debate on an Adjournment motion about the future of Northern Ireland, which is still clearly a matter of huge concern and still not resolved? May we also have a debate on the housing projection of 4.4 million houses to be built over the next 25 years?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has asked for no fewer than three debates in one or two sentences. I certainly cannot promise all those, but, obviously, as always, I will consider his representations.
Sir Patrick Cormack: While thanking my right hon. Friend for responding to the request that we have made for a debate on the constitution, may I ask him to think of the details again because what has been asked for is a debate on a substantive motion upholding the integrity of the United Kingdom? Perhaps a debate that the Prime Minister led on that wider issue would flush out some of the Opposition.
Mr. Newton: I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's concluding remarks. It certainly would be very desirable to, as he put it, flush the Opposition out in respect of their proposals on the constitution and I harbour hopes that the debate that I have announced will enable us to do that.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: In view of the immensely increasing dangers to peace in the Balkans, both between Turkey and Greece, in Albania, in Kosovo and in Cyprus because of the aggressive policies of the Greek-Cypriot Government, is it not time that the House of Commons had a real opportunity to debate these issues in depth—perhaps a two-day debate—before we go into the final seizures of this Government?
Mr. Newton: Without in any way dismissing the importance of the matters to which the hon. Gentleman adverts and in which he has long taken a close interest, I do not think that I can hold out hope for a two-day foreign affairs debate in the near future.
Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the horrible killing yesterday of Stephen Restorick in Northern Ireland, which will achieve absolutely nothing for any purpose, but simply add to hatred and bitterness in Northern Ireland, might there be a case, unusually, perhaps next week, to have a short debate in which all the parties could express their respect and admiration for our armed forces, which are doing such a terribly difficult job in seeking to preserve security, and also their concern and respect for their parents, relatives, friends and all people associated with them?
Mr. Newton: While I cannot, to my regret, make an immediate undertaking to provide time for such a debate, I would like to associate myself with the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks concerning our forces and the people of Northern Ireland.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I join the Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in that comment and sympathise with those relatives who are mourning today in this nation. At
468
the same time, I join the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in reminding the Leader of the House that Northern Ireland is part of this nation and therefore would like to be involved in the constitutional debate as well. Perhaps on that occasion it may be possible to know—as the Leader of the House is aware of my pressure for the Northern Ireland Grand Committee to have the same rights as the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees—whether the period of consultations is ending and when the changes will be brought forward to effect the proposal.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of this question. We are certainly seeking to complete the consultations as soon as possible and I hope that it will be possible to make progress.
Mr. Edward Gamier (Harborough): Will my right hon. Friend make time available at an early opportunity for a debate on the economy, not least on the question of employment, so that I can point out the huge successes in my constituency as a consequence of the Government's economic policies? Is he aware that unemployment is now down to an all-time low of 1,320, which is a 50 per cent. reduction over the period of this Government, since 1992? Will he urgently look for time for a debate that could bring out those points?
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look for time for a debate that will help to bring out those points, although, I am glad to note, they are being emphasised in various ways: at Prime Minister's questions, on other occasions and through the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend. It certainly is a very good story that deserves to be fully set out.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In the debate on the constitution, we will presumably be able to discuss the most fundamental constitutional provision in the UK: the right to vote. In preparation, therefore, for the debate next Thursday, may we have information of just a basic nature on how many people are on the new electoral registers that will operate from this weekend? The Treasury and the Office for National Statistics have refused to provide that information, claiming that it will come forward only in April. April might be too late. We might be into an election by then. How many people have the vote out of those who are entitled to vote? That basic information should be available to us.
Mr. Newton: I shall certainly look into the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on local government finance, because the good people of Ealing face a 10 per cent. increase in their council tax and a severe reduction in services from the ghastly Ealing Labour council? [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but it is a serious matter. The people of Ealing will have to pay for the inefficiency of the Ealing Labour council, and I ask for a debate next week.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will recall that we had a full day's debate on local government finance and the revenue support grant only a week ago, so I cannot promise an early opportunity. However, I wish my hon.

469
Friend well in defending his constituency interests, as he always does, and perhaps he might raise the subject in a Wednesday morning debate.
Mr. Peter Shore: With due respect to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, the Leader of the House must recognise that a debate on the constitution should embrace Northern Ireland and England. That being so, will he ask the Prime Minister to consider whether he or the Deputy Prime Minister should take part in the debate next week?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friends will consider the right hon. Gentleman's remarks with care, but there are only two slots in a debate and it is reasonable for the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to take part next week.
Mr. Rupert Allason: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the disgraceful circumstances that surround the design of the euro notes? Is he aware that the euro notes that bear pictures of bridges, especially a bridge in India, have been copied from an English book, probably in breach of copyright? Is it not disgraceful that that has occurred and that Europe has covered up the problem? Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a Government statement to give an undertaking to the British people that those particular notes will never be introduced as legal tender?
Mr. Newton: I was not present throughout Treasury questions, but my hon. Friend may have asked a question that he was not able to ask earlier because he did not catch your eye, Madam Speaker, although I do not suggest that your selection was not right and proper. I will bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the Chancellor's attention but, as my briefing states, the matter is not one for the Treasury or, indeed, the Government. The design of the euro notes and coins is the responsibility of the European Monetary Institute.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Why has the Secretary of State for Health been signed off for the debate on the constitution next week? Is it because, as we read in the papers, he has been sacked for blurting out the truth—there is no greater crime for a Tory Minister—or should we believe the story from 10 Downing street that it was a figment of our imaginations that he was appointed in the first place? Has he been sacked or is he a figment?
Mr. Newton: Whatever else, we may agree that the hon. Gentleman has a vivid imagination. We may also agree that if his question suggested that the Secretary of State for Scotland should not take part in the debate, that is interesting coming from that quarter.
Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the appalling state of affairs in Deal in my constituency, where the Labour county council has threatened to close the library, has threatened fire service cover and has caused job losses without opportunities for job replacement, because the county councillor responsible for job replacement has been on 14 junketing trips abroad in the past three years?
Mr. Newton: Since we had a debate on local government in Kent only just over a week ago, my hon. Friend will
470
understand that I cannot give him an encouraging reply. I hope that my hon. Friend will find other ways to make his effective points.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that on 24 February there will be a lobby of the House by the victims of the Child Support Agency? In view of the chaos in the administration of that dreadful agency, may we please have a debate as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Newton: Such matters have been discussed at length by the House on several occasions, so I cannot promise an early debate. What I can say, as the hon. Lady knows, is that much effort has gone into improving the work of the Child Support Agency, and undoubtedly a significant improvement has taken place.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May we have a debate next week on the subject raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw)—that of Labour politicians such as councillors junketing around the world? We could then highlight the excesses outlined by the district auditor in Doncaster, where councillors were sent on free trips all round the world, and had so many business lunches and were said to have consumed so much alcohol that they could not stand up, let alone work. We would also be able to contrast the behaviour of the Doncaster councillors with that of the Leader of the Opposition, who travelled to the United States by Concorde on a free trip.
Mr. Newton: I have noted the various reports that have appeared in the press about such matters, and I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern. I hope that that concern will be noted by those on the Opposition Front Bench, as it appears to be a matter at least as much for them as for me.
Mr. Greville Janner: Did the right hon. Gentleman hear the Prime Minister saying today that there was not a shred of evidence that the unemployment figures were fiddled? Will he refer to early-day motion 525, which has been signed by more than 50 Opposition Members?
[That this House draws attention to the Government's fraudulent unemployment figures which ignore the latest Labour force Survey which shows unemployment about 302,000 higher than the Government's claimant count and further ignores the findings of the Employment Policy Institute that the number of jobless people who say that they want a job is well over four million, and not the 1.8 million registered by the Government's deliberately flawed claimant count; and calls on the Government to come clean on the true level of unemployment and the job insecurity and human suffering that unemployment causes in pre-election Britain.]
In the light of that information, should we not have a debate as a matter of urgency, so as to point out the disgraceful fact that there are more than a dozen exclusions from the claimant count? We could also make clear the need for an honest answer on the unemployment figures before the election, and an end to the lies that are presaging that election.
Mr. Newton: I have already observed to one of my hon. Friends that I see the attraction of a debate on

471
unemployment and other economic matters, because what will emerge from such a debate is not the sort of accusation that the hon. and learned Gentleman is chucking about, but the fact that Britain's success in having more people working and fewer out of work than any other major European country is one of the notable successes of the Conservative Government.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend find time before this Parliament ends for a debate on the third report of the Select Committee on Social Security, which is about the uprating of state retirement pensions payable to people resident abroad? Is he aware that that is the theme of early-day motion 185, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill)?
[That this House expresses its grave concern at the discrimination practised by Her Majesty's Government against British state pensioners living in certain countries abroad; believes that the denial of pension increases to persons who have paid national insurance contributions is indefensible; and calls on the Government to end without further delay this discrimination against the hero generation who saved the world from Hitler.]
That early-day motion has attracted the signatures of no fewer than 248 hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Select Committee calls for a free vote in prime time on the matter, because there is clear discrimination against British citizens who have worked hard and paid a full stamp all their working lives, and who have gone abroad in their retirement, perhaps to join their children or grandchildren, only to see their living standards decline.
It would cost only £255 million a year to put right that manifest injustice. How can we ignore it, when £3 billion a year is wasted on social security fraud and £9 billion a year is made in contributions to the European Union, much of which is fraudulently misapplied?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware of the Government's increasingly successful efforts to counter the undoubted problem of social security benefit fraud. As for the main purpose of his question, I am aware that that controversy has continued for some time; it was going on when I was Secretary of State for Social Security. My hon. Friend talks about "only" £255 million a year, but he ought to acknowledge, as I hope that he will, that the Government need to think carefully about priorities, in view of the need to control the growth in social security spending as a whole.
Mrs. Jane Kennedy: The Leader of the House will recall that I asked him last week when the Secretary of State was to release the official figures for hospital waiting lists in England. May I remind him that we expected the figures to be released on 3 February, but, 10 days later, there is no sign of them? Does the Secretary of State propose to come to the House to make a statement on the figures? Since it became clear that the figures for the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen hospital were being doctored, I have received correspondence from one Liverpool resident who has had his knee operation cancelled three times and who now knows that he will not figure on any official waiting list. Does he accept that while the Prime Minister may make
472
light of fiddling, no one else—certainly no Opposition Member—would agree with such abuses of official figures?
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I might simply make the point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is due to answer questions here next Tuesday.
Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many of us are delighted that we are to have a debate on the constitution on Thursday. Will he seriously consider tabling a substantive motion for the debate? The Prime Minister should speak in that debate, as we believe that it is important that the Leader of the Opposition should come to the Dispatch Box to explain to the House why his proposals to have Scots running Westminster, as well as Scots running Scotland, are fair to the 83 per cent. of the population living in England who will be faced with changes voted for by Scottish Members of Parliament who cannot vote on the same changes for Scotland. It is crazy, and it will break up the United Kingdom unless we stop it now.
Mr. Newton: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that it is about time that we had clarification from the Leader of the Opposition of his proposals and their implications.
Mr. Bill Olner: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for an urgent debate on the continuing deterioration of the west coast main line, which runs through my constituency? I do not know whether the Leader of the House is aware of this, but Lord Archer was travelling to the Wirral today to make a keynote speech prior to the by-election. His train left Euston 40 minutes late and went slower and slower until Lord Archer had to abandon his trip at Nuneaton. Will the Government make sure that passengers on the west coast main line get to where they have to go on time?
Mr. Newton: I am naturally sorry to hear of my noble Friend Lord Archer' s unhappy experience, although clearly there is rather less sympathy among Opposition Members. In view of the experience recounted by the hon. Gentleman, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will look carefully at the matter.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have an urgent debate on the implications of the social chapter for employment in my constituency—where unemployment is falling—so that we may talk about Germany, where the social chapter is applied and where unemployment increased by more than 500,000 in the month of December alone? It is important that people know the precise implications of the social chapter and the minimum wage.
Mr. Newton: That request, as my hon. Friend will realise, ties in with a number of others that I have received during these exchanges. I will bear his representations very much in mind, along with the others.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Leader of the House will be aware that I have raised the subject of the treatment of asylum seekers before. Will he find time for a statement or a debate about the number of asylum

473
seekers still held in British prisons, the number in Rochester prison who are still on hunger strike and the great difficulty that supporters and friends of those people are having in making bail applications to the courts to ensure that they at least have some degree of liberty? Is it not a disgrace that this country routinely imprisons nearly 1,000 people for doing nothing more than seek asylum, having fled from political oppression?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that undoubtedly there have been abuses of asylum as a means of obtaining entry to this country, and that there is general agreement that it was necessary to take action on that front.
On the hon. Gentleman's actual question, I cannot promise a statement of the kind that he sought, but I can draw his attention to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is due to answer questions this day week.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an urgent debate on local government in London? I refer my right hon. Friend to an answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford). It pointed out that outstanding rent and tax arrears amounted to £135 million in the London borough of Lambeth and £143 million in Camden; that in Hackney rent arrears were more than 30 per cent. of the annual rent roll, and 9.8 per cent. of council properties were empty; and that in Haringey rent arrears were 33 per cent. of the annual rent roll, and in Southwark more than 20 per cent.
Is my right hon. Friend further aware that in the London boroughs of Haringey and Islington arrears of council tax are such that the councils prefer not to tell the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy what they are? Is not it an urgent situation, when the authorities claim that they do not have enough money and want more from the Government but refuse to collect what is due to them from their tenants and council tax payers?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will recall that I have already made the point once today that it is not long since we had a debate on local government, which certainly would have embraced London, so I cannot promise another immediately. I regret that he evidently did not on that occasion have the opportunity to make the admirably succinct and effective speech that he has just made.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Home Secretary is the police authority for London and that it has been customary to have an annual debate on policing in London. Does he recall the Prime Minister's pledge to provide resources to put an extra 5,000 bobbies on the beat, and is he aware that Londoners have lost 600 police constables and that the Home Secretary, in his capacity as police authority, has said that London has had its share of the additional resources but that he does not know where they have gone?
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 527.
474
[That this House is concerned that Londoners face a 14.4 per cent. increase in the share of council tax which goes to meet policing costs in the capital; is horrified that the Home Secretary has described this as 'a modest increase', particularly at a time when the overall number of police officers has fallen by 649, of whom 599 were police constables; recalls that the Prime Minister made a pledge to provide resources to increase police numbers nationally by 5000; demands to know where London's share of those extra resources has been spent; is concerned at the transfer of the burden of the cost of policing from central government to council taxpayers; wishes to know why Londoners are being asked to pay more for fewer police officers whilst experiencing the worst crime clear-up rate in the country; and calls upon the Home Secretary, in his capacity as the Police Authority for London, to arrange for a debate on policing in London at the earliest opportunity before the Dissolution.]
In view of the remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway), I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that London council tax payers will be paying 14.5 per cent. more for policing this year, for a lesser service. Will he therefore ensure that we have the annual police debate on London before Parliament is dissolved?
Mr. Newton: On the question of a debate, I shall ensure that that is added to what I sometimes call my list.
On the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, I should perhaps make the point that council tax payers in London contribute only about 8 per cent. towards the cost of policing London, compared with an average contribution of about 12 per cent. elsewhere, and that in 1997–98 the spending power of the Metropolitan police will be £55 million more than in 1996–97.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: My right hon. Friend has announced a debate on the constitution for next Thursday, and he will know that last week and on other occasions I have pressed him for just such a debate. My concern is that he announced today that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would not lead the debate. He also said that he would accept and welcome the idea that the Leader of the Opposition should come and make clear his position. I put it to him that unless the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the whole country—not only Scotland and Wales and my constituency in England—at the Dispatch Box, we will not have the opportunity to hear from the Leader of the Opposition exactly what the Labour party's policy is towards English electors as well as those of Scotland and Wales.
I urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider the position. The Prime Minister must come to the Dispatch Box and speak on behalf of the whole United Kingdom.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said earlier on the matter. As with other remarks that have been made this afternoon, I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks will be carefully noted.
Mr. David Winnick: Why is the Leader of the House so coy about telling us the date of the Easter recess, and particularly the day on which, theoretically, we are due back, especially bearing in mind

475
the fact that for last Easter he gave the information the preceding November? Is it because he does not want to give the game away about when liberation day is coming?
Mr. Newton: I have not seen myself as being coy about that or anything else. The difficulties of giving advance notice of the Easter recess have been clear to everybody for a long time.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to watch the highlights of last night's England v. Italy World cup qualifying match? It would be a short programme and he could no doubt fit it into his busy day. Is he aware that the vast majority of the population were denied the experience, perhaps thankfully, because it was not available on a terrestrial channel? It was available only to Sky subscribers. May we have a debate on sport soon to discuss the growing concentration of sporting events being televised only by Sky, thus denying them to many people who want to watch our national games?
Mr. Newton: I did not have the opportunity of seeing either the highlights, or what the hon. Gentleman evidently regards as the rather larger lowlights of the match, because I was doing other things. As always with his questions, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the National Heritage Secretary will study them with the care that they deserve.

Companies (Payment Practice)
4.4 pm
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): I beg to move,
That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Directors' Report) (Statement of Payment Practice) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.
As the Minister with responsibility for small business, I am introducing the regulations, and not my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs.
The regulations will help small businesses to gauge the fairness of the cash payment records of larger companies. Hon. Members will know that the problems caused by late payment continue to cause concern to small businesses. That was one of the major concerns highlighted last year, when we gave small firms the opportunity to shape future policies through the regional "Your Business Matters" conferences.
While there are no easy ways of tackling the problems caused by late payment, the Government are committed to helping small businesses. We have introduced a number of positive measures to tackle the problems associated with late payment. The regulations are another step along the way to helping small businesses to help themselves and to change the culture of payment practice.
In 1993, we consulted on a variety of possible ways in which payment performance could be disclosed in accounts. During the consultation, it became clear that the option of reporting payment policy and performance in the directors' report was supported quite strongly. In the light of that, we consulted again in February 1995 on that measure. As a result, in January last year, the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation approved regulations requiring public limited companies and their private subsidiaries to disclose their payment policies in their directors' reports. That dealt with publication of payment policies.
However, concern continued to be expressed by small companies about the effects of late payment of commercial debt, most recently by delegates to the "Your Business Matters" conferences—the largest ever exercise in consulting small business, which the Prime Minister launched in 1995. He gave a commitment to act on every recommendation that "Your Business Matters" made. We returned to the issue of whether, and how, payment practice might be reported.
Before deciding on a method of payment performance, officials in my Department met a large number of interested parties, including a selection of large companies and small firms representative bodies, to test out possible methods of calculating payment performance. Our aim was to find a method that would not be too burdensome and that would be relatively straightforward for companies to produce and report in their annual accounts. Of all the companies that responded to the consultation, none identified any alternative preferable to the method proposed, and all were agreed that that option has the merit of being the least burdensome, as it is partly based on data that are already collected for accounts.
I come now to the details of the new disclosure requirement set out in the draft regulations. As I have already noted, we tried to find a straightforward way of stating payment performance, which provides useful

477
information in a readily understandable way. We could not require companies to put into their accounts details of the time taken to pay every invoice. That would not only compromise commercial confidentiality but impose an impossible burden on companies. Therefore, any figure will have to be based on some form of averaging.
The regulations will require companies to state the figure, expressed in days, which bears the same proportion to the number of days in the year as the amount owed to year-end trade creditors bears to amounts invoiced by suppliers during the year. It might be helpful to the House if I illustrated that by a practical example. Suppose that a company has purchased £100,000-worth of supplies during the year and has at the end of the year some £10,000 of trade credit outstanding. Trade creditors therefore represent 10 per cent. of the amounts invoiced. Ten per cent. of the number of days in the year is 36.5 days. So the company would have to disclose that figure in the directors' report. That would be simple for the companies to do and would provide a ready and easy reckoner, so that the small company could realise just how a company paid its bills. The figure would help meet the needs of small suppliers, by providing additional and easily understandable information on the payment practices of larger companies.
There are a number of advantages to using that measure. As I have shown, it would be easy to calculate. It would be readily understood and interpreted. It would use the amount for trade creditors that appears separately in the annual accounts—except for banks and insurance companies—and require little additional work to identify the purchase amounts to be used in the calculation. The average will be comparable year on year in respect of individual companies and comparable across companies with trading activities of the same style and nature.
The new disclosure requirement is a logical next step to complement the payment policy disclosures that we introduced last year. It is therefore sensible that it should apply to the same companies—public limited companies and their large private subsidiaries. The new requirement will go into the directors' report alongside the policy disclosure. That should help people in smaller supplier companies, who will not have to go through pages of notes to the accounts to search for one figure.
That would also enable users of the information to keep track, in a relatively straightforward way, of how a company's performance measured up to its stated policy year on year. No doubt, it would give directors the opportunity to explain any divergence in the figures at annual general meetings, if the occasion demanded it.
Indeed, most small firms organisations have welcomed the regulations and the added value that they will provide to small businesses that trade with those larger public companies and their private subsidiaries. I echo those thoughts.
As to timing, the new regulations will come into force in relation to the report and accounts for financial years ending after 24 March 1997.
As the Minister who has responsibility for deregulation in my Department, I am aware as anyone, perhaps more than most, of the need to cut red tape wherever possible. However, that does not mean that there should be no regulation. I believe that this modest intervention is
478
necessary, to help to discourage any large company from succumbing to the temptation to abuse its position. It is clearly a matter of balance.
It is necessary to ensure that the costs to business of the additional administrative burden of monitoring payment performance do not outweigh the prospective benefits of tightening up payment times. It is of no benefit to suppliers if the requirement to collate and publish figures forces large companies to incur significant additional administrative or other compliance costs. The statement, therefore, relies on the public presentation of information that is already collected for the accounts or otherwise readily available. That is why we have opted for the mechanism set out in the regulations. It is a balance between ensuring that valid information is provided and minimising the cost of producing that information.
Tackling late payment is, of course, not just about company reporting. We must see the measures in the context of our wider policies. The House will be aware that I announced in June last year that following a thorough review, the Government would not be legislating for a statutory right to interest. That review was informed by updated submissions from representative bodies that had responded to the public consultation on the matter in 1993; the "Your Business Matters" conferences; and detailed research by the university of Bradford and others.
It was clear from the review that there had been a significant shift in opinion against legislation, particularly by all but one of the small firms representative organisations. Concerns were expressed that legislation would have a negative impact on small businesses; that it would add little to existing rights; and that it might not actually be effective. In fact, it became clear that it was the view of small business that a statutory right to interest would be more likely to harm small businesses than help them.
The evidence from Europe, where most countries have a statutory right to interest, suggests a scant connection between such legislation and evidence of early payment. A statutory right to interest would still involve a small business man or woman appealing to courts, an option that is, in any case, open to them at the moment. It is for such reasons that eight of the nine small firms representative organisations that responded to the consultation rejected the imposition of a statutory right to interest.
Therefore, the view of small business is clear. Steps to eradicate late payment must be taken, but a statutory right to interest is not the solution. Good practice, like most things, begins at home. It is right that the Government should lead by example and ensure that their own house is in order. Departments and agencies are already required to pay their bills within contract terms or 30 days where alternative terms have not been agreed. All Departments have signed up to the Confederation of British Industry's prompt payments code and are required to monitor and publish their actual performance. In addition, the Prime Minister announced in March last year that the Government would publish each year a league table of Departments' payment performance, based on a rigorous system of measurement.
The House will be aware that, on 17 December, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury published and made available to it the results of that first league table. It is worth noting that the vast majority of

479
Departments perform well. Those that have underperformed have been left in no doubt about the need to improve. I can assure the House that that is absolutely correct. I have received assurances that those improvements will happen.
Concerns were also expressed at the regional "Your Business Matters" conferences that local authorities were late payers. On 29 November, the Audit Commission published payment performance figures for local authorities, which showed that the average figure for settling invoices on time was 77 per cent. That was based on voluntary returns from 57 per cent. of local authorities. I do not know what hon. Members may think, but I do not believe that either of those figures is satisfactory.
Hon. Members will wish to be aware that the Audit Commission has now announced that it will be issuing a direction to all local authorities requiring payment performance to be a performance indicator for 1997–98. That information will help to inform businesses bidding for local authority contracts just how quickly they will be paid. We can, therefore, see that the regulations build on what the public sector is already doing—providing information to suppliers on when they will be paid.
In the 1994 White Paper on competitiveness, we also announced that we would work with the business community to develop a British Standard for prompt payment. That standard was duly developed by the CBI, to which I wish to pay tribute, with the support of the Department of Trade and Industry. BS7890, "British Standard for Prompt Payment", was launched by myself and the Economic Secretary in September 1996. The standard sets out basic principles of credit management and best practice. It should help to bring about improvements in payment practice and, ultimately, the cash flow of businesses.
We also said that we would look at the court systems as a means of recovering debts. The Lord Chancellor has introduced a number of changes to simplify and streamline court procedures, including raising the small claims limit to £3,000 and making it easier for small businesses to transfer cases to the High Court for enforcement by sheriff's officers.
I have made a personal commitment to take up any case where a small business is facing late payment from a large business. However, the majority of cases that come before me are more likely to involve the provision of poor-quality goods or services rather than late payment. Nevertheless, my open promise stands and any small firm that is not being paid on time by one of the top 100 companies or by any Government Department can approach me.
The Government cannot provide all the answers and there is much that small businesses can do to help themselves. Research by Bradford university has shown that small businesses that invest in front-ended credit management activities have significantly more invoices paid on time and suffer less from bad debts. In the light of that illuminating research, I have asked the chairmen of the business links in England and the equivalent bodies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to help small businesses to improve their credit management skills. Building on that help, my Department also publishes a free information pack on effective credit management procedures, called "Make the Cash Flow". It is produced in partnership with the Institute of Credit Management and all the main small firms organisations.
480
The regulations are a substantial step in reinforcing the culture of prompt payment, in addition to measures that the Government have already introduced. They deserve the support of the whole House.
4.20 pm
Mrs. Barbara Roche: I welcome this statutory instrument, for which the Labour party has been calling for a number of years. I congratulate the Minister on having finally caught up with us.
The statutory instrument will add to the basket of measures that we plan to introduce and will at least ensure that small firms can find out about the payment practices of the large companies with which they trade. It is four years since Labour first called for the measure and two consultations have been held by Ministers. Given that the first, in 1993, found that 66 per cent. were in favour of acting, can the Minister explain why it has taken him four years to act in this vital area?
It is not too dramatic to say that late payment is the scourge of small firms. It can stop them growing and expanding or—more drastic—it can send basically good businesses to the wall. The Forum of Private Business recently surveyed its members about the issue. I pay tribute to the forum for its sterling work on behalf of its members, in respect of the appalling impact of late payment on small firms. The forum found that one in five of those surveyed had been prevented from growing by late payment. In its response to the Government's response, it explained:
"Late payment undermines certainty in commercial transactions, distorting business decisions … Small Businesses … are forced by late payment into increased reliance on loan capital. Given the cost of such funding late payment acts as a direct restraint on growth. This not only has a direct effect on prosperity and tax revenue, but also acts as a significant restraint on employment creation."
The Federation of Small Businesses estimated that, of 40,000 firms that had gone to the wall, 5,000 had done so because of late payment. The problem is not theoretical, but is a live issue that confronts many small businesses up and down the United Kingdom every day. I recently received a letter from a small industrial supplies firm in Glasgow, saying:
"We have huge problems and have to struggle day in and day out because of large companies deliberately withholding payments for months at a time. Millions of small firms are in a similar position."
That happens time and again and the bad news is that the problem of late payment in the UK is worsening. The 1996 Grant Thornton European survey found that the average payment period in the UK has increased from 48 days in 1995 to 50 days in 1996.
The Minister referred to the Government's record; let us consider it in a little detail, because it is called into question. I note the Minister's offer; only yesterday, my office had a call from a small, high-tech firm that has among its customers several Government Departments and large businesses. A year ago, after waiting more than two months for a bill of more than £1,000 to be paid by the Treasury, the firm was forced to suspend the service that it was supplying. What a wonderful example our Government set to businesses—they cannot even pay their own bills on time.
It was bad enough for the company to be owed money by the Treasury, but it is also waiting for the Department of Trade and Industry—graced by the Minister—to pay

481
a bill of several hundred pounds. It has so far waited more than 90 days. No doubt Ministers will say that such instances are anecdotal and do not represent the great efforts that the Government are making.
It is interesting that the Government sometimes blame the very businesses that they are talking about. Only last June, the Minister told The Independent:
"Small companies are so delighted about winning an order they forget about getting paid."
More recently, the Minister told The Mail on Sunday that small firms are "unprofessional in credit control". Understandably, Stan Mendham, chief executive of the Forum of Private Business, responded—[Interruption.] The Minister may laugh, but this is what businesses are saying.
Stan Mendham, chief executive of the forum, responded to the Minister by saying:
"His facts are fundamentally wrong. I am angry and frustrated at these comments on an issue that causes horrendous problems for businesses."
As the Minister finds the subject so funny, perhaps he will comment on the Government's record in the light of remarks made by the Institute of Directors, which recently said in its "Enterprise" newsletter that it is
"well known that the government itself is one of the worst offenders when it comes to late payment.
The fact was resoundingly confirmed in a recent consultation exercise mounted by the IOD on the subject of late payment, with a significant proportion of members telling us that the government routinely pays its bills months late as a matter of course".
What a record for the Minister to have to defend in the House.
I hope that the explanation that the Minister gives later will be better than that of the Economic Secretary, to whom he referred. She explained in a letter to me that her Department had paid one quarter of its bills late because
"a member of staff fell ill late in 1994/95 and…the promptness of payment suffered".
She then told the director general of the CBI that that record was
"not the crime it had been portrayed".
When I meet representatives of small firms, they are incredulous that the Treasury, which at that time employed more than 1,000 people, had such a terrible record on late payment because one person fell ill. Presumably, when that member of the Treasury staff went off ill, he took the Treasury's cheque book with him. The fact that the Economic Secretary is the Minister in charge of reforming promptness of payment throughout Whitehall and in every Government Department makes the record worse.
Perhaps we can take a look at what the Economic Secretary has achieved. In December, the Government released figures for June to August 1996—they were to show the much-vaunted improvement after the Prime Minister had been embarrassed into telling Departments to pull up their socks, get on with it and see what they could do. Sadly, they were to bring him, and small firms, very little comfort. Nine Government Departments, including the Department of Health, the Department of Transport and the Serious Fraud Office, had a worse
482
record in that period than in the previous year, 1995–96. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food paid one in five of its bills late.
Even the Deputy Prime Minister, who knows a thing or two about red bills, given his boasts about stringing along his creditors when he was in business, admits that the Government's record is dire. This year's White Paper on competitiveness, referring to the Government's record in that regard, said that there was
"a strong perception that"
Government Departments
"were often amongst the worst perpetrators of late payment."
In March 1996, the Prime Minister said:
"I believe we should take steps to generate embarrassment amongst those who wilfully and continually pay late"—
so I hope that from now on the Prime Minister will generate that embarrassment among Government Departments. If the Prime Minister will not do that, the Opposition are determined to do so.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said many times, unlike the present Government, the next Labour Government will take tough action on late payment. We want to change the culture that allows large companies and Government Departments to treat small firms as a source of free credit, and we believe that it is necessary to have a basket of measures. [Interruption.] The Minister keeps laughing. I fail to understand what there is to laugh about in this serious subject, which drives many small and medium-sized enterprises to the wall.
Although we applaud the efforts of business organisations, banks and others to improve the credit control procedures of small firms, we do not believe such improvement to be the whole answer. A Labour Government will insist that Government Departments and local authorities pay on time and, after consulting about the best way to do so, we shall introduce a statutory right of interest on the late payment of debt above a given threshold. That would remove the financial advantage that large firms have in paying late. Only the United Kingdom and Ireland do not have a general right to interest embodied in legislation in the event of late payment of commercial debt.
I note what the Minister said when he cavalierly dismissed the arguments for a statutory right to interest. The results of all the surveys that have been conducted on that issue make interesting reading. In a Lloyds bank survey in March 1996, a full 75 per cent. of the businesses that responded welcomed a statutory right to interest. A recent "Business Pages" survey, in 1996, found that 69 per cent. of the businesses that responded supported a statutory right to interest.
Closer to home, a quarter of Conservative Members of Parliament showed support for the Labour party policy of a statutory right to interest by signing an early-day motion. Very many of the Minister's colleagues who are Conservative Members of the European Parliament also support a statutory right to interest, and they signalled that support recently.
What of the statutory instrument before us? We are pleased that, at long last, Ministers have seen the light. The principle behind it is, from one perspective, a freedom of information measure. However, the Minister has not yet answered all the questions surrounding the

483
new procedure. The Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses are worried about how it will be enforced. Perhaps the Minister will comment.
The British Bankers Association has expressed significant anxieties about the formula used. It points out that the calculated period would be extremely distorted as a result of purchases falling unevenly towards the end of the year. A company that bought 100 widgets for 11 months and 200 in the 12th, and paid in 30 days, would be shown as taking 56 days to pay under the proposed method. As the British Bankers Association points out, that is not an uncommon scenario, as most organisations have an increase in purchasing activity towards the end of the financial year, as budget holders seek to spend the moneys allocated to them for that year. Almost more worrying, a company that paid very late throughout the year and then made few or no purchases in the last month would have a squeaky-clean record and appear a very prompt payer.
Will the Minister explain how he will avoid that situation, so that small firms get the most accurate information possible, and why he did not require large firms to state what percentage of their bills are paid within the given payment policy period, as Departments are required to do? That would mean that firms could easily be compared, just as, for example, we can look at the latest Government figures and see that the Department of Trade and Industry has a worse record on paying its bills on time than the Office of the National Lottery. The Minister may want to dwell on that point later. We could also compare the public and private sectors, which might prove to be an illuminating exercise.
When Ministers finally got round to taking up our suggestion that large firms should state their payment practices in their annual reports, the Under-Secretary of State said in a press release that the aim of the statutory instrument was to
"give small firms more details of the payment records of the larger companies with whom they may be considering doing business."
Yet even with that new measure, small firms will have to collect all the annual reports of the large companies with which they are considering doing business in order to make meaningful comparisons.
That is why I am pleased to announce that, in government, Labour will encourage small business organisations and others to consider collating that information and publishing it in league tables of prompt payers, so that small firms can decide for themselves which large firms to do business with. I have already spoken to both the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses about that suggestion and they are keen to be involved.
This is yet another example of Labour's determination to tackle the problem and reform Britain's red bill record. I commend our proposal to the House and to the small firms that are following the national debate on this vital issue, which makes so many of their lives a misery. Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy and they deserve better support. They will get better support than this failing Government have been able to give them.
4.36 pm
Sir John Cope: I welcome this statutory instrument. As my hon. Friend the Minister admitted in his opening speech, it is new regulation on businesses, but
484
I am encouraged to see that on today's Order Paper we have no fewer than four deregulation orders to decide later under the excellent new procedure of the Deregulation Committee. So that makes four motions to two, if one counts motion 3 on merchant shipping and ro-ro passenger ship survivability. Nevertheless, that sounds to me to be another desirable regulation and I think that four to two is not too bad in the circumstances.
I welcome the statutory instrument because the Small Business Bureau, of which I have the honour to be the deputy chairman, has been pressing for it for a long time. The excellent director of research of that organisation, Mr. Barry Baldwin, has pressed particularly hard in that respect. Under its modern policy of agreeing to everything that anyone else says, the Labour party has also been pressing for such regulations recently, so I am glad that they are welcomed all round.
Mrs. Roche: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it has been our policy for about four years and that it is the Government who have just woken up to it?
Sir John Cope: I cannot vouch for the time that the hon. Lady mentions. I have been conscious for only about a year of the Labour party pressing for it, but it may have made the suggestion earlier. However long ago it claims to have made the suggestion, the matter has been on the Small Business Bureau's agenda for a long time. That is where the proposal originated.
This is only one part of the DTI's strategy to combat the late payment of debt, as my hon. Friend the Minister explained in his opening remarks. It is a difficult problem and it will remain a difficult problem.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) quoted the Grant Thornton survey, saying that, between 1995 and 1996, the situation had become slightly worse—the average payment period increasing from 48 days to 50 days. She could have pointed out that, in 1993, it was 52 days, so depending on the period it is also an improvement. I do not think that there is a significant statistical difference in any of those figures.
This method, and the other methods that my hon. Friend the Minister outlined, is a better way to tackle the problem of late debt than the proposal, which has been around for many years, for statutory interest on late payment. I am, of course, well aware that the Forum of Private Business, particularly its very energetic chief executive, Stan Mendham, has campaigned tirelessly about this for many years, since the forum's inception. I have argued with him on many occasions, in various capacities, and I have never been in favour of statutory interest on late payment. The reasons deserve to be set out, as the proposal has been made.
My hon. Friend set out a couple of the reasons. When I was an articled clerk in an accountant's office, it was quite normal in those days—now a long time ago, I am sorry to say—for firms, particularly in some trades, to charge interest on late payment, or, as it was more often expressed, discount for prompt cash payment. That practice has greatly decreased in this country and is now relatively rare, but that is not so, I am told, in Germany, where it is quite common to offer a discount for prompt cash payment. I suspect that it exists informally to a certain extent in large retail stores and so on because of the growth in the use of credit cards, but as a formal mechanism the practice has declined.

485
The provision already exists in the law of this country to permit an interest charge on late payment, or discount on cash, if the firms concerned in the transaction wish to do it that way. The fact that few companies make use of that provision would seem to show that there is not a great call for it. Ultimately, a business has to calculate how hard to pursue the debt, and whether by pursuing it in one way or another it will be more likely to get the money.
A firm has to determine why the debt is being paid late. If the problem arises because the debtor is short of money, the fact that interest will be payable on the debt is of no help at all. If he cannot pay the capital, he will not be able to pay the interest either. Depending on the level of interest, it could still be cheaper for the debtor to take trade credit rather than a bank overdraft.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that these regulations will assist small to medium-sized enterprises in their knowledge about late payment? However, that is just one of many things to which they will look to assist them, for example, competitive interest rates, low inflation, and the continuation of the deregulation initiative started by the Government. There will, however, be a number of measures that they will be pitted against, such as the introduction of a minimum wage and the imposition of the 48-hour directive, both of which are measures that the Labour party, which pretends to support small to medium-sized enterprises, encourages.
Sir John Cope: That is quite correct. Many small businesses, particularly retail businesses, of which my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience, will not benefit from statutory interest on late payment, because by definition retail cash businesses have no debtors. They take cash over the counter. They are doing their best to manage their cash flow to try to sell the goods that they buy—before they have to pay for them, if possible. That is the ideal in retail business, and very small businesses are often retail businesses. As far as they are concerned, the proposal for statutory interest on debt is not desirable at all. It will harm them.
The other point is that the legislation would need to be incredibly complicated. Just think of the complexities of deciding the first day of the statutory period. In some cases it is easy: it is from the delivery of the goods. But in many cases it is much more complicated. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, when goods are delivered or services given, disputes sometimes arise and people do not wish to pay until that dispute is sorted out—quite rightly.
When one has decided the first day of the statutory period, one then has to decide the length of an appropriate statutory period. For many businesses this differs according to the trade. The habit is different in some trades because the trades themselves differ. In many trades there is a retention. In the building trade, a proportion of the money is not paid until six months—sometimes longer—after the work has been completed, and that is quite normal. What is to happen about that?
486
Provision would need to be made for all of that in the legislation, which would lead to such legislation being exceptionally complicated.
Sir David Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in terms of late payment, one small business is as guilty as another, and very often small business customers are late in paying, not just large ones? If one were to make early payment a legal requirement, many small businesses would be in severe financial difficulty as a result of having to pay more frequently.
What is to be done with this new information is quite important. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the situation of the Government as contractors; the Government place an enormous number of contracts, and there are an enormous number of sub-contractors. Will the Government take account of late payment in deciding whether to place contracts? Will that be a requirement? That would be really effective.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. That is the second rather lengthy intervention that we have had. I caution hon. Members against long interventions, which by their nature should be short. There is no great pressure to speak at the moment as far as I can see.
Sir John Cope: It was, nevertheless, a very good intervention, and well worth while if I may say so.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I judge only the length, not the quality.
Sir John Cope: I agree entirely with that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell). The point about statutory interest on late debt is that if a business is reluctant to enforce through the courts the collection of the principal sum that it is owed, will it not also be just as reluctant to try to enforce any interest that is payable as well? In difficult cases where a business is having difficulty extracting money, the proposal would be of little value to business.
It is for all those reasons that I think that the approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Minister, in this statutory instrument, and in the other measures that he outlined, is the correct approach to the very serious problem of late debt.
4.48 pm
Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the proposed regulations. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that late payment can have a crippling effect on small and medium-sized enterprises. Although I entirely take the point that some small companies are guilty of late payment, it remains that more often small businesses are the victims of late payment, being dependent on tight budgeting to realise investment projects and to consolidate markets.
To be blunt, late payment provokes simple questions of integrity and business ethics. The withholding of moneys, for whatever reason, should be dealt with firmly and, in my opinion, by legislation. Today's proposals are at least

487
a step in the right direction. The problem is widespread, as it has become normal practice for many large companies to delay payments. The inclusion of payment practice in the directors' report for each financial year will make employees and shareholders aware of their company's payment practice. If their company follows a specified and approved code of conduct, the public or shareholders may rest assured that it is following good business practice.
The key objective is—and must be—to change the culture of bad business practice, which has legitimised payment as an accounting device in order to create the appearance of healthy balance sheets and to provide short-term finance dishonestly. We welcome proposals to encourage better payment practices and to improve all credit management. However, we believe that the outlined proposals do not go far enough. We can deal fully and effectively with the withholding of moneys only by introducing effective legislation. In the past few years, an alarming number of small businesses across the United Kingdom have failed—more than 20,000 failed in 1996.
Such businesses provide jobs, capital, investment and enterprise, and the economy could not survive without them. Yet a massive number of small businesses are failing or finding themselves stuck in a quagmire of economic difficulty and financial hardship. At a time when more than ever we need strong economic growth, we should take measures to eradicate irresponsible business practices such as late payment of debt. We should create the best circumstances for small businesses to grow and prosper.
Although the new regulations cover stating payment practice, it would not be mandatory for companies to inform their suppliers or creditors of their practice. Directors' reports do not have a particularly wide
488
circulation, tending to go only to major shareholders. They would rarely be distributed to other suppliers. Therefore, we believe that the answer is to introduce a statutory right to interest. There are difficulties involved with such a move: as the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) said, legislation would be complicated, and some of the similar regimes abroad are not particularly effective. However, Sweden and Germany offer statutory redress against overdue payments—including interest on late payment of debts—that is among the best offered by our continental partners, and they demonstrate consistently lower average payment periods.
A statutory right to interest would establish an important catalyst for motivating companies to pay on time. Although I accept that the Government genuinely wish to see the business culture improve, we must provide a stick as well as a carrot. Any such legislation would require widespread consultation with small companies and other interested organisations. I recognise that there has been a consultative process, and that some voices have been raised against the statutory right to interest proposal. However, that does not alter the fact that many businesses and their representatives continue to argue strongly for the measure. We must include provisions to ensure that debts are retrieved efficiently and cost-effectively and that creditors' contracts are not adversely affected.
I do not believe that the proposals will sufficiently reduce the burden of late payment of debt on small businesses, but I welcome them as a starting point from which further action can be taken.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Companies Act 1985 (Directors' Report) (Statement of Payment Practice) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 27th January, be approved.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I must announce that Madam Speaker has selected amendment (b), standing in the name of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing).
4.53 pm
The Paymaster General (Mr. Michael Bates): I beg to move,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975
  PART I OF SCHEDULE 1

    Amendment
    1. For the entry 'Judge of the Court of Session' there shall be substituted the following entry:—

    Judge of the Court of Session, or Temporary Judge appointed under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

  PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

    Additional entries
    2. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

    The Antarctic Act Tribunal established under regulations made under the Antarctic Act 1994.

    The East of Scotland Water Authority.

    The Land Authority for Wales.

    The Local Government Staff Commission (England).

    The North of Scotland Water Authority.

    The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration.

    The Scottish Legal Aid Board.

    The Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council or any committee established by that council under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 9 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

    The Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.

    The West of Scotland Water Authority.

    Entry omitted
    3. The following entry shall be omitted:—
    The Scottish Development Agency.

  PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

    Additional entries
    4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

    Adjudicator appointed under section 5 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995.

    Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency.

    Assessor appointed for the purposes of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

    Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal or member of a panel appointed under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland.

    Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

    490

    Chairman or Chief Executive of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.

    Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the English Sports Council.

    Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Financial Reporting Council.

    Chairman or any director of the Further Education Development Agency.

    Chairman of Investors in People UK.

    Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council.

    Chairman or Director of the National Forest Company.

    Chairman of the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council.

    Chairman of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment.

    Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.

    Chairman of the Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland.

    Chairman or any member, not also being an employee, of the State Hospitals Board for Scotland.

    Chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland.

    Civil Service Commissioner.

    Civil Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland.

    Commissioner for Public Appointments.

    Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland.

    Any director of Horticulture Research International in receipt of remuneration.

    Director General of Gas for Northern Ireland.

    Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.

    Member of the staff of the Forestry Commissioners.

    Member of the legal panel of persons available to act as chairmen of Registered Homes Tribunals.

    Member of the legal panel of persons available to act as chairmen of Registered Homes Tribunals in Northern Ireland.

    Any member of the property commission established by virtue of section 19 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

    Any member of a residuary body established by virtue of section 18 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 who is in receipt of remuneration.

    Any member of the staff commission established by virtue of section 12 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

    Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action.

    Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    President of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales), President of the Industrial Tribunals (Scotland) or member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairmen or other members of industrial tribunals.

    President of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, or member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairmen or other members of that tribunal.

    Entries omitted
    5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

    Chairman, or Director General and Deputy Chairman, of the Agricultural and Food Research Council.

    Chairman or member of a panel of deputy-chairmen of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.

    Chairman of the Business & Technology Council.

    Paid Chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain established under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962.

    Chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.

    Chairman of the Land Authority for Wales.

    Chairman of the Letchworth Garden City Corporation.

    Chairman of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council.

    Any Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.

    Chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council.

    Chairman of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Sports Council.

    Chairman of the Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.

    Delegate for Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Central Rhine Commission.

    Director of British Telecommunications p.l.c. nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

    Director of Northern Ireland Airports Limited.

    Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the British Steel Act 1988) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

    Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the British Technology Group Act 1991) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

    Director of a successor company (within the meaning of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989), being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

    Any member of the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal in receipt of remuneration.

    Member of a Wages Council appointed under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 2 to the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

    President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under section 12 of the Industrial Training Act 1964.

    Secretary of the Medical Research Council.

    Other amendments
    6.—(1) In the entry 'Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards', for `Vice-Chairman' there shall be substituted 'Medical Director'.
    (2) In the entry 'Chairman of the Economic and Social Research Council', after 'Chairman' there shall be inserted 'Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive'.
    (3) In the entry 'Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland', the words 'or Deputy Chairman' shall be omitted.
    (4) In the entry 'Chairman of the Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland', for 'Marketing' there shall be substituted 'and Meat'.
    (5) In the entry 'Chairman of any of the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting constituted under section 5 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979', there shall be inserted at the end 'or any member of any of those Boards appointed at a salary'.
    (6) In the entry 'Chairman or non-executive member of a National Health Service trust established under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978', for 'non-executive member' there shall be substituted 'non-executive director'.
    (7) In the entry 'Chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council', after 'Chairman' there shall be inserted 'Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive'.
    (8) For the entry 'Member of a panel of chairmen of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984' there shall be substituted the following entry:—
    Member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairmen or other members of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland.
    (9) In the entry 'Rent officer or deputy rent officer appointed in pursuance of a scheme under section 63 of the Rent Act 1977', the words 'or deputy rent officer' shall be omitted.

  PART IV OF SCHEDULE 1
    Entry omitted
    7. The entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for an islands area in Scotland shall be omitted.

    Other amendments
    8.—(1) In the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a region in Scotland—

    (a) for 'a region' there shall be substituted 'an area'; and

    (b) for the words from 'such part' to 'Majesty' there shall be substituted 'the area'.

    (2) In the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh or Glasgow—

    (a) the words 'the district of' shall be omitted; and

    (b) for 'the district in' there shall be substituted 'the city in'.

    The motion seeks the approval of the House to an amendment by Order in Council of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. As hon. Members are aware, the Act is concerned with the maintenance of the independence of the House and the safeguarding of hon. Members from undue influence by the Executive through the exercise of patronage. Schedule 1 to the Act lists those offices whose holders are thereby disqualified from membership of the House.
    It has been usual practice for any legislation that establishes new offices or winds up existing ones to amend schedule 1 accordingly. The 1975 Act is therefore reprinted from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Act to incorporate such amendments. The last reprint was made on 6 January 1994. A further reprint will be ordered after the new order has been made. In addition, from time to time, it is necessary to use the procedure outlined in section 5(1) of the Act in order to bring schedule 1 up to date by Order in Council.
    This section provides for the schedule to be amended following an affirmative resolution of the House by adding offices that have been created by administrative action, by amending or correcting existing entries and by deleting offices that no longer exist or where statutory disqualification is no longer appropriate. This procedure has been followed on 10 previous occasions, the first in

    493
    1961 and the last in June 1993. Copies of the explanatory note describing the amendments in detail have been made available in the Vote Office since 6 February.
    Ministers have been individually responsible for the details of the additional entries and deletions that cover the offices within their areas of responsibility. They have based their judgments on the same general principles and criteria that have been followed in the past and are covered by the explanatory note. Of the 85 amendments covered, 48 are new entries, 25 are deletions and 12 are amendments to existing entries. Approximately 3,400 office holders will be brought within the scope of schedule 1, and up to 240 others will no longer be disqualified. That includes offices that have been abolished. There is, therefore, a net increase of 3,160 disqualified office holders. Of the 3,400 added to the schedule, up to 2,700 are lay members of industrial tribunals in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the vast majority of whom are already precluded from sitting as Members of Parliament by the terms governing their appointment.
    We propose that the de minimis level—the level below which paid officers in the gift of the Crown or Ministers do not normally attract disqualification—should remain at £8,000, as agreed in 1993. Of course, the de minimis level has no effect on the level of remuneration received by office holders. Its purpose is merely to prevent trivial disqualification. As we are following a well-established procedure, I commend the motion to the House.
    4.56 pm
    Mr. Jeff Rooker: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for not being present for the beginning of the debate.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Rooker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am reminded of the debates that I read while preparing my speech. When a similar motion was moved in 1985, my colleague with the relevant responsibility was not present. As I had spoken on the previous legislation, I became the first speaker for the Opposition; so I have had my comeuppance.
    It is interesting to note that we are not dealing with a statutory instrument or with delegated legislation, but are being asked to amend a schedule to an Act of Parliament on the say-so of a motion on the Order Paper. That might have some advantages, in that the motion is clearly amendable. However, it means that the normal scrutiny procedures of the House will not apply: we will not be able to examine the proposals, take evidence and ask questions. I shall return to that issue later.
    I welcome the explanatory notes on the motion—although I think that they should have been available earlier. They were not available last Thursday when I left the building, so the Vote Office posted them to me on Friday and I read them during the weekend. In previous years, the notes were available from the Vote Office up to three or four weeks before debate in the House. The notes comprise an excellent, up-to-date list of the quangos established by the Government—many salaries run to six
    494
    figures—so it is a useful addition to our weaponry. The notes are not available for general sale: there is no price or reference number on the document. In a way, it is the main meat of the motion.
    Other than the holders of office set out in section 1 of the main Act, such as civil servants, the police, the armed forces and members of foreign legislatures, those who are disqualified from membership of the House—the number runs to well over 1 million people—are not covered by statutory criteria. There are ambiguities, and there is a good deal of ministerial discretion as to who is and is not disqualified. We are now adding another 3,400 of our fellow citizens to the list of those disqualified from membership of the House of Commons. It is clear that membership of the House should be as open and as accessible to as many citizens as possible, and that disqualifications must be clear, unambiguous and reasonable.
    Although it is called the House of Commons Disqualification Act, it does not cover all the people who are disqualified from membership of the House. Bits and pieces of a tabloid newspaper are being put through our doors by a fictional political party, which exists only in the bank balances of its leader. A member of a foreign legislature is not able to be a Member of the House. We can have dual membership of this House and the European Parliament. That usually means a seat in the United Kingdom Parliament and a seat in the European Parliament, but I am not sure about the arrangements. How does the Act apply to a person who sits in the European Parliament for a constituency in France and seeks membership of the United Kingdom Parliament? Perhaps the Minister could take advice on whether it is lawful for the leader of the Referendum party to seek membership of the House while being a Member of the European Parliament for a foreign nation.
    The Act is comprehensive. I want to draw some of the paradoxes to the House's attention by way of illustration—I would obviously be out of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I went into substantial detail. Our fellow citizens are not treated equally: some are disqualified from being Members of the House under schedule 1, and some are disqualified under other Acts of Parliament.
    The legislation that applies to ordained ministers of religion goes back to the House of Commons (Clergy Disqualification) Act 1801. When preparing for this debate, I was struck by the recent publication by Robert Blackburn, reader in public law at King's college, called "Electoral System in Britain". He delves into the history of certain aspects of the process, including parliamentary candidates. He gave examples that occurred in Oxfordshire. A candidate at the last general election in Oxford, West and Abingdon is disqualified for life from membership of the House because he used to be an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church, even though he has now resigned the priesthood. If he had won the seat, the House might have addressed the issue. Bruce Kent did not win, but even if he changes his faith or declares no faith, the fact that he was once an ordained priest of the Roman Catholic Church means that he is disbarred for life from membership of the House.
    That does not apply to someone who is disbarred because he is a civil servant. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) was a distinguished former Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary, and had previously been a civil servant.

    495
    One day, he was a civil servant and disqualified from membership of the House; the next day, he resigned and was able to be a candidate and serve as a Member of the House. The same applies to a minister of the Church of England, who is disqualified but can also resign and then be a candidate. Priests of the Catholic Church are disqualified for life, whether or not they remain in their faith. That is one of the inconsistencies and anomalies.
    The Minister is now adding 3,400 persons to the list of those banned from membership of the House. He referred in his short introduction to the largest group: the 2,700 of our fellow citizens who serve on industrial tribunals. They are unpaid lay people who do a valuable job for society. They are required to be politically impartial in the execution of their judicial function: that is part of the operation of a tribunal. Why have they not been added to schedule 1 before? Industrial tribunals have existed for the best part of 30 years. Has consultation taken place? It is part of their terms and conditions that they cannot be Members of the European Parliament or Members of the House. Why change now?
    The schedule was updated in 1993, 1985 and 1987: every three or four years, although not necessarily tying in with general elections; sometimes it has been twice in a Parliament. At no time have the general lay members of industrial tribunals been added to the list of those disqualified from serving in the House.
    Some hon. Members may be justices of the peace, who are not technically banned from serving in the House. Members are advised not to sit as JPs, but if they can manage the requirement of 26 sessions a year, not in their own constituency and not as a paid stipendiary magistrate, technically nothing prevents them from being elected as a Member of the House. There is therefore a paradox if the requirement is for political neutrality or impartiality in a judicial function.
    There is also a contradiction in respect of local government councillors who serve as magistrates, even in the locality of their council. Why are they allowed to continue to undertake a function for which they have to be judicially impartial while not being disqualified from membership of the House, whereas we disqualify the lay members of industrial tribunals? That does not make sense. It is not equal and fair treatment for people carrying out the same sort of quasi-judicial function. It is unfair that one group of 2,700 people—it includes members of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland—is disqualified.
    The schedule has been added to and has grown like Topsy at ministerial whim, without proper scrutiny by the House, because of the manner in which it is done—by resolution and not by statutory instrument. It gets worse. When I read previous debates, I was reminded of what happened in 1985, when I had to make a brief contribution. Full-time members of the judiciary are rightly disqualified from being Members of the House, but part-time members of the judiciary are not disqualified, as we shall hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). Why should a part-time paid judge, who acts as a recorder, be able to sit in Parliament, and a part-time unpaid member of an industrial tribunal be disqualified? It is not fair, does not make sense, and is wholly inconsistent and illogical.
    496
    I invite anyone who thinks that I am nit-picking to look at the first amendment to schedule 1. The Secretary of State for Scotland is disqualifying temporary judges from membership of the House.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Quite right too.
    Mr. Rooker: Absolutely, quite right.
    To disqualify temporary judges in Scotland and lay members of industrial tribunals yet allow part-time judges in England to sit in the House is inconsistent and unfair. I raised this point in the debate on 22 July 1985 at column 801. I asked about recorders and was fobbed off by the then Minister. He referred us to an earlier debate on 12 April 1983. I have taken the precaution of reading that debate again. Why part-time judges under the guise of recorders can sit in the House was not satisfactorily explained. We were given the historical reasons for the acceptability of that, but I did not find them satisfactory then, and I do not think that they are satisfactory now—especially in view of the fact that we are ruling out changes in regard to lay, unpaid members of industrial tribunals.
    In our debate on 22 July 1985, when we discussed schedule 1, my speech was followed by one from a Conservative Back Bencher who challenged the whole idea that Ministers could add to the list of people disqualified from membership of the House as we are doing today. He made what I considered a powerful case for the criteria to be made clearer and more precise: it can be found in columns 802 and 803 of the Official Report. He described the current practice as "highly undesirable".
    There are four criteria, and I ask the Minister to confirm that they are not statutory. The first criterion refers to
    "offices of profit in the gift of the Crown or Ministers",
    which includes salaried, pensionable and certain fee-paid posts. There is a de minimis of £8,000. People whose remuneration is below that level can, however, be excluded at the Minister's discretion.
    Also excluded are
    "certain positions of control in companies in receipt of Government grants and funds, to which Ministers usually, though not necessarily, make nominations".
    I shall return to that in a moment.
    The third criterion refers to
    "offices imposing duties which, with regard to time and place, would prevent their holders from fulfilling Parliamentary duties satisfactorily"—
    which means that they would take up too much time, or otherwise prevent a Member from attending Parliament.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I had to re-read that.
    Mr. Rooker: So did I—as, indeed, I have in the past.
    As I have said before, I think that it would be difficult to legislate for a full-time House, but these are non-statutory criteria operating against some of our fellow citizens.
    The fourth category is
    "offices whose holders are required to be, or to be seen to be, politically impartial."
    That covers many of the examples that we are discussing today.

    497
    As I have said, in 1985 a Conservative Back Bencher described the process as highly undesirable. He questioned the payment levels involved in disqualification, and claimed—I believe there were some grounds for his claim—that people were disqualified when it was not possible to test whether they should be, because of the lack of scrutiny. He called for a Select Committee to look at the draft resolution each time, and report to the House before it came to us for approval. If it were a statutory instrument, that would be possible: the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments could examine it, and take advice and evidence.
    I agreed with that Member of Parliament then, and I agree with him now. So why do we have amendments Nos. 16 and 38? The amendments are not numbered on the Order Paper—for our inconvenience—but they are numbered 16 and 38 in the set of notes with which we have been provided. They are listed at lines 42 and 43 on page 1898 of the Order Paper, and at lines 72 and 73 on page 1899, and both are promoted by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It so happens that the Minister—the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg)—is the Member who spoke from the Back Benches in 1985, and said that this was a wholly undesirable process. The House is almost empty and there is plenty of time, but I am not hunting for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I prepared my speech three days ago, well before I knew about next week's censure motion.
    Amendment No.16 covers the
    "Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal or a member of a panel appointed under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947."
    The new entry will bring up to 306 office holders into the schedule—306 more citizens who cannot become Members of Parliament. We are given the same old argument that such people must be politically impartial in the execution of their judicial functions.
    The new entry in amendment No. 38 is
    "Any director of Horticulture Research International in receipt of remuneration."
    That, too, is promoted by the Minister of Agriculture.
    I have a question, the answer to which I have not been able to discover fully, even from our experts in the Library. Horticulture Research International was set up on 1 April 1990, in response to the recommendations of a Government study. Why were the 10 paid directors who have been added to schedule 1 today not included in 1993, when the schedule was last updated? What has happened since that has caused them to be on this list, although they were not on the earlier list? It is possible that, although the organisation was set up in 1990, no one was paid until after 1993; that is what I have not been able to establish by looking at the annual reports in the Library.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: It may be worth emphasising, for the benefit of those who read the report of the debate, that it is possible to give up such a position before taking a seat in the House.
    Mr. Rooker: Earlier—the hon. Gentleman probably was not in the Chamber yet—I drew attention to one of the paradoxes that are involved in the legislation. Most of those who are barred from membership—more than 1 million
    498
    people—can become eligible for parliamentary seats by giving up their posts, but that does not apply to someone who has been an ordained priest in the Catholic Church. That cannot be wiped out: those people are banned for life, whatever happens in the future.
    There is a procedure—although I do not know the details—in respect of, I believe, the armed forces and the police. I understand that a little sub-committee at the Home Office, comprising six former Members of Parliament and a couple of other people, adjudicates on whether people can give up certain positions in order to stand for Parliament. Its purpose is to ensure that frivolous people are not trying to get out of the armed forces, as probably the most famous example did many years ago—but I shall not go down that byway. The hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) is right: people can give up their posts voluntarily.
    What worries me most are the inconsistencies and apparent unfairness. I have mentioned people who serve on industrial tribunals, part-time judges and local councillors who serve on the bench. The criteria and rules applying to those people are not the same, and there seems to be no good reason for that.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said, but let me ask a rhetorical question: would not members of industrial tribunals face a real dilemma if they intended to stand for Parliament in a few weeks' time? They would have to resign before the election, because they cannot resign after they have been elected. That strikes me as demonstrably unfair. Having resigned from the tribunal, an unsuccessful candidate for election would have to be beholden to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment: it would be for the Secretary of State to reinstate that person.
    Mr. Rooker: It is some five years since I signed the nomination papers to be a parliamentary candidate, but I have a feeling that a candidate has to sign a statement that he is not excluded by the terms of the House of Commons Disqualification Act. Being on the list means that a person cannot be a legal candidate, which is why I question how Bruce Kent could possibly have been a legal candidate in the last election. Clearly, under the 1801 Act, he could not have taken his seat in the House if he had been successful.
    The House is so slothful in bringing its procedures up to date that we would be forced to face the issue only if someone succeeded in an election in those circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South will confirm, however, shortly after the election of a Member of Parliament we had to pass a retrospective motion enabling him to remain a Member, all because he had given a few hours' paid service as a medical adviser to a medical tribunal. I think that it was the late Lord Winstanley—I hope I am not doing him a disservice; I believe that he is now deceased—who served as a Liberal Member of Parliament, representing, I think, Colne Valley.
    The House could rectify the position if something like that happened, but there would be one hell of a row, particularly as we have not set up proper procedures to ensure that there is fairness, openness and logicality in the way in which we disqualify more than 1 million people from being Members of the House.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Was it not absurd that, in 1979, Dame Sheila Roberts was elected to the European Parliament in

    499
    the Conservative cause, was a successful candidate for London South West and then found that she was disqualified? In what was a technical anomaly, there was no such mechanism for her position to be rectified, as in the case of Dr. Michael Winstanley, the former Member for Cheadle and then for Colne Valley. There had to be a by-election, at enormous public cost, which Dame Sheila again subsequently won—with a diminished majority, but she won. It was an absurd circus for that Conservative Member of the European Parliament to be elected, to be disqualified and then to have to stand again, all because there had not been true and reasonable understanding of the ground rules and no mechanism was in place to remedy what was demonstrably an error.
    Mr. Rooker: It all comes down to the fact that there is not really a consolidated list and a formal structure whereby that list can be scrutinised and we have all the people who are disqualified from membership of the House. We are dealing here, it is true, with the schedule to the main Act, but the Act, as I have said more than once, is not the only Act that disqualifies people from membership of the House. In an open, accessible and pluralistic Parliament, there should be good grounds, as we approach the 21st century, to review wholesale disqualification, some of the rules of which, as I say, go back to the early part of the 19th century. Such a review is long overdue.
    Having considered this in some detail in recent times, having considered the matter in a different capacity and having discussed it with one or two of my colleagues, it is something that a new Government would consider. That may be done by a Select Committee, by someone who is independent or by the Nolan committee.
    This has grown like Topsy. It is shot full with anomalies, inconsistencies, unfairnesses and illogicalities. It is right that there has to be some sort of disqualification procedure; it is clearly necessary for the natural categories of disqualification: the police, the civil service and armed forces. However, matters have got out of hand when the list can be added to by ministerial discretion, where there are no clear criteria. What is more, the House has failed to set up a proper scrutiny procedure so that we can go through these things in detail, instead of having to deal with them in just an hour and a half this evening.
    5.22 pm
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I acknowledge that I was not here at the beginning of the debate, but I did hear the relevant points that were made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the anomalous position involving people who have been ordained in the Roman Catholic Church needs to be sorted out. Roman Catholics are discriminated against in a number of ways. For instance, Roman Catholic bishops cannot pick the title of their diocese, but that is slightly away from this debate. The anomalous position of two people, one of whom has been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest and one of whom has been ordained as an Anglican priest, should be on all fours. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will ask someone to find a way in which the House can consider dealing with that anomaly. It is not the most important issue, but it is one of fairness.
    There is an alternative way in which to deal with some of the positions in part III of schedule 1. Given that most of the people involved are appointed by Ministers, there
    500
    is no reason why Ministers should not say that they will disappoint anyone who is successful in an election. That would solve some of the problems of people who would want to continue with their ordinary lives, if they are unsuccessful candidates. It can be done in a simple way. Where the appointment cannot be taken away, it may be possible to say that people will not be able to sit. There may be other administrative ways in which to deal with that.
    Outside the Chamber, I was reminded by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that I had some form, if I may put it that way, over noticing that some of our colleagues have sat as temporary judges and assistant temporary judges—let us say as recorders. I cannot remember precisely what I might have said; I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will comment on that. If there are examples of people perhaps feeling that in some way they have not received justice because someone who has some prominence beneath his wig has sat either as a justice of the peace or as a judge, they should certainly be able to object in advance.
    Whether people should be prohibited from sitting as judges or as recorders is not something on which I have strong views today, but I do believe that the answer to most of the questions put by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, the Opposition spokesman, is that it is not the highest priority in Government Departments to consider whether new or adapted jobs should join the list. It is one of those things where there is an occasional trawl. People cough up possible positions that might be held to be suitable for disqualification. At the margin, there will always be difficulties.
    I am not sure that it is right to accept necessarily the criticism that doing it by amendment makes it less easy for the House to consider the matter than doing it by secondary legislation. By secondary legislation we do not have the opportunity of tabling amendments. At least with this procedure, we do.
    It is not the most important issue because the House would, I suspect, overturn nearly all disqualifications, were that to be tested. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) repeatedly stood for the House of Commons, although he was disqualified under previous rules because he had inherited a place in the House of Lords. The House did then make changes to allow people not to take up peerages or to drop hereditary peerages.
    I say in passing that some of the positions in part III would not disqualify a Member of the House of Lords from sitting there. I think that I am right in saying that a Member of the House of Lords can be chairman of a research council. The Earl of Selborne served in a distinguished way on the Agriculture Research Council. I do not argue for consistency. The position of holding an office of profit under the Crown is worth protecting. I do not make any adverse comment about prohibiting some people in the more senior ranks of the civil service from being actively involved in national politics, but I do not think that we want to screw things down so far that those who want to take part in local politics should be discouraged from doing so, if it is compatible with their role.
    In general we get these things about right, but if we ever get to the stage where we are wanton or careless in the people we do not allow to stand for Parliament, we should be careful. It is far better to disqualify people after

    501
    election, if necessary, than to stop them standing. We want to allow the widest range of people to stand, even though a fair number of them can be reasonably sure that they will not be elected in any particular election.
    5.26 pm
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment (b), in paragraph 1, after "following entry" insert—

    'Additional Entry
    1A. The following entry shall be inserted at the appropriate place:—

    "Recorder and Assistant Recorder".'.
    I must join the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) in referring to previous debates. He did indeed speak on 12 April 1983, and he used these words:
    "As we are close to a general election, it is not for me to spell out exactly which part of the Government's policy I thoroughly support and which part I support, especially as the debate is to end at half past 11."—[Official Report, 12 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 771.]
    Therefore, he did participate in that debate, when I moved virtually the same amendment as I have moved tonight.
    I should also inform the House, to make this a comprehensive survey perhaps, as of now, that the other part of the hon. Gentleman's contribution related to what appeared to be an anomaly to some of us at that time: the appointment of a Member of the House, the former right hon. Robert Mellish, who had been the Opposition Chief Whip—he is now a noble Lord in another place. He was the deputy chairman of the London Docklands development corporation, which was a salaried office, but one for which he chose, understandably, not to receive remuneration.
    There was an anomaly of an office of profit under the Crown, which I would have thought, in normal terms, that would have been. Some people—I should add that the then Robert Mellish's constituency was included in that region—naturally felt that he might have gained advantage as a Member by being vice-chairman and, at the same time, that he gained advantage as vice-chairman by being a Member, particularly as a Secretary of State of another party was involved. I make that point only because the anomaly has, happily, disappeared—although happily Lord Mellish has not.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on his interesting opening speech. We obviously do not disagree on these matters along party lines. There is a case for a Act to consolidate the historic prohibitions and remove the anomalies. It would not matter if that caused repetition, because the later Act would displace the former.
    There are two separate issues before us. One is the prohibition on certain citizens standing as candidates—which is perhaps overdone, as the hon. Member for Eltham suggested—and sitting as Members. Some people should not be candidates—judges of the High Court, for example—but many more should be allowed to stand on the assumption that they would resign their office if they won. They could sign a document to that effect.
    The other issue, which affects fewer people, is the prohibition on sitting Members being appointed to offices of profit. If sitting Members are allowed to act as
    502
    recorders, as they are in England, they have an advantage. They are not allowed to act in a judicial capacity in Scotland and that is the anomaly. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) pointed out that there are requirements for political impartiality for members of the judiciary. If a Member is appointed to sit as a recorder or an assistant recorder, he will be politically partial unless he sits as an independent, which is unusual. That situation is constitutionally dubious, as I shall mention later, and should be tidied up.
    I understand the objection that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr made about the procedure today. On the other hand, it has some advantages. We are not restricted to only an hour and a half's debate, as would be the case with a statutory instrument.
    Mr. Rooker: We have only an hour and a half today.
    Mr. Spearing: In that case, I must watch the length of my speech. The matter is being addressed by a motion of the House and we have been able to table amendments—an opportunity that I have taken.
    We need better documentation. I am grateful for the explanatory note, but a White Paper with a House of Commons number would have been better. We do not know who published the explanatory note, because it does not say, and it is not signed by a Minister, or even on his behalf by a civil servant.
    On 12 April 1983, no fewer than 15 Members were recorders or assistant recorders. Now there are only three, and I have informed the right hon. and hon. Members concerned of my amendment. I believe that their character, their knowledge of the House and their knowledge of the law make them capable of playing a different role when they put on a wig, even if they occupy a senior position in a political party or appear on television programmes on important civic matters. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, with your colleagues in the Chair, are an excellent example of the ability of right hon. and hon. Members to switch into different roles.
    However, that ability is not immediately apparent to those who send us here. They find it difficult to accept the idea that someone can one day sit, fully bewigged and in a judicial capacity, alongside full-time judges—who stand apart from the rest of us in many ways, and properly so—and the next day be here dealing with the political hurly-burly. It is a constitutional anomaly. We are always told by constitutionalists that the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive each have their own functions. The Executive is created and destroyed by the legislature, and is accountable to it. The judiciary and the legislature are properly separated. Of course, there has to be a join somewhere, and in England and Wales it comes in the persons of the Attorney-General, the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General. In Scotland, of course, the Law Officer of the Crown who fulfils the duties of the Solicitor-General is not a Member of Parliament. That underlines the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr made earlier about better practice in Scotland, which may be something to do with its Presbyterian heritage. Nobody could deny that the anomaly exists.
    In the debate in 1983, Mark Carlisle—then the right hon. Member for Runcorn, now Lord Carlisle of Bucklow—made a distinguished speech, but the only argument that he advanced in favour of the status quo was

    503
    that it was important to maintain a link between those who make the law, especially on police and criminal matters, and those who dispense it in a judicial capacity. Others have argued that it is important for those with judicial experience to bring their knowledge of the realities of the law to the House, but that does not mean that anyone has to fulfil both roles simultaneously. Hon. Members meet people from chambers of commerce, industrialists, transport workers and borough councillors, who tell us of the impact of our work on them and what they require from the legislature. The special pleading for those who act as recorders is not so strong, therefore, as it sounds on first hearing. There are many opportunities for people acquainted with judicial matters to bring their experience to bear here and in another place.
    So the argument in favour of that arrangement is for the future. This is more of a discussion than a definitive occasion. Even if by chance the idea were accepted tonight, I would not suggest that the three or four right hon. and hon. Members concerned should summarily be dismissed from those offices of profit. The matter is more for the future than for an immediate decision today.
    However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said, the further we go, the more necessary it is for anomalies to be cleared up and the documentation improved. Above all, hon. Members and those who pay attention to us should be assured that we not only exercise democracy but are seen to do so. So long as there is the anomaly of hon. Members with paid judicial functions elsewhere, that will not be so.
    Perhaps the Government will give me an assurance in response to my final question. Some years ago, the anomaly was so great that a Member was appointed recorder of a town in the area that he represented. Such a thing would not be tolerated today, but it happened then. I understand that the office is no longer a local government function, as it was historically, but became an office of profit under the Crown in the 1970s.
    I hope that the Minister will assure us that if further appointments are made before any change in the law, despite the fact that arrangements are now made on an area basis, people will not be able to sit anywhere near the area that they represent, or an area with which they have close connections of any sort. Conflict of interests would thereby be avoided.
    That hope and that suggestion fall somewhat short of my amendment. I moved the amendment, but I do not wish to press it heavily, other than for the purposes of discussion. I hope that the Minister will respond as constructively and thoughtfully as my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr did in his interesting speech.
    5.41 pm
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: It seems to me that whether the measure should be implemented by order is not the most important issue. The most important issue is whether the ideas in the motion have been properly canvassed. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and it was clear that he had not had the opportunity to understand the full extent of the proposed amendments. If he has not had that opportunity, and other hon. Members have not been given reasonable time, the people most affected have certainly not been given notice.
    I am thinking primarily of the people who diligently serve, basically as volunteers, on industrial tribunals. I shall talk about them later. It seems mean-spirited, if
    504
    not rather sloppy of the Minister not to allow an adequate consultation period before bringing the matter before the House. He can screw up his face as much as he likes, but he has not done that, and he is a sloppy Minister. That fact needs to be put on the record. [Interruption.] I shall come to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gautier) in a moment. If my adrenaline really starts to flow, when I start asking questions about people having other jobs besides being Members of Parliament—
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I caution the hon. Gentleman against straying out of order by going far beyond what is before us tonight.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Indeed, I am very mindful of that warning, as always, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Once I realised that the subject would be debated today, I obtained the so-called explanatory note, but it is not very good. It consists of a list rather than an explanation. Consequently I tabled some parliamentary questions as soon as I could. I have just slipped out of the Chamber to see if any answers have arrived, but none has.
    That is why I ask the Minister whether, if with the leave of the House he replies to the debate, he will explain the alterations affecting the position of lieutenants and lord-lieutenants of the islands in Scotland. Perhaps the changes are a consequence of local government reorganisation.
    If the Minister had not been so dilatory and sloppy he could have included that in his explanatory note, or at least ensured that I received a reply before we embarked on the debate. If he were at school he would be given only four out of 10, at the most, for his stewardship of what should be a relatively easy matter to bring before the House.
    I asked the Minister for an explanation because I wondered whether the Conservatives had selected a candidate who is a lord-lieutenant for an islands area. Perhaps that is why they had to make the exclusion. I do not know, but I am a pretty suspicious fellow when I think of some of the perverse offices whose holders are allowed to be Members of the House, compared with some of the offices that prevent their holders from becoming Members. Perhaps there was a political intention behind the change. No doubt we shall hear from the Minister soon.
    Mr. Rooker: I do not want to spoil a good speech, but, as I understand it, the alteration simply takes account of the fact that the word "region" is being changed to the word "area". So far as I know, it is a consequential change in the drafting.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but he has to be patient for only a few more weeks. He will soon be the Minister. I am criticising the existing Minister for not having regard to what I think is my entitlement as an hon. Member—a full and adequate explanation in the documentation. When that does not exist, and I table a question, surely courtesy dictates that the Minister should have ensured that I had a reply before we embarked on the discussion.
    I know that things will be better in about six weeks' time, because my hon. Friend will be the Minister handling the matter. His undertaking to try to secure

    505
    parliamentary time for a root-and-branch review of the legislation is welcome. I look forward to that. Perhaps, contrary to his better judgment, my hon. Friend may even allow me to serve on the Committee on the Bill.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must deal with what is happening now.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Reference has been made to hon. Members who serve on industrial tribunals. The change is being brought before the House a few weeks before a general election, and it is reasonable to suspect that, at a time when they were not disbarred, some people serving on industrial tribunals will have been selected by political parties as their candidates.
    From this afternoon those people will be disbarred. One assumes that that information will filter down to them through the political parties, and they will have a choice of either surrendering their prospective candidacy or resigning from the industrial tribunal before nomination day.
    As I said in my intervention, that is tremendously unfair. Unless the present Minister can give an undertaking today, it is unlikely that, having resigned from the tribunals, people who fail to be elected shall then be reinstated almost automatically, on a fresh application.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: It may be helpful to recall that in 1984–85, for reasons that I shall not go into, a number of people resigned from industrial tribunals. As the assistant Minister at the Department of Employment, I managed not to accept their resignations, and later most of those resignations were withdrawn. I do not suggest that we should do anything underhand, but if the proposal before the House causes a problem, the Minister may want to consult and find out whether what happened then establishes a precedent. If so, members of industrial tribunals who stand for election can openly say that they have submitted their resignations, but if they are not elected the resignations will not be accepted, and will in effect be dropped.
    Mr. Mackinlay: That is a good idea. It demonstrates the fact that if there had been consultation, such ideas could have been bounced off the Minister informally. He might then have decided not to include members of industrial tribunals on the list in the first place—partly because it was a perverse daft idea anyway. We have heard no persuasive explanation for their inclusion. That was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr, and there is no logical reason for it.
    Mr. Bottomley: An alternative would be for my hon. Friend to indicate whether a manuscript amendment could be submitted which would leave the members of industrial tribunals in the position after the passing of the legislation that they were in before—that is to say, they are not included. Were the Chair willing to accept such a late manuscript amendment to that effect, there would be no change from the present position. This might be
    506
    important, because clearly members of industrial tribunals make up the majority of those who might be affected and they may not know that they will be affected.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I wait with bated breath to hear the reason why they have been included on the list, and we will see why later on.
    Mr. Spearing: This procedure illustrates that Parliament—in what is almost a Committee-style debate—can not only find problems but, as the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) has just done, provide answers. It has just occurred to me that if there is to be a great exit from the Tory Benches, or a risk that some Tory Members may be looking for these jobs, those who are not on the Government Front Bench might be advantaged by the anomaly that I pointed out.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I now wish to refer to the amendment. As a matter of principle, serving members of the judiciary should not be Members of this House, as there is a conflict. That is not to say that hon. Members who hold those offices are anything other than diligent Members and skilled practitioners of law. That is not at issue. But it is a matter of constitutional propriety. It is wrong for people who are law makers in their judicial capacity—their judgments can become precedents and the law of the land—also to be Members of Parliament. To have that dual role is unhealthy in a democracy.
    My second point on that is that we are talking about a paid office of profit. I am of the view that hon. Members should not have substantial paid outside employment but, alas, that matter is not at issue this afternoon. It is wrong that the state should pay people for substantial outside employment while they are also Members of this House, and the office of recorder is one such post. That is simply wrong. It is a matter of debate whether or not people should have outside interests, and they can defend their position. But the Crown should not be encouraging that in a modern democracy, as most hon. Members find that serving this House is a major preoccupation, seven days a week throughout the year. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr is the Minister he will bring forward legislation to deal with that.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said that there are problems in legislating for Members of this House to be full time. In many modern Parliaments—including one with which I am particularly familiar, Poland—Members can have outside interests as academics, lawyers or architects, but they do not take a full salary. The system is transparent, and people understand it. Many constituents are not aware that hon. Members are serving as recorders or have other outside interests. We will return to this debate after the election.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr mentioned the question of Roman Catholic priests. I go along with him that there is an anomaly, but it seems to me that the anomaly is that priests of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England cannot be elected to this House.
    Mr. Rooker: No.
    Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend answers from a sedentary position, but in my view there is no logical

    507
    reason why serving Anglican ministers or Roman Catholic priests—although their Churches might not approve—cannot be candidates or serve in this House. They should be entitled to stand, although whether it is prudent for them to do so or is acceptable to their Church is a matter for them and their Church authorities. But there should be a presumption in a democracy that people can stand for the legislature, or there must be extraordinarily good reasons to exclude them.
    I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr said. It would have been ridiculous that had Bruce Kent been elected, he would have been prevented from serving as an hon. Member. There was no way in which he could have shed the fact that he had been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest. He would have been in a similar position to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) before the passing of the Peerage Act 1963, in that there was no way in which he could get rid of his disqualification.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr that this is a ridiculous situation, but surely the answer is that priests—whether they are members of the Church of England or the Roman Catholic Church—should not be prevented from serving in the House. Episcopalian ministers from Scotland and Wales can be elected, and we know that ministers from other religions serve in this House. I hope that that will be looked at in the not too distant future.
    I failed to persuade the Chair about the merits of my amendment, and I will not trespass into its provisions. But it puts down a benchmark for the next Labour Government, who must look at whether or not people can serve in this House and have substantial paid outside employment. I think that that is wrong in a modern democracy, and countries such as the United States have strict rules and limitations about outside employment from which we should borrow. We must make membership of this House more modern, and we should not disqualify very good servants who serve, for instance, on industrial tribunals.
    5.55 pm
    Mr. Bates: With the leave of the House, I shall respond to the speeches that have been made, which—by and large—were of a quality that will help the debate. When we looked at the Act and the amendments to it, we were aware that this was an on-going process. This is not a complete document by any means, and we are not seeking this evening to achieve perfect legislation.
    The Act that we are amending now was passed in 1975 by a Government of a different colour. It is not perfect in every form, but the general principles are that we should try to maintain high standards and, wherever possible, avoid apparent conflicts of interest. In the time available to me, I shall try to respond to some of the serious points that have been made.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: The House will be grateful for the attitude that my hon. Friend has shown at the beginning of his reply. In terms of the major parties—
    508
    Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat—how many adopted prospective candidates are members of industrial tribunals?
    Mr. Bates: I am afraid that I do not know the answer to that. It is difficult to quantify, and only when the general election is called will the true nature of the answer be seen.
    An important element of this is that the addition of the tribunals' lay members does not mean a change in policy. In 1975, the members of the employment appeal tribunal were disqualified. On taking up their posts, lay members of the tribunal signed an instrument of appointment which set out that they were prepared to resign their membership on adoption as prospective parliamentary candidates. That position is clear. Far from a conspiracy theory about trying to block certain people from entering the House, we were making a genuine effort to try to clear up a matter that could have been misinterpreted. Some may have thought that only the full-time personnel on the employment appeal tribunal would be disqualified, whereas it applied to all members. They should know that, because it was on the instrument of appointment that they signed.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a sensible point when he talked about a similar case that had arisen when he was in office. We are talking about guidelines and, should it transpire after a general election that a candidate was elected who was disqualified under the Act, I am sure that the House would look carefully and sympathetically at the case.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend saying that if I was appointed as a member of an employment appeal tribunal, I would sign a document to the effect that if I was adopted as a prospective parliamentary candidate I would stand down from the EAT, or that those who are appointed to industrial tribunals make that commitment? Would there be a significant harmful effect if the manuscript amendment to leave out lines 90 to 93 and lines 168 to 169 were accepted, so that we do not make the proposed change in this trawl but can come back to it on another occasion?
    Mr. Bates: I am talking about industrial tribunals as well as the employment tribunal; I should have made that clearer. On the generous offer of a manuscript amendment, the matter can be reviewed. It has been reviewed 10 times already; indeed, it is under permanent review. The last review was in 1993, and there is no reason why the point could not be considered again if it was deemed to be worth while. We drew on representations, many of which were made during the debate in 1993.
    Mr. Spearing: I understand the Minister's reluctance to accept even the suggestion of a manuscript amendment at this hour, but does he agree that another suggestion that might be taken up by readers of this debate is that, if a resignation was tendered, those who had to accept it and

    509
    confirm the receipt of it might delay that acceptance or reply until after a certain date? That would at least get rid of the anomaly for the three months coming up.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the Minister continues, let me make it crystal clear that it rests with me whether a manuscript amendment is accepted. None will be accepted.
    Mr. Bates: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That stops that line of inquiry in its tracks.
    Mr. Spearing: No, it is irrelevant to my point.
    Mr. Bates: I listened to the hon. Gentleman and I shall certainly reflect on what he said.
    I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) for the fact that the rather lengthy list was put late into the Vote Office, if it was the case that in previous years the Opposition had longer to study it. We put it there a week ago, but we shall try in future to allow more time for hon. Members to consider our proposed additions. When the amendments that the Government have proposed are made, a reprint will be issued of the 1975 Act shortly afterwards, including a full list of all the positions at issue.
    The hon. Member for Perry Barr made some passionate remarks relating to the clergy which were strongly endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham. It is important to recognise that a member of the clergy in the Church of England can resign his position by means of the Clerical Disabilities Act 1870 and take his seat in the House. There is no similar Act for Roman Catholic priests. Perhaps there should be: that must be considered on another occasion.
    I want to take up the interesting point about the leader of the Referendum party and his position should he seek election to the House. The Council Act of 20 September 1976 establishes the rules for direct elections to the European Parliament, so changes to that Act are outside the scope of the motion. The rules do not debar members of national legislatures from membership of the European Parliament.
    The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) made some interesting comments, some of which I do not agree with. He has a habit of looking for the conspiracy in everything: if the answers to questions are late, it must mean that the Government have something to hide, rather than a little bit of slowness in the courier service—which is in fact the only reason.
    As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, this is a deregulatory measure. Where the Act refers to areas, rather than island areas and regions, those are different entries. We have sought to combine them, and that is the reason for the changes.
    The hon. Member for Thurrock made some disparaging remarks about my office, which I am sure that, on reflection, he will want to withdraw.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Bates: Let me just finish what I am saying, because I have some better remarks to come. The hon.
    510
    Gentleman made some disparaging remarks, and should he be thinking about intervening, I should mention that I have to hand the Register of Members' Interests, open at his entry.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. My disparaging remarks related to him, not to his office. The point is that the "explanatory note" contained no explanations, and there had clearly been no consultation. That is why I say that the Minister's stewardship was not right. I do not see a conspiracy, but I believe that there should be proper transparency in the House. As happens so often, measures are being bounced through.
    Mr. Bates: Well, seven days is a long bounce, as they say, just as a week is a long time in politics.
    An important point was raised about recorders. It has long been recognised that the full-time judiciary must be disbarred from membership of the legislature, and part I of schedule 1 achieves that. It has also been long recognised that it is not only compatible with being a Member of Parliament to practise a profession, but can be a positive advantage, both to the individual Member and to the House as a whole. Several hon. Members are lay justices, and I am not aware of anyone raising any objection to that.
    The position of recorders is somewhat different, in that they are paid for each sitting day; it would be a poor judicial system that did not pay them for the valuable work that they do, which is, after all, a public service. Often those people are in chambers and could therefore be earning substantially more than they are given for their daily sitting as a recorder.
    Of course, those recorders do not sit within the boundaries of their constituency. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) represents a seat in Leicestershire.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Staffordshire.
    Mr. Bates: He represents a seat in Staffordshire, but sits as a recorder in London. I understand that three Members are serving recorders. Their practical knowledge of the administration of justice has brought valuable experience to the House. Members who are recorders or assistant recorders do not, by custom, sit as recorders in their constituencies. Supporters of the amendment have not succeeded in persuading me that that long-established custom should be changed. I therefore advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the amendment. I commend the motion to the House.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: By leave of the House, I should like to speak again.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot speak again.
    Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have a difficulty over the industrial tribunal change. My hon. Friend the Minister confirmed in winding up that we are bringing something into statute which was not there before and argued that the House should accept that. He kindly acknowledged in his

    511
    winding-up speech, made by leave of the House, that neither he nor other hon. Members know how many people are affected. There is a significant point of order in that the House should not wantonly, recklessly or lightly disqualify from standing people who have been in all honour democratically selected by their parties. May I repeat my request to speak, by leave of the House, in response to the Minister? If I could, it would be useful to people who may be affected by what the House decides in the next 15 minutes.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. I cannot adjudicate on such matters. It is my strict understanding that it is not possible to speak twice to the same Question except in very limited circumstances. I do not think that that applies to ordinary Back Benchers.
    Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House is obliged to the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley). He has spotlighted something that did not occur to us in the debate. We do not know how many people might be disbarred in the next few weeks by our decision tonight on candidatures for office. Would it be in order for the Minister not to move the motion, or for it to be negatived? When the Government find out whether anyone will be affected—and the effects could be serious—they could bring back the substantive motion, which could go through the House quickly, perhaps even on the nod. It is, of course, a matter for the Minister to decide whether he should pursue that course of action. If he does not pursue it, and there is difficulty, it may be said that it could have been avoided if he had listened to the debate and to the hon. Member for Eltham.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to second-guess a Minister on whether he wishes to withdraw a motion. That must be a matter for him. Normally, if one does not like something, one votes against it.
    Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be most grateful if you could guide me to the reference in "Erskine May" that distinguishes between Back Benchers and Front Benchers speaking by leave of the House. This is my only chance to respond to the Minister's remarks about the debate. For me to block the motion because I was unable to make some concluding remarks would be a rather heavy weapon to use, but, as you said, that is an option open to hon. Members.
    The sense of the debate was that the Government should get their change to the law. However, we now know not only that it is possible that people have stood for selection, and perhaps been chosen, but that it is conceivable that they might have put themselves or their parties to inescapable expenses, not knowing that the House would make a retrospective change. The easiest way forward might be if I were to conclude my point of order, listen to your ruling and ask whether by leave of the House, I might make some concluding remarks that could tidy the issue up to the satisfaction of the House. If any hon. Member said no, I would not pursue it. If I could speak, it may help those outside the House who want to join us after the general election.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The general rule is that a Member may not speak twice to the same Question. There
    512
    is a different arrangement in respect of the right of reply of Members who have moved substantive motions. I am satisfied that I am right in not allowing the hon. Gentleman to make a further contribution. He has made his various points.
    Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked whether there was a reference in "Erskine May" to Back Benchers not being able to ask the leave of the House to speak again.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already said what I believe the position to be. I am sure that "Erskine May" references can be found, but I cannot produce them now. I am satisfied that I was correct on my last point.
    Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Minister, if he so wishes, to take my suggestion before you put the Question on my amendment?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but I did quite not catch that.
    Mr. Spearing: Would it be in order for the Minister to pursue my suggestion, which I hope was constructive, to avoid any problems with candidates in the next three weeks, before you put the Question on the amendment, which I believe is the next formal Question to be put by the Chair? So far, the Minister has shown no sign of so doing, but I hope that he would use it as an insurance policy so that the House will not be blamed for any consequences. We do not know the facts.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot rule from the Chair on what a Minister wishes to do. No doubt he will make his decision plain and the hon. Gentleman will be able to decide his course of action.
    Mr. Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that you understood that the Minister said that the resolution formalises the status quo? Perhaps the Minister could confirm that passing this measure does not change anything. However, for the better information of those who may be affected in the next couple of weeks, perhaps all 2,700 of them could have the issue drawn to their attention as a matter of urgency so that they would know exactly where they stand.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Bates: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This bout of points of order may be due to the fact that we have not made absolutely clear the position on people who may seek election to the House. With your permission, I hope to make it clear. Their instruments of appointment to their present positions would require them to resign forthwith on becoming prospective parliamentary candidates. I hope that that is clear for the record.
    Mr. Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House has not been told when that was brought in. I was not aware of it when I used to make appointments
    Mr. Rooker indicated dissent.
    Mr. Bottomley: If, as a Minister, I was not aware of it, I am not sure that all those who were appointed were

    513
    aware of it. The situation is unsatisfactory. I support the suggestion that if people put in prospective letters of resignation, Departments should not be too speedy in acting on them.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order and we cannot pursue it further.
    Has the Minister concluded his remarks?
    Mr. Bates: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Amendment negatived.
    Main Question put and agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

  PART I OF SCHEDULE 1

    Amendment
    1. For the entry 'Judge of the Court of Session' there shall be substituted the following entry:—

    Judge of the Court of Session, or Temporary Judge appointed under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

  PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

    Additional entries
    2. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

    The Antarctic Act Tribunal established under regulations made under the Antarctic Act 1994.

    The East of Scotland Water Authority.

    The Land Authority for Wales.

    The Local Government Staff Commission (England).

    The North of Scotland Water Authority.

    The Scottish Children's Reporter Administration.

    The Scottish Legal Aid Board.

    The Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council or any committee established by that council under paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 9 to the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

    The Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.

    The West of Scotland Water Authority.

    Entry omitted
    3. The following entry shall be omitted:—

    The Scottish Development Agency.

  PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

    Additional entries
    4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

    Adjudicator appointed under section 5 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995.

    Adjudicator for the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and the Contributions Agency.

    Assessor appointed for the purposes of section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

    514

    Chairman of an Agricultural Land Tribunal or member of a panel appointed under paragraph 14 or 15 of Schedule 9 to the Agriculture Act 1947.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Arts Council of Northern Ireland.

    Chairman. Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

    Chairman or Chief Executive of the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.

    Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the English Sports Council.

    Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Financial Reporting Council.

    Chairman or any director of the Further Education Development Agency.

    Chairman of Investors in People UK.

    Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Medical Research Council.

    Chairman or Director of the National Forest Company.

    Chairman of the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council.

    Chairman of the Northern Ireland Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment.

    Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council.

    Chairman of the Rural Development Council for Northern Ireland.

    Chairman or any member, not also being an employee, of the State Hospitals Board for Scotland.

    Chairman of the United Kingdom Sports Council.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland.

    Civil Service Commissioner.

    Civil Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland.

    Commissioner for Public Appointments.

    Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland.

    Any director of Horticulture Research International in receipt of remuneration.

    Director General of Gas for Northern Ireland.

    Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland.

    Member of the staff of the Forestry Commissioners.

    Member of the legal panel of persons available to act as chairmen of Registered Homes Tribunals.

    Member of the legal panel of persons available to act as chairmen of Registered Homes Tribunals in Northern Ireland.

    Any member of the property commission established by virtue of section 19 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

    Any member of a residuary body established by virtue of section 18 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 who is in receipt of remuneration.

    Any member of the staff commission established by virtue of section 12 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

    Northern Ireland Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action.

    Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

    President of the Industrial Tribunals (England and Wales), President of the Industrial Tribunals (Scotland) or member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairmen or other members of industrial tribunals.

    515

    President of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, or member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairmen or other members of that tribunal.

    Entries omitted
    5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

    Chairman, or Director General and Deputy Chairman, of the Agricultural and Food Research Council.

    Chairman or member of a panel of deputy-chairmen of an Agricultural Land Tribunal.

    Chairman of the Business & Technology Council.

    Paid Chairman of the Central Transport Consultative Committee for Great Britain established under section 56 of the Transport Act 1962.

    Chairman of the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.

    Chairman of the Land Authority for Wales.

    Chairman of the Letchworth Garden City Corporation.

    Chairman of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council.

    Any Chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal.

    Chairman of the Science and Engineering Research Council.

    Chairman of the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

    Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Sports Council.

    Chairman of the Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.

    Delegate for Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to the Central Rhine Commission.

    Director of British Telecommunications p.l.c. nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or government department.

    Director of Northern Ireland Airports Limited.

    Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the British Steel Act 1988) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

    Director of the successor company (within the meaning of the British Technology Group Act 1991) being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

    Director of a successor company (within the meaning of Part II of the Electricity Act 1989), being a director nominated or appointed by a Minister of the Crown or by a person acting on behalf of the Crown.

    Any member of the Insolvency Practitioners Tribunal in receipt of remuneration.

    Member of a Wages Council appointed under paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 2 to the Wages (Northern Ireland) Order 1988.

    President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under section 12 of the Industrial Training Act 1964.

    Secretary of the Medical Research Council.

    Other amendments
    6.—(1) In the entry 'Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards', for Nice-Chairman' there shall be substituted 'Medical Director'.
    516
    (2) In the entry 'Chairman of the Economic and Social Research Council', after 'Chairman' there shall be inserted 'Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive'.
    (3) In the entry 'Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland', the words 'or Deputy Chairman' shall be omitted.
    (4) In the entry 'Chairman of the Livestock Marketing Commission for Northern Ireland', for 'Marketing' there shall be substituted 'and Meat'.
    (5) In the entry 'Chairman of any of the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting constituted under section 5 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979', there shall be inserted at the end 'or any member of any of those Boards appointed at a salary'.
    (6) In the entry 'Chairman or non-executive member of a National Health Service trust established under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978', for 'non-executive member' there shall be substituted 'non-executive director'.
    (7) In the entry 'Chairman of the Natural Environment Research Council', after 'Chairman' there shall be inserted 'Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive'.
    (8) For the entry 'Member of a panel of chairmen of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984' there shall be substituted the following entry:—

    Member of a panel of persons appointed to act as chairmen or other members of industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland.
    (9) In the entry 'Rent officer or deputy rent officer appointed in pursuance of a scheme under section 63 of the Rent Act 1977', the words 'or deputy rent officer' shall be omitted.

  PART IV OF SCHEDULE 1
    Entry omitted
    7. The entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for an islands area in Scotland shall be omitted.

    Other amendments
    8.—(1) In the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant or Lieutenant for a region in Scotland—

    (a) for 'a region' there shall he substituted 'an area'; and

    (b) for the words from 'such part' to 'Majesty' there shall be substituted 'the area'.

    (2) In the entry relating to Her Majesty's Lord Lieutenant or Lieutenant for the district of the city of Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh or Glasgowߞ

    (a) the words 'the district of shall be omitted; and

    (b) for 'the district in' there shall be substituted 'the city in'.

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

    MERCHANT SHIPPING
    That the draft Merchant Shipping (Ro-Ro Passenger Ship Survivability) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.

  DEREGULATION
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With permission, I shall put together motions 4 to 7.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14A(1) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),
  That the draft Deregulation (Employment in Bars) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 16th December, be approved.
  That the draft Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
  That the draft Deregulation (Validity of Civil Preliminaries to Marriage) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
  That the draft Deregulation (Gaming on Sunday in Scotland) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  Question agreed to.

Welwyn Hatfield Council (Slough Estates)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
6.19 pm
Mr. David Evans: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to bring this issue to the Floor of the House. It is crucial to the financial well-being of all my constituents. To paint the picture, I should like to start with Labour-controlled Welwyn Hatfield council's agreement with two property companies—Slough Estates and the Carroll group. In the late 1980s, putting it simply, Slough Estates was to build a shopping centre in Welwyn Garden City, without any restriction on the type of shops, but was nervous, to say the least, that its investment would be undermined if the Park Plaza scheme, hereafter referred to as The Galleria, did not have a strict tenants mix agreement as to the type of shops.
The council agreed to Slough's request, so the company proceeded to develop the site, and an impressive shopping complex it is, too. The Carroll group pressed for the relaxation of the tenants mix agreement. In an aide-memoire prepared for the Labour council working party, Martin Hayes, the then chief finance officer, said:
"In view of the very recent approval to the Howard centre and the sensitivity that those developers have always shown to the Park Plaza scheme, the decision to relax the tenants mix agreement in the way suggested cannot be minuted at this stage. Nevertheless, such a decision would have to be acted on behind the scenes."
So there we have it. I repeat what Mr. Hayes said:
"In view of the very recent approval to the Howard centre and the sensitivity that those developers have always shown to the Park Plaza scheme, the decision to relax the tenants mix agreement in the way suggested cannot be minuted at this stage. Nevertheless, such a decision would have to be acted on behind the scenes."
The A1(M) working party, which has a Labour majority and includes six Labour members, accepted that decision and the full council endorsed it, although not all councillors were informed of the policy change. In the recent ruling against the council following the change in 1987, the judge said:
"Thereafter, after 1987 there was a policy of lies."
So there we have it again. If I may, I shall repeat what the judge said:
"Thereafter, after 1987 there was a policy of lies."
The leader of the council was Stan Atkinson, a Labour councillor. The deputy leader at that time was Councillor Ray Little, who stood in 1992 as my Labour opponent at the general election and subsequently became leader of the council. Councillor Chris Gillen was chairman of the 1987 A1(M) working party. The judge said:
"They acted as a nucleus who steered the rest."
They are, to their eternal shame, still councillors and have not done what any honourable person should do in these circumstances—resign.
If that was not bad enough, more scandal was to follow. The new Labour leader of the council in 1996, Mr. Ray Little, was offered, three days before going to court, an out-of-court settlement of £16 million by Slough Estates. Without any consultation with the council officers or Labour colleagues, Mr. Little refused on behalf of all the

519
people of Welwyn Hatfield. He should be locked up and the keys thrown away. He single-handedly robbed the people of Welwyn Hatfield—my constituents—of £32 million. What is more, he could not care less.
Can my hon. Friend the Minister please say whether any application was made to the Department of the Environment for permission to use the council's capital receipts to settle the Slough Estates debt when the offer was made and we had the chance to settle the case for just £16 million, before it went to court? If so, was permission refused by the Government?
As a result of that Stalinist slap in the face, Slough Estates took the Labour council to court and won a judgment of £48 million, which has now increased to £53 million with the addition of costs and interest accruing. I repeat the figures in case the House did not hear me. The £48 million has now increased to £53 million. The Labour council decided to appeal, but then withdrew the appeal on legal advice. It is now trying to find the money to pay the debt.
This fiasco should make people think about the consequences of voting Labour, not only in Welwyn Hatfield but across the nation. Where Labour is in control, we have financial incompetence, lies and bankruptcy.
How can we settle this appalling state of affairs? If we wait for my Labour opponent in the forthcoming general election to speak on the subject, we shall wait for ever. Her silence has been deafening, but then she lives in Cambridge. The people of Welwyn Hatfield tell me that she is not interested, because it is not her problem, but for people who live in the constituency, it certainly is.
I want my hon. Friend the Minister to watch my lips. Is he looking? However this debt is to be paid, which it will have to be, David Evans will not allow it to be paid by a surcharge on every household in Welwyn Hatfield, with a council tax bill of at least £1,500. I will say it again, just to make sure that my hon. Friend has heard me. However this debt is to be paid, which it will have to be, David Evans will not allow it to be paid by the people of Welwyn Hatfield through a surcharge on every household, with a council tax bill of at least £1,500.
After the payment of £10 million from reserves, the amount owing is now about £43 million. That is increasing by a staggering £7,000 a day in bank interest. The council has £15 million on deposit from council house sales, which is earning interest at about £900,000 per year. It would like to pay that amount to Slough Estates, thereby reducing the debt to £28 million, with the balance to be paid with the receipts from large-scale transfer of housing stock. I have supported that approach fiercely in the past.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I have been in constant contact in person, by telephone and by letter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. However, I am well aware that there are one or two stumbling blocks that might be difficult to surmount in order to bring the current difficulties of Welwyn Hatfield to a quick conclusion. I emphasise that those stumbling blocks have been created not by the Government, but by the attitude of the Labour-controlled Welwyn Hatfield council.
The first problem seems to me to be how the council would make up the loss of £900,000 interest accruing on £15 million on deposit, which goes directly into income available for expenditure by the council. One presumes that the shortfall would be added to the council tax bills. If that is the Labour council's intention, I say no way.
520
Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the council, having reduced the debt to £28 million, has the incentive to embark seriously on the transfer of housing stock when, over many years, it has dragged its feet on embracing Government policy? That policy would allow my constituents to buy their own homes or agree to have them run by a housing association, which has the interests of tenants at heart.
Even as recently as last month, the Labour group leader said on the front page of Welwyn Hatfield Times that she believed that Labour councillors would refuse to sanction the transfer of housing stock to meet the judgment against the council in the Slough Estates fraud.
In the past couple of weeks, however, the council seems to have had a change of heart. I wonder why. Unfortunately for my constituents, not least those living in council-owned property, the damage has been done by Labour councillors and their cohorts on the council. Their statement in the local newspaper has sent a disgraceful message to tenants, who, as we all know, have their own vote to decide whether a housing association should take over their properties. Labour councillors have effectively said, "Don't vote for the transfer of your home to housing associations." We all know, however, that if they did that under that Labour-controlled council, they certainly would not be any worse off than they are now.
Perhaps the Minister would like to take this opportunity to tell my constituents about the virtues of transferring housing stock to a housing association and the benefits that tenants would enjoy. In my opinion, with its message to tenants, the Labour council is once again trying to obstruct Government policy that would help the people of Welwyn Hatfield and improve the quality of life for tenants, but as we all know, that council says one thing and does another.
Perhaps the Minister can also confirm that whatever is the outstanding debt, 100 per cent. of receipts from the transfer of housing stock to housing associations will be available for use to pay off the debt and not just 25 per cent., according to the current rules.
I expect the Government to tell us tonight what the next step is. The people of Welwyn Hatfield deserve our support. They have been let down by the Labour councillors whom they elected in good faith, year in and year out, over the past 20 years. They are fortunate that we have a Conservative Government to try to protect them—a Government who have also ensured that their council tax is capped. They have a Conservative Member of Parliament who champions their cause without fear or favour.
Finally, may I say that this Member will not allow the Government, civil servants, councillors or officers simply to wash their hands of this nightmare in the hope that it will go away? It must be resolved in the best interests of my constituents, and those who are responsible for the lies, fraud and deceit must be brought to book. They must be made responsible for the debt and they must be disqualified from ever standing as councillors again. In that way, those incompetent, inadequate financial pygmies will never ever be allowed to rob the people of Welwyn Hatfield again.
6.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): It is always a pleasure to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for

521
Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans). I can advise him that there is no need to watch his lips—we can hear him quite emphatically and clearly.
My hon. Friend repeated the key points of an unpleasant story, the facts of which are well known, and so they should be. It is a private and local grief, and a tragedy for the local people—the tenants and the residents who will have to pay if the council has its way—whom my hon. Friend has championed.
We know that it is a difficult situation. The story is well known and has been clearly related by my hon. Friend. In essence, in 1987, the council took certain planning decisions relating to a retail development in its local authority area. Slough Estates plc, the owners of the Howard centre, a nearby shopping development, considered that it had not been treated fairly and challenged the council's decisions.
Recently—for the benefit of my hon. Friend. I should like to repeat that it was very recently—we heard that, last year, the council was offered an out-of-court settlement of £16 million. We were not aware of that at the time. No application for assistance in regard to the offer was received by my Department, so no decision could be made on a request that was not asked.
The case went to court. Slough Estates successfully sued the council and damages were awarded to the company amounting to £49 million. As my hon. Friend pointed out, those damages were exacerbated by certain actions.
In January, the council applied to my Department for a supplementary credit approval, to release £15 million of invested capital receipts. Under the capital finance system, that money can be used only with a credit approval. We have a firm policy of not issuing SCAs outside certain specific, targeted programmes—for instance, for reorganisation costs. Outside those programmes, SCAs can be given only in the most exceptional circumstances.
We considered Welwyn Hatfield's case extremely carefully, but we concluded that there was insufficient justification for issuing an SCA. Consequently, we turned down its application. Such an approval would lead to an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement. In order to meet our objectives for the public finances, that would have to be balanced by increases in Government revenues from taxation.
My Department gets a number of requests for SCAs each year from authorities facing unplanned demands on their budgets. If we gave way in the case of Welwyn Hatfield, we would be expected to do so in other cases. There would be substantial public expenditure consequences if we met even a proportion of the applications.
My hon. Friend has, however, offered an eminently sensible suggestion—large-scale voluntary transfer of the housing stock. It is a well-proven scheme, which works extremely well and is extremely successful and popular. LSVT increases investment and improves the condition of the existing stock in every case. Housing transfers are not rare, although Welwyn Hatfield council might say that they are, nor are they exotic or an emergency measure. They are becoming a normal, common, well-recognised way of meeting requirements in housing for tenants, with tenants' consent. They are accepted by authorities and councils of all political complexions.
522
Housing transfer is not just a solution for now, but provides long-term benefits for the future. Public expenditure will always be limited. Housing authorities will never be able to spend as much as they might like in repairing and improving their stock. Private finance is not subject to the constraints of public expenditure. LSVT provides a stable financial future for the upkeep of tenants' homes.
Under the new Housing Act 1996, a local housing company can be set up as the new social landlord to own the stock, in which both local authority and tenants can hold substantial stakes.
Since 1988, 53 local authorities have transferred their stock, generating more than £3.7 billion in private finance. To borrow a saying, "Watch my lips: more than £3.7 billion in private finance." Receipts generated from transfers under the 1997 LSVT programme are expected to be around £350 million, involving 17 local authorities.
Last autumn, we introduced measures that included a three-year holiday from the 20 per cent. LSVT levy that is normally charged on transfers. Welwyn Hatfield is debt free. It no longer has to set aside any of the proceeds from future sales of assets. It would, therefore, have available 100 per cent. of the receipts from the transfer, including the extra 20 per cent., if it transferred within the holiday. The council would not need to touch its invested capital receipts and it would continue to receive the interest on those investments and on anything left from the transfer receipts.
We have increased the size limit for transfers to any one landlord from 5,000 to 12,000. Those such as Welwyn Hatfield with a stock below 12,000 would, if they so wished, be able to negotiate a transfer in one single action, thus saving on administrative costs and keeping the tenants together under one landlord. Tenants like LSVTs because of the benefits that they bring: for example, an accelerated programme of catch-up repairs; guaranteed rent levels for up to five years; much better management—in this case, much, much better management; and closer and real tenant involvement in management.
For the obvious reasons cited by my hon. Friend, transfer would be a sensible policy for Welwyn Hatfield. In fact, it would be sensible irrespective of the court case, in the present circumstances, because transfer brings private investment to the stock and generates resources for the council, which it could use for the benefit of its tenants and the local citizenry.
Labour Welwyn Hatfield has got itself into a corner and that is its own fault. The council now has a way out, which has been suggested by my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on championing the cause of his people, his residents, his citizens and his council tax payers. I only hope that, for a change, the councillors take the very broad hint that has been laid before them by their Member of Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Seven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  Departmental Policies (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect of his Department's policies on the residents of Bournemouth since 1992, with special reference to the effects of changes in the resources provided in real terms. [14952]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local government review is an opportunity for improved services and more effective local government for the people of Bournemouth. As of 1 April 1997, Bournemouth borough council will be responsible for delivering the full range of local authority services, enabling improved services with efficiency savings.

  Bournemouth borough council's standard spending assessment for the financial year 1997–98 will be £119,120,000. This represents an increase of £1,382,000, or 1.2 per cent. on the comparable figure for 1996–97. The Department does not have data for earlier years with which to calculate a SSA for a unitary Bournemouth so it is not possible to make a like-for-like comparison with 1992–93.

  It is possible to compare the sum of the SSAs per head of Bournemouth borough council and Dorset police authority in 1997–98 with the sum of SSAs per head of Bournemouth borough council, Dorset county council and Dorset police authority in 1992–93. Although this is not entirely accurate, because it approximates to Bournemouth the average SSA per head of the county and police authority rather than the proportion relating to Bournemouth's needs, it is a reasonable approximation. On this basis, the total SSA per head of Bournemouth and the authorities which precept on it was £684 in 1992–93 and £789 in 1997–98. These figures do not take account of changes in local government functions, for example the transfer of further education from local authorities 1993–94.

  Bournemouth borough council was successful in its bid for funding under the pilot capital challenge scheme. The council will receive a credit approval of £1.9 million for environmental works to enhance Bournemouth town square.

  Bournemouth is benefiting from two schemes which have received funding from the Government's single regeneration budget challenge fund.

  Dorset training and enterprise council's bid, "Community Focus—Turlin Moor and Boscombe", was one of 172 schemes awarded funding under round 2 of the challenge fund. "Community Focus—Turlin Moor and Boscombe" is a four-year scheme to meet training and educational needs in two areas which suffer from high
  258
  crime rates and low employment. Over the full four years, it should receive a total of £406,000 in support from the challenge fund. This money, complemented by £395,000 of private sector funding and other public money, should create six jobs; involve 100 employers in collaborative education projects; and benefit 720 young people.

  Bournemouth borough council's bid, "Making Small Firms Big Business—Dorset", was also awarded funding under round 2 of the challenge fund. "Making Small Firms Big Business—Dorset" is a three-year scheme to improve the infrastructure and competitiveness of the tourist industry in Dorset. Over the full three years, it should receive a total of £314,000 in support from the challenge fund. This money, complemented by £312,000 of private sector funding and £177,000 of other public money, should create or safeguard 51 jobs; advise 1,050 businesses; and help 1,100 people to obtain qualifications.

  Residents of Bournemouth who live in houses in multiple occupation such as bedsits, shared houses, hostels and some houses converted into flats, will benefit from measures to improve fire safety and other standards in their homes introduced under the Housing Act 1996. The measures, which will come into force on 3 March, will make it easier for local authorities to ensure that HMOs meet acceptable standards. Bournemouth borough council will also be able to apply to the Department of the Environment for special powers to close down HMOs if they cause a nuisance or annoyance to the neighbourhood and to prevent new HMOs opening if they would be detrimental to the area.

  Local Authority Services (Mergers)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what requests for assistance his Department has received from neighbouring or overlapping local authorities considering merging their treasurers, legal services and property services departments; what guidance he has issued on this subject; and if he will make a statement. [15012]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  While the Government recognise the value of sensible co-operation between the tiers of local authorities, no specific guidance has been issued. However, as part of the exercise on the extension to compulsory competitive tendering, my Department wrote to local authorities on 18 May 1995 outlining the main statutory framework within which authorities may make joint arrangements. No requests for assistance have been received.

  Metropolitan District Budgets
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the budget of the metropolitan districts for the current financial year, ranking them from the largest increase over the previous year to the smallest; and if he will make a statement. [15232]
  259
  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  1995–96 Budget £million

  1995–96 Adjusted budget1 £ million

  1996–97 Budget£ million

  Percentage change2

  Rotherham

  191.886

  197.234

  204.456

  3.7

  Bury

  119.735

  120.028

  124.278

  3.5

  Doncaster

  218.759

  224.525

  231.721

  3.2

  Solihull

  132.629

  135.811

  140.013

  3.1

  Wigan

  215.282

  215.809

  222.400

  3.1

  Calderdale

  148.223

  153.066

  157.615

  3.0

  Barnsley

  152.626

  157.989

  162.581

  2.9

  Wirral

  261.938

  273.540

  281.336

  2.9

  Wakefield

  219.034

  226.390

  232.768

  2.8

  Bolton

  203.982

  204.591

  210.114

  2.7

  Walsall

  206.172

  212.314

  218.041

  2.7

  Tameside

  165.757

  166.501

  170.989

  2.7

  Dudley

  204.690

  211.519

  217.205

  2.7

  Oldham

  186.594

  187.047

  191.994

  2.6

  St. Helens

  139.371

  144.814

  148.636

  2.6

  Trafford

  149.211

  149.520

  153.437

  2.6

  Knowsley

  146.319

  150.259

  154.007

  2.5

  South Tyneside

  125.289

  128.250

  131.398

  2.5

  Leeds

  523.139

  541.969

  555.234

  2.4

  Birmingham

  924.316

  948.155

  971.119

  2.4

  Sefton

  216.669

  225.553

  230.927

  2.4

  North Tyneside

  148.463

  151.991

  155.538

  2.3

  Sheffield

  392.763

  406.705

  415.883

  2.3

  Gateshead

  163.877

  167.542

  171.093

  2.1

  Kirklees

  286.117

  295.504

  301.671

  2.1

  Manchester

  441.632

  444.664

  453.889

  2.1

  Coventry

  247.102

  253.405

  258.660

  2.1

  Liverpool

  469.714

  485.842

  495.894

  2.1

  Rochdale

  166.918

  167.553

  171.014

  2.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  233.991

  239.336

  244.280

  2.1

  Bradford

  402.125

  413.955

  422.482

  2.1

  Wolverhampton

  209.220

  215.043

  219.466

  2.1

  Sunderland

  231.774

  236.867

  241.695

  2.0

  Salford

  194.050

  195.606

  199.572

  2.0

  Sandwell

  241.733

  249.201

  254.205

  2.0

  Stockport

  196.271

  196.382

  199.761

  1.7

  1 Adjusted to take account of community care special grant payable in 1995–96; the ending of metropolitan rail grant; and the opting-out of passenger transport executives from rail service support.

  2 Calculated based on the adjusted budgets.

  Ceramic Fibres
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's policy on the classification of ceramic fibres in respect of the review by the EU Commission's Technical Progress Committee; and if he will make a statement on the opportunities for ministerial representations to the committee. [15391]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A series of EU technical meetings have examined a number of different possible proposals for the classification of a range of man-made mineral fibres, including ceramic fibres. The meetings have been attended by officials of the Health and Safety Executive who have followed the general policy adopted in these discussions that any proposals should be based on a sound analysis of the scientific evidence.

  The purpose of the meetings is to assist the Commission in the preparation of a formal proposal which will then be submitted to a technical progress committee for a vote. When the proposal is made, it will be examined by Ministers, who will then determine the line to be taken by the UK officials who will attend the Committee and vote on behalf of the UK.

  Poll Tax and Council Tax
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the amount of poll tax currently outstanding for each of the seven west midlands metropolitan authorities; and if he will list the collection costs for the council tax in the last year for which figures are available in each of those authorities. [15492]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Estimates of the levels of community charge arrears for individual authorities are published regularly by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. The latest information relates to the position at 31 March 1995 and is available in the revenue collection statistics 1994–95 publication in the Library. The figures for the west midlands authorities are as follows:

  £000

  Arrears of community charge at:

  Council tax collection costs budgeted

  31 March 1995

  31 March 1994

  11996–97

  Birmingham

  19,725

  —

  5,604

  Coventry

  14,351

  —

  2,630

  Dudley

  4,752

  —

  1,540

  Sandwell

  11,155

  —

  3,143

  Solihull

  3,505

  —

  1,469

  Walsall

  2—

  12,959

  1,676

  Wolverhampton

  2—

  2—

  1,594

  1Source: Revenue Accounts (RA) 1996–97 return.

  2No information was published by CIPFA for Walsall for 31 March 1995 or for Wolverhampton since community charge was abolished.

  Metropolitan District Staff
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many full-time equivalent employees there are(a) in total and (b) per head of population in the service of each metropolitan district. [15483]

  Mr. Curry
  The information is given in the table.

  The levels of employment in individual authorities are not directly comparable because of variations in population structure, social characteristics, hours worked by part-time staff, and the extent to which they use private firms and contractors or act as agents for other authorities.

  Joint staffing watch—whole time equivalents at June 1996 Metropolitan Districts

  Staff per

  Authority

  Whole time equivalents

  Thousand of population

  Barnsley

  7,926

  35.0

  Birmingham

  35,366

  35.1

  Bolton

  1—

  1—

  Bradford

  16,347

  33.9

  Bury

  5,306

  29.1

  Calderdale

  5,587

  28.9

  Coventry

  11,164

  36.9

  Doncaster

  9,983

  34.1

  Dudley

  8,860

  28.4

  Gateshead

  8,131

  40.2

  Kirklees

  12,119

  31.3

  Knowsley

  5,389

  35.0

  Leeds

  23,839

  32.9

  Liverpool

  18,642

  39.3

  Manchester

  19,877

  46.1

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  11,519

  40.6

  261

  Joint staffing watch—whole time equivalents at June 1996 Metropolitan Districts

  Staff per

  Authority

  Whole time equivalents

  Thousand of population

  North Tyneside

  6,669

  34.4

  Oldham

  7,578

  34.4

  Rochdale

  6,835

  33.0

  Rotherham

  8,699

  33.9

  Salford

  9,452

  41.0

  Sandwell

  10,309

  35.1

  Sefton

  7,717

  26.4

  Sheffield

  17,252

  32.5

  Solihull

  5,391

  26.7

  South Tyneside

  5,654

  36.1

  St. Helens

  5,872

  32.4

  Stockport

  7,703

  26.4

  Sunderland

  10,977

  36.9

  Tameside|

  7,021

  31.7

  Trafford

  5,683

  26.1

  Wakefield

  11,591

  36.5

  Walsall

  8,611

  32.6

  Wigan

  8,287

  26.7

  Wirral.

  9,618

  28.9

  Wolverhampton

  8,985

  36.7

  Total staff/Average staff per thousand population for metropolitan districts

  369,959

  33.9

  Note:

  1Data not available.

  Source:

  Joint Staffing Watch, June 1966.

  Figures are for staff in general services—that is, excluding law and order services.

  Birds of Prey
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the incidence of the destruction of(a) eggs, (b) nests and (c) breeding habitats of (i) hen harriers and (ii) other birds of prey on privately owned grouse moors. [15643]

  Mr. Clappison
  None. Birds of prey, their eggs and nests are protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Offences against wild birds under this Act are not notifiable.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the terms of reference for the BRE Future Group established in December 1995; and how many of its participants are members of the Foundation for the Built Environment; [15613]

  (2) if the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the BRE Futures Group were made available to both shortlisted bidders for the Building Research Establishment. [15621]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The terms of reference of the BRE Futures Group, set up in December 1995, were to support the BRE management board in considering the measures to be taken to improve the efficiency and value for money of the establishment, and the continuing management of change within BRE. The group has not met since the competitive sale of BRE was announced.
  262
  None of the members of the group are members of the Foundation for the Built Environment. No documentation relating to the group was made available to any bidder.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) on what grounds he decided that new legislation was not required to authorise the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment; [15615]

  (2) under what existing statutory powers he is proposing to privatise the Building Research Establishment. [15616]

  Mr. Jones
  The Building Research Establishment is not a statutory body and has no statutory functions. No statutory powers are therefore required to transfer it to the private sector. The transfer can be effected by way of an ordinary contract of sale.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the first results of their 1997–98 bids, in respect of projects under the partners in technology scheme, were made available to the Building Research Establishment executive agency. [15617]

  Mr. Jones
  My Department wrote to BRE on 14 January listing the partners in technology projects that it is prepared to support subject to contract.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if minutes and working papers of the management board meetings of the Building Research Establishment were made available to both the shortlisted bidders for the Building Research Establishment. [15619]

  Mr. Jones
  Relevant working papers of the management board were made available to both short-listed bidders for BRE. In addition, once the competitive sale of BRE was announced, the Department was required to be represented at all meetings at which decisions might be taken which would materially affect the conduct of the business, including meetings of the BRE management board. In some cases, where the discussion warranted it, a supplementary note was put in the data room for the information of bidders.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will bear the legal liability, or any share of that liability, for claims arising from work carried out or advice given by the Building Research Establishment before its privatisation. [15622]

  Mr. Jones
  Legal liability remains the subject of negotiation between the Department and the preferred purchaser of BRE.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when his Department decided to privatise the Building Research Establishment. [15614]
  263
  Mr. Jones
  My right hon. Friend announced on 7 November 1995 his decision to move the BRE to the private sector and his intention to commission a study of the options for transfer. This decision was confirmed in his announcement on 2 April 1996 of his preferred way forward for effecting the transfer.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements were put in place to ensure a separation of the roles of members of the management bid team at the Building Research Establishment as bidders for the Building Research Establishment and as members of the Building Research Establishment management; when these arrangements were put into effect; and what steps were taken to monitor their effectiveness. [15618]

  Mr. Jones
  The Department issued guidance to the management and BRE staff when permission was given for the management bid team to express an interest in purchasing BRE. This guidance has been updated as necessary as the sale process has progressed. Its operation is overseen by the team of officials establishment by the Department to transfer BRE to the private sector.

  1. Section 2 discretionary awards to post-graduate students

  Academic years 1992–93 to 1994–95 by Government Office Region in England and in Wales1

  Number of awards (000s)

  Total expenditure £ million2

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North East

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.9

  0.5

  0.3

  North West

  0.2

  0.2

  0.3

  0.6

  0.6

  1.1

  Merseyside

  0.2

  0.1

  0.1

  0.7

  0.4

  0.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  0.4

  0.1

  0.1

  0.7

  0.2

  0.2

  East Midlands

  0.1

  0.2

  0.0

  0.5

  0.4

  0.1

  West Midlands

  0.5

  0.1

  0.1

  1.6

  0.4

  0.3

  South West

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.6

  0.5

  0.2

  Eastern

  0.3

  0.0

  0.0

  1.7

  0.0

  0.0

  London

  0.3

  0.2

  0.2

  1.1

  0.4

  0.5

  South East

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.9

  0.5

  0.6

  Wales

  0.2

  0.0

  0.0

  0.8

  0.1

  0.1

  1Made by local education authorities in each region to students normally domiciled in their area.

  2 In 1996–97 prices using the GDP deflator for each year for fee expenditure and the RPI (excluding mortgage interest payments) of September of each year for maintenance expenditure.

  2. Section 2 discretionary awards to further education students aged 16 to 18 years1

  Academic years 1992–93 to 1994–95 by Government Office Region in England and in Wales2

  Number of awards (000s)

  Total expenditure £ million3

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North East

  2.9

  7.0

  7.1

  1.4

  4.4

  3.3

  North West

  11.9

  20.8

  20.6

  4.8

  9.8

  8.6

  Merseyside

  4.1

  3.3

  3.7

  1.8

  1.9

  1.3

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17.0

  13.2

  13.1

  5.3

  5.0

  4.9

  East Midlands

  11.9

  6.0

  5.9

  4.2

  3.8

  2.8

  West Midlands

  6.3

  7.1

  8.6

  2.6

  2.2

  2.6

  South West

  9.4

  11.5

  10.7

  6.1

  6.6

  5.8

  Eastern

  8.7

  7.1

  7.8

  6.2

  5.0

  5.2

  London

  9.2

  12.5

  12.7

  4.2

  5.0

  5.3

  South East

  11.6

  22.2

  22.4

  4.3

  8.7

  8.8

  Wales

  13.9

  14.0

  13.5

  7.0

  3.9

  4.0

  1 Data on awards to 16 to 18 year olds were collected only for awards made at less than 50 per cent. of the mandatory rate in 1992–93; Table 3 may include some awards made at more than 50 per cent. of the mandatory rate to 16 to 18 year olds although, in general, full value awards (made at 50 to 100 per cent. of the mandatory rate) are made to students over 19 years old.

  2Made by local education authorities in each region to students normally domiciled in their area.

  3In 1992–97 prices using the GDP deflator for each year for fee expenditure and the RPI (excluding mortgage interest payments) of September of each year for maintenance expenditure.

  264
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if progress reports on the efficiency review of the Building Research Establishment's library service were made available to both shortlisted bidders for the Building Research Establishment. [15620]

  Mr. Jones
  Yes.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Section 2 Awards
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for the last three years for which figures are available(a) the total number and (b) the total value in current prices, of section 2 discretionary awards made to (i) post-graduate students, (ii) students aged 16 to 18 years undertaking further education and (iii) students aged 19 years and over undertaking further education, in each Government region [15447]

  Mr. Forth
  The information requested is given in the following tables.
  265

  3. Section 2 discretionary awards to further education students aged 19 years and over1

  Academic years 1992–93 to 1994–95 by Government Office Region in England and in Wales2

  Number of awards (000s)

  Total expenditure £ million3

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North East

  4.1

  4.4

  3.6

  7.7

  5.7

  4.1

  North West

  16.9

  10.5

  7.4

  18.8

  13.7

  9.3

  Merseyside

  2.5

  2.4

  1.8

  5.2

  3.9

  2.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12.7

  11.1

  5.9

  21.2

  13.4

  9.0

  East Midlands

  11.3

  15.0

  4.3

  16.5

  10.2

  5.8

  West Midlands

  3.5

  4.1

  3.4

  5.9

  4.5

  3.2

  South West

  11.9

  9.6

  4.3

  23.0

  11.1

  6.3

  Eastern

  6.1

  6.7

  6.0

  12.1

  8.3

  7.2

  London

  3.2

  2.9

  2.2

  6.4

  4.5

  3.9

  South East

  9.6

  10.3

  10.1

  16.8

  16.2

  14.0

  Wales

  6.7

  5.2

  4.4

  8.0

  6.3

  3.7

  1 Data on awards to 16 to 18 year olds were collected only for awards made at less than 50 per cent. of the mandatory rate in 1992–93; Table 3 may include some awards made at more than 50 per cent. of the mandatory rate to 16 to 18 year olds although, in general, full value awards (made at 50 to 100 per cent. of the mandatory rate) are made to students over 19 years old.

  2Made by local education authorities in each region to students normally domiciled in their area.

  3 In 1996–97 prices using the GDP deflator for each year for fee expenditure and the RPI (excluding mortgage interest payments) of September of each year for maintenance expenditure.

  National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library copies of the submissions made to date to the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education. [15229]

  Mr. Forth
  Copies of papers submitted jointly by the Department for Education and Employment, the Scottish Office, the Welsh Office and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland were placed in the Library in July 1996, as was subsequent evidence by the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department in November 1996, the Department of Trade and Industry in November 1996 and the Department for Education and Employment earlier this month. It is for the committee of inquiry as an independent body to decide whether or not to make evidence submitted by others publicly available, taking into account any requests for confidentiality.

  University Research
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what representations she has received relating to capital equipment for university research; and if she will make a statement; [15266]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the costs involved in replacing obsolete capital equipment for university research; and if she will make a statement. [15268]

  Mr. Forth
  We have received a number of representations about the cost of updating research equipment from universities and other bodies, including the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Committee of University Chairmen and the Standing Conference of Principals. These representations are reflected in the reports of the joint DfEE—higher education sector working groups submitted to my right hon. Friend and placed in the Library last July. In response to such representations, my right hon. Friend is making available to the Higher Education Funding Council for England additional earmarked funds in both 1996–97 and 1997–98 for research equipment, to be matched with private contributions. In particular, the extra £100 million grant announced at the Budget for the HEFCE in 1997–88 includes £20 million specifically for 266
  research equipment, which is expected to generate matching private funds. The costs of up-dating research equipment are always likely to be high, but the earmarked funds—together with contributions from other funders—represent a significant contribution towards meeting them.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the private finance initiative has met the Government's objectives in respect of capital equipment for university research; and if she will make a statement. [15267]

  Mr. Forth
  Procurement decisions in the higher education sector rest in the hands of independent, autonomous institutions who may use a range of different financial sources to fund capital projects, including those for research equipment. The overall yield from PFI is therefore dependent on the decisions made by those independent institutions.

  Following the joint DfEE-HE sector working group report on PFI in higher education, the HEFCE is currently considering a second round of bids for pathfinder status focusing on equipment.

  Adult Training Courses
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the cessation of funding for adult training courses dependent upon the Further Education Funding Council; and if she will make a statement. [15464]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department has received recently a number of representations on the subject of the funding of further education, including adult education training courses. On behalf of my right hon. Friend, I announced on 5 February arrangements for the future funding of further education, and copies of my letter to all further education colleges have been placed in the Library.

  Skill Shortages
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessments are made of the extent of skill shortages affecting employers. [15611]
  267
  Mr. Paice
  The Department funds an annual survey of employers' recruitment difficulties and monitors similar surveys carried out by others.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Illegal Drugs
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to improve the accuracy of statistics on illegal drug use. [14189]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 11 November 1996,Official Report, column 1.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many immigration detainees were held in(a) United Kingdom prisons by establishment and (b) (i) Campsfield house, (ii) Harmondsworth, (iii) Haslar, (iv) Meadvale Queens building, Heathrow, and (v) Tinsley house, on the nights of 31 January 1996 and 31 January 1997; and if he will make a statement. [15692]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information available is given in the table.

  Persons recorded as being in detention solely under Immigration Act powers, by establishment

  Establishment

  31 January 1996

  31 January 1997

  Prison Service establishment in England and Wales1:

  Haslar

  118

  2129

  Other establishments

  402

  2347

  520

  4692

  Immigration Service detention centres:

  Campsfield house

  197

  195

  Gatwick Meadvale

  29

  42

  Harmondsworth

  91

  90

  Heathrow Queen's building

  14

  15

  Tinsley house

  3—

  134

  1 Corresponding data for Scottish prisons are incomplete and have been excluded.

  2 Figure relates to 31 December 1996.

  3 Not open at the time.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many asylum seekers were detained for a period of more than 48 hours during 1996; [15583]

  (2) what percentage of asylum seekers were detained in (a) 1996 and (b) 1995. [15584]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Reliable information on the historical flow of persons placed into detention, and on the length of such detention, can be obtained only through examination of individual case records. The information requested is therefore available only at disproportionate cost.
  268
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State Home Department how many of the cases of seekers on hunger strike at Her Majesty's Rochester have been brought for independent before a judicial authority. [15600]

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 12 February 1997, the total number of Rochester immigration detainees refusing food was eight, of whom six have sought asylum at some stage.

  It has been open to all of these detainees to seek bail, habeas corpus or judicial review, and four are known to have done so.

  Street Crime (East Staffordshire)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the effect on the level of street crime in east Staffordshire of the introduction of closed circuit television in Burton and Uttoxeter. [15396]

  Mr. Maclean
  The closed circuit television system in Burton has been operational for 16 months. The local police report that it has led to a reduction in auto-related crime of 95 per cent. and to a significant reduction in the number of public order offences. It has also had social benefits in terms of making people feel safer when visiting the town. Details of the effect of the system on crime levels in the wider east Staffordshire area are not available.

  Although the borough of east Staffordshire was awarded a grant in the second Home Office CCTV challenge competition to assist with the installation of CCTV in Uttoxeter, the system has not yet become operational.

  Surveillance Equipment
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers he has to take disciplinary action against a chief constable responsible for the misuse of surveillance equipment; and what steps he has taken in consequence of such misuse within the last eight years. [15438]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no role in disciplinary proceedings except in that he is the appellate authority for all disciplined police officers. Under the Police (Discipline) (Senior Officers) Regulations 1985, the disciplinary authority for senior officers, including chief constables, lies with police authorities. In the Metropolitan police service, the disciplinary authority is the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. We are not aware of any disciplinary action having been taken against a chief constable in respect of alleged misuse of surveillance equipment.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept by(a) Ministers, (b) Home Office officials, (c) the Police Complaints Authority, (d) Her Majesty's inspectors of constabulary and (e) chief police officers about the use of surveillance equipment by chief police officers. [15435]

  Mr. Maclean
  Records on the use of surveillance equipment by the police are not held centrally by Ministers or Home Office officials. Each force maintains its own records and these are available for inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. The Police
  269
  Complaints Authority would not hold any information unless it related to an investigation into alleged misconduct.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Home Office guidelines exist for ensuring that surveillance equipment is not misused by police officers and what is the legal force of such guidelines; when were such guidelines first introduced; what happened prior to the introduction of the guidelines; when were the guidelines first published; how are copies of the guidelines obtained by the public; what modifications have been made since the guidelines were first introduced; and when and for what reason each modification was made. [15437]

  Mr. Maclean
  Intrusive police surveillance operations are presently authorised in accordance with guidelines issued by the Home Office in 1984. These guidelines have no statutory force. Formal guidance was first introduced by the Home Office in 1977 and, prior to 1977, police forces operated under the individual direction of their own chief officers. The 1984 Home Office guidelines were made public in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. Mackay) on 19 December 1984,Official Report, columns 157–58, and a copy was placed in the Library. Copies are available to the public on request from the Home Office. The only modification has been the replacement of the 1977 guidance with the current 1984 guidelines.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Live Animal Transport (MV Cap Afrique)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many bovine animals were imported on 23 January on the MV Cap Afrique; if such animals entered and were rested at an EU-approved collection centre operating in full compliance with European law; and what was the age of such animals. [14607]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: Forty bovine animals were imported on 23 January on the MV Cap Afrique. They were between 20 and 30 months of age. The animals were rested before being transported to their final destination. The resting place used is also an EC-approved collection centre but it was not operating as such when the animals were rested there.

  BSE
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when specified bovine material was banned in(a) the Irish Republic and (b) each other EU country. [14770]

  Mrs. Browning
  The three other EU member states which have reported cases of BSE in native-born animals—France, Irish Republic and Portugal—all have some form of specified bovine material controls on cattle at slaughter. We understand the following controls apply.

  The Irish Republic introduced legislation on 22 April 1996, prohibiting the use, sale or export of specified bovine material—defined as the bones of the skull, brain, eyes, spinal cord, spleen, thymus, tonsils and intestines
  270
  and mechanically recovered meat obtained from bovine vertebrae excluding the tail—for human consumption unless licensed by the Minister.

  In France legislation came into force on 28 June 1996 requiring the removal at the abattoir and incineration of:
  (a) the brains, spinal cord and eyes of all bovines over six months; and
  (b) the thymus, tonsils, spleen and intestines of cattle born or imported into France before 31 July 1991.

  In addition, legislation introduced in September 1996, amending the June order, prohibits the sale of brains, spinal cord and eyes of bovines over six months.

  In Portugal, legislation came into force on 28 January 1997 banning the use of certain bovine materials—including brains, spinal cord, eyes, tonsils, spleen, thymus and intestines—from any cattle of any age in the preparation of medical, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic products and in food.

  No other member states have SBM controls on domestic production. The Government continue to press the Commission on this matter.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee to complete its investigation of possible links between the use of organophosphate warble fly treatments and the spread of bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement. [14823]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 7 February 1997]: The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is not currently investigating the use of organophosphate pesticides and a possible link with BSE. The theory that BSE could have been caused by the exposure of cattle to OP pesticides as a treatment for warble fly infestation has already been considered in detail by scientists in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health and the Medical Research Council. A report from SEAC entitled "Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies—A Summary of Present knowledge and Research" (HMSO ISBN 0 11 242 9874) published in 1995 and available in the Library of the House, reviewed a number of alternative theories of BSE, including the OP theory, concluded that none justified extending the current research programme to investigate them further at that stage. The report notes that the original epidemiological investigation considered any possible association between the use of agricultural chemicals, including OP insecticides, and the occurrence of BSE. None was found.

  I am aware of the recent press reports concerning new research carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry on behalf of Mr. Purdey into the use of phosmet and its possible association with BSE. Mr. Purdey has yet to produce any new scientific evidence to support his hypothesis or to cause us to question ours that BSE is of feed origin; a hypothesis that has been established form objective scientific research.
  271
  SEAC will be looking again at the possibility of a link between BSE and the use of certain OPs. Mr. Purdey has been asked to prepare a paper for presentation at a forthcoming SEAC meeting to define the latest theory on organophosphates and a possible link with BSE.

  Turkeys
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps(a) to reduce the incidence of degenerative hip disorders and leg disorders in adult male turkeys, (b) to bring beak-trimming of turkeys to an end and (c) to secure an end to the selective breeding practices in respect of turkeys; and if he will make a statement. [15498]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government endorse the Farm Animal Welfare Council's view that high levels of leg disorders in adult male turkeys should be avoided by the continued application of careful selection and good management practices.

  The Government also support the Farm Animal Welfare Council's view that the long-term aim should be to end the need for beak-trimming. We are funding research into improved rearing methods which will assist in its achievement.

  I cannot agree with the implied suggestion that selective breeding is an inherently undesirable practice.

  I refer the hon. Member to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of turkeys, and to the Government's response to it, for a fuller assessment of turkey welfare and account of the steps the Government are taking to improve it.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Flander's Folly, Craven Arms
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what powers his Department has in respect of preventing Flander's Folly, Craven Arms from falling into disrepair and dilapidation. [15357]

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for the upkeep of a historic building rests primarily with its owner. In the case of a historic building which has deteriorated to the extent that its preservation may be at risk, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks to the relevant local authority to take statutory action. Local authorities are empowered to serve notice on the owner of a listed building specifying works necessary for its preservation and, in the event of the owner failing to take action, to begin compulsory purchase proceedings. Authorities also have power to carry out works which are urgently necessary for preservation of an unoccupied listed building and recover the costs from the owner.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has similar statutory powers to those of local authorities. Her policy is to treat them as reserve powers, for use only in exceptional cases. On the information available, Flander's Folly, which is listed grade II, seems unlikely to be such a case.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by Benefits Agency region the number of pensioners who also claim income support; and if he will make a statement. [14999]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Archy Kirkwood, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list by Benefit Agency region the number of pensioners who also claim income support; and if he will make a statement.
  The latest information available is shown on the attached table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of pensioners in receipt of Income Support (IS) by Benefits Agency (BA) Area Directorate

  BA Area Directorate (AD)

  Number of pensioners in receipt of IS as at the end of November 1996

  AD 1 East London and Anglia

  146,954

  AD 2 Chilterns

  129,154

  AD 3 London South

  201,698

  AD 4 West Country

  128,811

  AD 5 Mercia

  135,936

  AD 6 West Midlands

  145,958

  AD 7 Wales

  91,729

  AD 8 North West Coast

  118,553

  AD 9 Greater Manchester

  111,046

  AD 10 Yorkshire

  149,507

  AD 11 Tyne and Tees

  89,541

  AD 12 West of Scotland

  75,212

  AD 13 East of Scotland

  88,823

  The data have been provided by the Benefits Agency's Central Data Unit and is subject to amendment.

  The data relates to customers in receipt of a pensioner premium because the customer or partner is aged not less than 60.

  Jobseeker's Allowance (Devon)
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients there are of the jobseeker's allowance in(a) north Devon and (b) Devon; and how many of these are aged under 25 years. [15092]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Nick Harvey, dated 12 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many recipients there are of the Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA) in (a) North Devon; and (b) Devon; and how many of these are aged under 25 years.
  The information is not available in the format requested. JSA payments are currently made via two computer systems, the JSA computer system (JSAPS) and the National Unemployment Benefit computer system (NUBS). It is expected that all JSA payments will be transferred on to and paid by the JSAPS by December 1997.
  Statistics are not kept by customer age group.

  273
  The available information is in the attached table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of recipients of jobseeker's allowance (JSA)

  JSA paid via the National Unemployment Benefit computer system (NUBS) during week commencing 24 January 1997 and 31 January 1997

  JSA paid via the JSA computer system as at the end of November 1996

  North Devon1

  2,725

  3,031

  Devon2

  19,487

  4,977

  1 North Devon includes: the Benefits Agency (BA) offices of Barnstaple, Exeter and Newton Abbot; and the Employment Service (ES) offices of Bude, Barnstaple, Bideford and Ilfracombe.

  2 Devon includes: the BA offices of Barnstaple, Exeter, Newton Abbot, Plymouth Crownhill, Plymouth Durley, Saltash and Torbay; and the ES offices of Bude, Barnstaple, Bideford, Ilfracombe, Axminster, Exeter, Exmouth, Honiton, Okehampton, Sidmouth, Tiverton, Brixham, Newton Abbot, Paignton, Teignmouth, Torquay, Totnes, Buckwell, Devonport, Hoegate, Plympton, Saltash and Tavistock.

  The BA information has been provided by the Central Data Unit. The NUBS information has been provided by the South West Region's Employment Intelligence Unit. Data is subject to amendment.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the revenue which will be generated by the removal of the cap on national insurance contributions. [14173]

  Mr. Heald
  If the upper earnings limit on employees' class 1 contributions and the upper profits limit on self-employed class 4 contributions were removed, it is estimated that an extra £3.75 billion would be collected in a full year.1

  Note:
  1 The estimate is based on the assumption that the current 10 per cent. class 1 contribution rate would apply to earnings above the upper earnings limit and that the current 6 per cent. class 4 contribution rate would apply to profits above the upper profits limit.

PRIME MINISTER

  Homelessness (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet representatives of London's homeless. [14167]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing is in regular contact with the voluntary agencies which co-operate with the Government in the rough sleepers initiative. I am kept closely informed on this matter.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14312]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 13 February. [14311]
  274
  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Secretary of State for Health
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister what responsibilities in respect of the Government's policies towards constitutional matters he has given to the Secretary of State for Health. [15503]

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers have collective responsibility for all the Government's policies.

  NHS (Performance)
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the performance of the NHS in the United Kingdom(a) since 1979 and (b) between 1974 and 1979. [16142]

  The Prime Minster
  Since 1979, the Government have established a record of significant and sustained improvements to the funding and management of the national health service, to patient services and to the pay and conditions of service of professional staff. For example:spending on the NHS has increased by 75 per cent. in real terms. Between 1974 and 1979, in real terms spending increased by 17 per cent.
  since 1979, capital spending has increased by 66 per cent. in real terms. Between 1974 and 1979, there was real-terms cut of 28 per cent.
  the NHS is now one of the most efficient health services in the world. It treats 25 per cent. more patients per pound, at constant prices, than it did in 1979
  since 1979, the percentage of gross domestic product spent on health in the United Kingdom has risen from 4.7 per cent. to 5.8 per cent. Between 1974 and 1979, the percentage of GDP spent on health in the United Kingdom fell from 4.8 per cent to 4.7 per cent.
  I regret that there was an error in my oral reply of 11 February, Official Report, column 137. The correct figure for general and acute activity between 1974 and 1979, is an increase of 7 per cent. Since 1979, general and acute patient activity has increased by 80 per cent.
  the number of doctors in England has increased by 23,000 since 1979
  the number of qualified nurses and midwives has increased by around 55,000 since 1979
  the number of dentists has increased by more than 6,000 since 1978
  doctors' and dentists' average earnings have gone up by 74 per cent. in real terms compared with 0.1 per cent. between 1974 and 1979
  nurses' average earnings have increased by 71 per cent. in real terms since 1979. Between 1974 and 1979, nurses' average earnings decreased by 3 per cent.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Recorders (Members of Parliament)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many hon. Members
  275
  sit as a recorder or part-time recorder; what are the conditions under which they preside; and what is their remuneration. [15578]

  Mr. Streeter
  There are three hon. Members who sit as recorders; there are none who sit as assistant recorders. I have deposited a copy of the "Terms and Conditions of Service of Recorders" in the House of Commons Library. By custom, Members who are recorders do not either sit in their constituencies or hear cases remitted from their constituencies. As from 1 December 1996, recorders receive a fee of £366 for each day they sit.

  Land Registration Act 1925
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 January,Official Report, column 511, on the joint working party on reform of the Land Registration Act 1925, if he will list the dates on which the joint working party has met. [15450]

  Mr. Streeter
  The joint working party has met on seven occasions, as follows: 27 April 1994, 29 September 1994, 11 November 1994, 16 February 1995, 2 July 1996, 23 July 1996 and 23 October 1996.

  Mr. Colin Balchin
  Sir Julian Critchley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what factors underlie the delay in paying costs to Mr. Colin Balchin following his acquittal at Kingston crown court, case number TO960656. [14355]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Sir Julian Critchley, dated 13 February 1997
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the factors underlying the delay in paying costs to Colin Balchin.
  As Mr. Balchin's claim exceeds £4000 it was sent to the Central Taxing Team (CTT) for taxation. The CTT aims to complete taxation within 3 months of receipt of all of the claims in a case. Mr. Balchin's claim was ready for taxation in early September but was not taxed until 31 January. The delay was caused by a 65 per cent. increase in the work of the CTT over the past year which has created a backlog. Efforts are being made to tackle this backlog and the arrears have been reduced since September.

  Departmental Policies (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the effect of his Department's policies on the residents of Bournemouth since 1992, with special reference to the effects of changes in the resources provided in real terms. [14944]

  Mr. Streeter
  On 2 December 1996, the new Bournemouth combined court centre was opened. The court provides improved facilities for both court users and staff in Bournemouth. This includes the Probate Service, which has previously used accommodation at the magistrates courts.
  276
  More broadly, while some of the policies of the Lord Chancellor's Department may have a particular effect in certain localities, they are generally designed to benefit the population at large.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Users Council for Northern Ireland
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many members of the Post Office Users Council for Northern Ireland there are; how many of these are perceived to be from the Protestant community; and how many are members of(a) the Ulster Unionist party, (b) the Democratic Unionist party, (c) the Social and Democratic Labour Party and (d) the Alliance Party. [14687]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There are currently six members of the Post Office Users Council for Northern Ireland, including the chairman. Information is not available on either their political or their religious affiliations.

  Garden Birds (Export)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number and type of British garden birds exported in each year since 1990 by(a) numbers, (b) species and (c) countries of destination. [15579]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is not available from the United Kingdom overseas trade statistics because the system under which trade is recorded does not separately identify exports of garden birds.

  Coal Industry
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent discussions(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the coal industry regarding its future; and if he will make a statement. [15880]

  Mr. Page
  My officials and I are frequently in contact with those engaged in the coal industry on a wide range of issues relating to its current performance and future prospects.

  North-West Konver Working Group
  Mr. Dover
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members of the North-west Konver working group. [15612]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Members of the North-west Konver working group are as follows:

  Organisation

  Chair

  Chris France

  Acting Director Europe, Government Office North West

  Secretariat

  Alex Findlay, Carole Lythall, Rob Shipway, Mike Warburton, Vernon Clarke

  277

  Organisation

  Members

  Mark Gallagher

  European Commission

  Pauline Herbert

  Cumbria Training and Enterprise Council

  Sheila Powell

  Lancashire County Council

  Colin Campbell

  Chorley Borough Council

  Tracey Morrison

  Fylde Borough Council

  Eric Hookway

  Cumbria County Council

  Tom Campbell

  Barrow-in-Furness Borough Council

  David Ingham

  Carlisle Borough Council

  Mark Ellison

  Hyndburn Borough Council

  Mike Dowden

  Lancashire Enterprises Ltd. (LEL)

  Roy Smith

  LEL

  Dr. Malcolm Green

  British Aerospace Defence Ltd.

  Harry Knowles

  Furness Enterprise Ltd.

  Michael Damms

  East Lanes Chamber of Commerce

  Roger Munns

  Consortium of East Lanes Colleges

  Jenny Booth

  DfEE ESF Unit

  Marcelle Janssis

  DTI European Cohesion Division

  Iraq (Trade Restrictions)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance has been given by his Department to British companies attending trade fairs in Iraq in 1996. [10748]

  Mr. Nelson
  The DTI offered no support for British companies to attend trade fairs in Iraq in 1996 under the trade fairs support scheme. However, following the limited lifting of UN sanctions in 1996, four licences were issued to a UK exhibition organiser to assist British companies participating in exhibitions covering the water industry, medical equipment, oil and gas and an international trade fair.

  Prohibited Weapons (Export)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to monitor separately the export of those weapons prohibited under the term of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. [14111]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department does not monitor the subsequent export of licensed goods.

  Privatised Utilities (Information)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what redress is available to shareholders who believe that information given by them to a utility has been revealed without their consent; and if he will make a statement; [15346]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which a utility may divulge information given by shareholders for one purpose to a third party to be used for another purpose. [15344]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The privatised utilities are subject to the same laws concerning data protection as any publicly quoted company. Data protection legislation is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I understand from him that the use 278
  of computerised personal data, including its disclosure, is governed by the Data Protection Act 1984. Responsibility for supervising and enforcing the Act lies with the Data Protection Registrar, to whom a complaint may be made if there is thought to have been a breach of the law.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) pursuant to his answer of 7 November,Official Report, column 277, when he expects the completion of the criteria for potential lenders to the loan guarantee scheme; [13000]

  (2) when he expects new specialist lenders in the technology sector to be added to the loan guarantee scheme's list of approved lenders. [12956]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 27 January 1997]: Following detailed consideration, the criteria for new lenders for the loan guarantee scheme have been agreed. We will shortly be writing to potential lenders seeking information, particularly about their experience and expertise in lending within the technology sector.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contracts his Department has had with consultants; and what has been the total cost in each year since 1979–80. [15370]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 11 February 1997]: The number of external consultancy contracts let centrally by the Department of Trade and Industry, 1995–96, plus value—including contract amendments—is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  Value (£)

  1995

  81

  5,600,000

  1996

  45

  1,368,000

  For information on contracts let centrally in 1990 to 1994, I refer to the answer given to the hon. Member on 18 July 1995, Official Report, column 1219.

  Details for the years 1979 to 1989 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The information given does not include contracts let by the Department's executive agencies, and I have asked the chief executives to reply separately to this question.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 13 February 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the number of contracts The Insolvency Service has let to consultants and their total cost in each year since 1979–80.
  Prior to 1994 contracts for consultants were let by the Department of Trade and Industry, and information relating to 1992 and 1993 was provided in the answer to Parliamentary Question No.146 put down by Ms Diane Abbott MP and dated 25 January 1994 (Columns 211–217). Information on consultancies prior to 1992 can only now be provided at disproportionate cots.

  279
  Details of those consultants The Service has engaged in each financial year since 1 April 1993, together with their costs, are:

  Year

  Organisation

  Value (including VAT)£

  1993–94

  KPMG

  45,000

  Ernst and Young

  107,800

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  76,670

  1994–95

  Price Waterhouse

  124,800

  BDO Stoy Hayward

  94,154

  Coopers and Lybrand

  60,000

  Bond Pearce

  10,100

  Ernst and Young

  14,776

  Shreeveport

  129,000

  1995–96

  Shreeveport

  460,492

  Bevan Ashford

  35,653

  Bond Pearce

  6,392

  Ernst and Young

  7,284

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 13 February 1997:

  EXTERNAL CONSULTANTS ENGAGED BY THE RADIOCOMMUNICATIONS AGENCY

  Mr Taylor, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs, has asked me to reply on behalf of the Radiocommunications Agency to your Parliamentary Question about external consultants.

  The number, and cost, of contracts let by the Agency to external consultants since it assumed responsibility from the DTI for doing so is as follows:

  FY 94/95 six contracts valued at £238k;

  FY 95/96 eight contracts valued at £256k;

  FY 96/97 six contracts (to date) valued at £380k.

  Letter from John Holden to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 13 February 1997:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade on consultancy contracts. I am replying as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.
  In my letter in response to your similar question tabled on 14 October 1996, I set out the cost, at 1996/97 prices, of consultancy services provided to Companies House since 1992/93. The amounts in cash terms (ie money of the day) were as follows:

  Year

  £ thousand

  1992–93

  293

  1993–94

  172

  1994–95

  122

  1995–96

  199

  I regret that the information for earlier years can only be provided at disproportionate cost, since 1992/93 was the first full year for which Companies House operated its own free standing accounting systems. Companies House's use of consultants is mainly for specialist IT design and implementation and structural building matters. The expenditure is incurred with varying numbers of diverse specialists and the number of contracts with consultants (as opposed to the actual expenditure itself) cannot be determined with any accuracy within the time available. For example, in 1995/96 alone, some 90 payments are recorded on the accounting system. The overall pattern is one of a large number of relatively small payments, and it would take disproportionate effort to allocate each of these to particular contracts over the period.
  280
  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 13 February 1997:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory (NWML) to your question about the contracts his Department has had with consultants.
  1990/91 is the first year for which separate figures for NWML are available and the figures for the years since then are as follows:

  Year

  Number of contracts

  Total cost (£000)

  1990–91

  0

  —

  1991–92

  0

  —

  1992–93

  1

  7

  1993–94

  1

  20

  1994–95

  0

  —

  1995–96

  1

  4

  1996–97

  0

  —

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 13 February 1997:
  I am replying for the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about contracts placed with consultants.
  The Patent Office has let 27 such contracts since 1990. The cost in each year has been 1990 £3,500, 1991 £4,700, 1992 £45,000, 1993 £46,000, 1994 £80,000, 1995 £138,000 and 1996 £99,700. I am unable to provide information for years earlier than 1990 without disproportionate cost.

  Local Development Agencies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what guidelines his Department issues to local development agencies in respect of them approaching companies in other areas to propose expansions or relocations away from their home areas; and what proposals he has to change these guidelines; [15645]

  (2) what rules govern the operation of local development agencies. [15655]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  My Department does not provide grants or operate guidelines to local development agencies for domestic promotional activities. It does give grants to regional development organisations in England, whose task is to assist the Invest in Britain Bureau in promoting the benefits of the UK and their regions as a location for inward investment. Where investment grants may be available under the regional selective assistance scheme, there are guidelines which rule out support simply for jobs being transferred from one part of the country to another. Assistance would be available only to eligible expansion projects which led to a net national benefit.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Standards Agency
  Sir John Cope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his plans for establishing the Driving Standards Agency as a trading fund. [16140]

  Sir George Young
  I have today laid an order in draft which, subject to the approval of the House, will establish the Driving Standards Agency as a trading fund from 8 am on 1 April 1997.
  281
  Although driving test fees are set at a level to cover DSA's full costs, the agency currently surrenders all fee receipts to the Consolidated Fund and its expenditure is financed from my Department's vote. As a trading fund, the test fee receipts will become DSA's income.

  Driving test candidates pay test fees several weeks in advance of taking the driving test. The DSA has estimated that it will be liable to conduct £7 million worth of driving tests from 1 April 1997 for which it will have surrendered test fee receipts to the Consolidated Fund. In order to establish the DSA as a trading fund with sufficient assets to cover its liabilities, some £7 million—equivalent to the fees paid in advance and surrendered to the Consolidated Fund—will be paid to the DSA on 1 April before the trading fund order takes effect.

  Parliamentary approval of this payment will be sought in the main estimates for 1997–98 for the Department of Transport vote, class 5, vote 6. Pending that approval, the necessary sum will be met by a repayable advance from the Contingencies Fund.

  London Underground (Blood Alcohol Tests)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with London Transport Underground management the introduction of the same system of random blood and alcohol level testing of staff members with safety responsibilities as is applied to railway company services. [15465]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for London Underground, which I understand already has a very comprehensive system of alcohol and drugs testing for employees with safety responsibilities, using breath and urine tests. This includes screening of all new employees as well as a programme of unannounced tests on a selected sample of safety critical staff.

  Thames Bridge Construction
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussion his Department has had with Kvaerner about the construction of a Thames bridge to be funded by continuing the tolling on the existing Dartford-Thurrock crossing; and if he will make a statement. [15687]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on 10 February,Official Report, column 62.

  Aircraft Safety
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many British-based companies operate(a) passenger aircraft more than (i) 20 years old and (ii) 25 years old and (b) freight aircraft more than (i) 20 years old and (ii) 25 years old; and if he will make a statement; [15272]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the safety record of aircraft operated by British-based companies. [15224]

  Mr. Bowis
  As of 10 February 1997, there were only four aircraft on the UK register of civil aircraft holding current transport category (cargo) certificates of airworthiness. Aircraft with transport category (passenger) certificates of airworthiness may be operated for any 282
  purpose, including the carriage of cargo; for this reason, the table does not distinguish between passenger and freight aircraft.

  Aircraft over 5,700 kg maximum permitted take-off weight with a current transport category certificate of airworthiness

  Construction date

  Number of aircraft

  Number of owners

  1972–76 inclusive

  37

  24

  Pre 1972

  72

  20

  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the safety regulation of UK registered aircraft. The CAA has comprehensive maintenance requirements which ensure the continued airworthiness of all aircraft and especially older aircraft which may need more intensive maintenance. The CAA has played a major role in identifying maintenance requirements for ageing aircraft and in helping to ensure that these steps are implemented internationally. The very high standards of safety which all UK operators must attain have resulted in a very good aviation safety record.

  Railways (Targets)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received in respect of setting targets for(a) increasing rail freight and (b) levels of investment in the railways; and if he will make a statement. [15342]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on the export of military equipment to Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [15203]

  Mr. David Davis
  We fully support United Nations Security Council resolution 1062 which expresses"serious concern about the modernisation and upgrading of military forces"
  on Cyprus. We will therefore grant licences for the export of equipment only to the military forces of either side on the island of Cyprus which we are satisfied does not fall within the following categories as defined by the EU common embargo list:

  (a) Weapons designed to kill and their ammunition; or

  (b) Weapons platforms; or

  (c) Ancillary equipment which is specifically designed for use in conjunction with either (a) or (b).

  Within this context, export licence applications will continue to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  Note: Among other items category (a) includes guns, bombs, torpedoes, rockets, missiles, fire control systems and tanks. Category (b) includes armed and armoured vehicles or vehicles with fitted mountings for arms, vessels of war, aircraft and helicopters.

HEALTH

  Nerve Gas Attack (Japan)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in what ways the Department of Health is intending to review and assess the clinical data of the long-term health effects arising out of the nerve gas attacks on the Tokyo subway and Matsumato in 1994 and 1995. [14417]

  Mr. Horam
  Department of Health officials have examined available published papers on the health outcomes of the incidents in Tokyo and Matsumoto, and will continue to do so as further work appears.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 5 December,Official Report, column 758, what was the title of the conference attended by the official of his Department in July 1995; who were the organisers of this conference and where this conference was held; when the small working group is expected to finalise the guidance on managing the effects on health of incidents where chemicals have been deliberately released; and if this guidance will be made public. [14416]

  Mr. Horam
  The conference in question was the seminar on responding to the consequences of chemical and biological terrorism. It was sponsored by the United States public health service's office of emergency preparedness and was held at the uniformed services university of health sciences, Bethesda, Maryland. The small working group is aiming to complete its work by the end of July. The intention is to distribute the guidance to the national poisons information service and those who need it in the national health service, including public health and accident and emergency departments.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [14799]

  Mr. Horam
  Postcode areas are used in the analysis of data collected centrally in order to identify the health authority or local authority to which the data relates. The national health service uses a patient's postcode to identify which health authority is responsible for funding health care. Different data sets are reviewed on a regular basis, when the business need for the information is fully considered.

  Neither the Department of Health nor any of its agencies use postcode data in formulae for the distribution of grants or awards.

  Mefloquine

  Proguanil and Chloroquine

  Other

  None

  Unknown

  Total

  1987

  0

  61

  166

  304

  165

  696

  1988

  0

  138

  256

  407

  224

  1,025

  1989

  1

  144

  251

  378

  296

  1,070

  1990

  1

  162

  169

  452

  275

  1,059

  GP Fundholder Appeals
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of GP fundholder appeals to the Department of Health in protest against the budgets allocated to them by health authorities between 1990–91 and 1995–96 were upheld. [14846]

  Mr. Malone
  Until April 1996, regional health authorities were statutorily responsible for determining general practitioner fundholder budgets. There was no formal right of appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State against these budgets.

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research trials for the licensing of the drug Lariam were carried out on(a) women, other than service personnel, and (b) tourists going to countries subject to malaria, before the licensing of the drug in 1990; and what trials have been conducted subsequently, indicating the dates. [15195]

  Mr. Malone
  As for other medicines, information from research trials of Lariam (mefloquine) held by the Licensing Authority is confidential. Section 118 of the Medicines Act 1971 precludes the disclosure of confidential information received in pursuance of the Act.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what factors underlie the delay in publication of the Malaria Advisory Committee's new guidelines for the use of Lariam; what is the revised date of publication; and if he will make a statement. [15196]

  Mr. Horam
  The United Kingdom malaria guidelines are prepared by an informal group of experts. This group has no statutory status. We have been advised that this group of experts is preparing new guidelines. The consultation process is taking longer than anticipated. Publication will take place as soon as possible following finalisation of the consultation process.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has evaluated concerning the number and proportion of patients prescribed Lariam who visit overseas countries where malaria is prevalent and subsequently(a) contract malaria and (b) incur (i) severe and (ii) non-severe side-effects of the drug. [15192]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of cases of falciparum malaria reported in the United Kingdom since 1987 are given in the table. The table is subdivided to give the chemoprophylactic regimen stated in each case but information on compliance with this regimen is not available, nor is information on the number of people taking each different malaria prophylactic regimen.

  Cases of falciparum malaria—excluding mixed infections—by stated chemoprophylactic regimen, reported in the United Kingdom to the Malaria Reference Laboratory:

  285

  Mefloquine

  Proguanil and Chloroquine

  Other

  None

  Unknown

  Total

  1991

  1

  265

  186

  529

  287

  1,268

  1992

  4

  168

  102

  422

  239

  935

  1993

  3

  180

  129

  474

  262

  1,048

  1994

  16

  114

  109

  541

  398

  1,178

  1995

  28

  96

  97

  492

  399

  1,112

  19961

  35

  136

  119

  514

  464

  1,268

  1 1996 data are provisional.

  There are several possible reasons for the changes in the number of cases of malaria occurring with the different prophylaxis regimens. The number of cases may rise either because of increasing resistance by the malaria parasites or because more of the drug is being used and they may fall because of better compliance or because the drug is used by fewer people.

  As for any licensed medicine, the Medicines Control Agency evaluates reports of suspected adverse drug reactions associated with Lariam (mefloquine) from the yellow card reporting scheme. However, often full details of the degree of the severity of side effects are not reported. In addition, worldwide information on adverse drug reactions from published literature, post-marketing studies and safety reports provided by the manufacturer are also evaluated, in order to ensure that the benefits of mefloquine in treating and preventing malaria outweigh the risks of developing an adverse drug reaction.

  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the scientific reports, with dates of publication, which provided the basis for granting a licence for the sale of Lariam in 1990 and (b) the scientific reports published since 1990 which are relevant to that licence. [15194]

  Mr. Malone
  The decision to grant a licence for Lariam was based on all the available evidence, published or unpublished and whether or not favourable to the application. The data submitted by the company was assessed by the Medicines Control Agency, which sought the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines, the Government's independent safety experts. The CSM were satisfied as to the safety, quality and efficacy of the product, the sole criteria under the Medicines Act 1968.

  A large number of scientific reports are published relating to authorised medicines. As for all medicines, the Medicines Control Agency continuously reviews the published scientific reports in conjunction with other evidence that becomes available to ensure that the benefits of use outweigh the risk of developing adverse reactions.

  Iron Deficiency (Children)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding iron deficiency in children; and if he will make a statement. [14996]

  Mr. Horam
  We have received one letter since the beginning of the year. The prevalence of anaemia, which is the clinical manifestation of iron deficiency, has been monitored among young children by the "National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) of Children Aged 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years" published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 286
  1995. Seven per cent. of males and 9 per cent. of females aged one and a half to four and a half years had haemoglobin levels less than 11g/dl.

  On 2 January 1997, fieldwork for the NDNS of young people aged four to 18 years started. This will include measures of iron status. The joint Department of Health-Medical Research Council nutrition research programme will be funding research to help develop better measures of iron status.

  The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy has agreed to convene an expert group to assess the iron status of the population. The group has not yet started work.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists appeared before an NHS tribunal on the grounds that they breached their terms of service in each year since 1990. [15071]

  Mr. Malone
  Information is not collected centrally. However, details of the total number of cases, for all practitioners, is published in the annual report of the Council on Tribunals, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 767, how many deaths from food poisoning occurred in 1996 by category. [15136]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of(a) dysentery and (b) food poisoning there were in (i) York, (ii) North Yorkshire, (iii) Yorkshire and (iv) England in 1996. [15198]

  Mr. Horam
  Data on the number of cases of food poisoning and dysentery notified to the Office for National Statistics for 1996 are not yet available. Provisional figures for the first two quarters of 1996 have been published in "Quarterly Monitor (Series MB2) for Infectious Diseases" and copies are available in the Library. Provisional figures for the third quarter have been placed in the Library.

  Eye Disease Treatment
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he has issued on the availability of the Excimer process to improve vision and laser eye surgery to treat eye disease in the NHS. [15433]
  287
  Mr. Horam
  It is for health authorities to decide what services should be made available to their residents following an assessment of their needs.

  Pepper Gas
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment of the health effects of pepper gas and the possible carcinogenic effects of capsaicin, has been made by the senior medical officers of the Department of Health since 1991; how many published and internal papers have been written by the Department's medical officers on this subject since 1991; and what are the current security classifications of these reports. [14385]

  Mr. Horam
  A single report on pepper spray was prepared by the Department of Health in 1993. This is unclassified. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.

  Skin Diseases
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) were treated for and (b) died

  Unit

  Allocation 1996–97 £000

  New Contract start date

  End date

  Dartington Social Research Unit (University of Bristol)

  565

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Personal Social Services Research Unit (University of Kent)

  1,230

  April 1996

  March 2001

  Cancer Screening Evaluation Unit (University of London)

  429

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Clinical Operational Research Unit (University of London)

  210

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Social Medicine and Health Services Research Unit (University of London)

  478

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Thomas Coram Research Unit (University of London)

  702

  January 1996

  December 2000

  National Primary Care Research and Development Centre (University of Manchester)

  1,550

  January 1995

  December 2004

  National Institute for Social Work (University of Manchester)

  417

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Childhood Cancer Research Group (University of Oxford)

  372

  April 1996

  December 2000

  National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit (University of Oxford)

  728

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Medical Care Research Unit (University of Sheffield)

  333

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Centre for Health Economics (University of York)

  338

  August 1996

  July 2001

  Social Policy Research Unit (University of York)

  417

  January 1996

  December 2000

  Programmes of work will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the funding allocated by his Department for research into skin diseases for each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15270]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health policy research programme has provided funding for research on skin cancer only in each of the last five years as follows:

  Years

  £000

  1992–93

  0

  1993–94

  31

  1994–95

  84

  1995–96

  75

  1996–97

  339

  1997–981

  464

  1 Estimate.

  288
  from (i) skin cancer and (ii) other skin-related ailments in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15335]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of people treated for skin cancer is not available. Data on deaths certified as due to malignant melanoma of the skin (ICD* 172) and other skin cancer (ICD*173), as well as deaths from non-cancerous skin diseases (ICD*680–709), can be found in table 2 of the Office for National Statistics annual publication "Mortality statistics: cause", series DH2, numbers 18 and 19 (for 1991 and 1992) and in tables 3 and 4 of "Mortality statistics: cause" 1993 (revised) and 1994, series DH2, number 21. Copies are available in the Library.

  Research Units
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total funding which each of the research units, funded by his Department, will receive from his Department in 1996–97; and if he will place a copy of each unit's programme of work in the Library and give the start and end dates of each unit's new contract. [15445]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is in the table.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of registered mentally handicapped people in community care in each council area in England; and if he will make a statement. [15319]

  Mr. Burns
  Information is not collected centrally on the number of registered people with learning disabilities—mental handicap—in community care in each council area. The prevalence of severe learning disability in England is estimated as being in the order of three to four per 1,000 members of the general population. The majority live in the community and will receive varying levels of support from the statutory authorities.

  Skin Ailments
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the funding allocated for research into psoriasis for each of the last five years for which figures are available, and if he will make a statement. [15269]
  289
  Mr. Horam
  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the Department of Trade and Industry. In 1995–96, the MRC gave a project grant of £30,000 to Glasgow university for its "Molecular Genetic Analysis of Familial Psoriasis" project.

  The MRC is an independent body deciding what research to support on its own expert judgment. The council is always willing to consider soundly based scientific proposals in competition with other applications.

  The national health service research and development health technology assessment programme has recently issued a call for proposals for a systematic review of different treatments for severe psoriasis.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by health authority area the number of patients treated for skin ailments in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [15334]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health does not collect figures on the numbers of patients treated for a condition or range of conditions. Figures are collected on the number of finished consultant episodes by specific medical condition. These are available from the annual hospital episode statistics published by the Department of Health, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Sheffield Health Authority
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money was allocated to Sheffield health authority in(a) 1979 and (b) 1996–97. [15340]

  Mr. Horam
  The cash limit for Sheffield area health authority in 1979–80 is not directly comparable with that for Sheffield health authority in 1996–97 due to the reorganisation of the national health service. The final

  Whole-time equivalent number of staff in post at 30 September

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Nursing and Midwifery Staff1 Clwyd:

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  1,537

  1,523

  1,415

  1,446

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  870

  881

  893

  932

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  837

  861

  887

  921

  Clwyd Health Authority

  3,174

  3,270

  3,347

  83

  84

  65

  —

  North Wales Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  Powys:

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  1,009

  995

  914

  944

  Powys Health Authority

  1,059

  1,084

  1,044

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Hospital Medical Staff2Clwyd:

  Clwydian Community Care NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  40

  44

  42

  48

  Glan Clwyd Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  150

  160

  170

  165

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  140

  141

  146

  154

  Clwyd Health Authority

  284

  291

  306

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys:

  Powys Healthcare NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  32

  33

  32

  37

  Powys Health Authority

  32

  29

  33

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1 Excluding pre-registration learners.

  2 Data for 1996 is provisional.

  290
  cash limit for Sheffield area health authority in 1979–80 was £79.177 million. The current cash limit for Sheffield health authority in 1996–97 is £367.130 million.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many junior doctors in England are routinely working hours above those set out in the "new deal". [15907]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 24 January 1996, columns 767–68.

  Blood
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much blood from the national transfusion service was sold to the private sector in 1995 and 1996. [15502]

  Mr. Horam
  Blood itself is never sold, although a handling charge is made to hospitals, whether private or national health service, to cover the costs of collecting, testing, processing and delivery blood. Information about the amount of blood supplied to the private sector is not available centrally.

WALES

  Health Service Staff
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) doctors and (b) nurses were employed in NHS hospitals in (i) Clwyd and (ii) Powys in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [14890]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is given in the following table. Data for 1990 to 1992 are available only for each former health authority area as a whole while data for later years are shown by individual NHS trusts within the authority boundary. The small number of nursing and midwifery staff employed by North Wales health authority cannot be split into the former Clwyd and Gwynedd authorities. As information for nursing staff working in hospitals is not available separately, total nursing and midwifery staff numbers are given.

  Salmon
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of reports prepared by(a) the National Rivers Authority and (b) the Environment Agency on the impact of drift net fishing off the west coast of Ireland on the salmon population in Wales. [15133]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Reports by the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency on the impact of the Irish drift net fishery on salmon stocks in Welsh and English rivers form part of the assessment work being carried out by a joint working party made up of Government fisheries scientists, the Environment Agency and the Irish Department of the Marine. This group is expected to report before the end of the year.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received in respect of the impact of driftnet fishing in the Irish Sea on the number of salmon returning to Welsh rivers; and if he will make a statement. [15135]

  Mr. Evans
  In the period since June 1995, several representations have been received from Welsh salmon fishery organisations and other interested bodies about the impact of the Irish driftnet fishery on salmon in Welsh and English rivers.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact on Welsh rivers of drift netting in the Irish sea. [15066]

  Mr. Evans
  Recent reports indicate that the Irish driftnet fishery does exploit salmon originating from some rivers in Wales and England. The Irish Government have implemented some measures intended to reduce levels of exploitation in the driftnet fishery. Further work to evaluate the levels of exploitation is being carried out by a joint working group which includes the Irish Department of the Marine. The group is expected to report before the end of the year.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on Welsh rivers of the recent measures introduced by the Irish Government relating to fishing in the North sea. [15068]

  Mr. Evans
  It is too early to assess the likely impact of recent measures introduced by the Irish Government to restrict salmon exploitation by commercial netsmen. The situation will be closely monitored.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on trends in the numbers of salmon and trout in Welsh rivers over the last 10 years. [15067]

  Mr. Evans
  Catch data provide an approximate index of the abundance of salmon and migratory trout entering Welsh rivers. Over the 10 year period to 1995 there is evidence of a decline in the declared catches of both these species.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on proposals for confining salmon netting within river headlands. [15237]
  292
  Mr. Evans
  The Environment Agency's salmon management strategy states that exploitation of salmon should take place, as far as possible, where the stock is from a single river. In Wales, the Environment Agency has applied this principle by introducing measures which aim to phase out salmon netting outside river headlands.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the environmental impact of the(a) PowerGen and (b) National Power power stations in Connah's quay, Deeside. [15148]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Environment Agency monitors the impact of emissions on the local environment. The integrated pollution control register, held by the relevant regional and area offices of the Environment Agency, contains information about each authorisation issued and the results of monitoring required under the terms of the authorisation.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is taking to reduce air pollution. [15141]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Government have put in place a number of mechanisms to control pollution which apply throughout the UK. The Environment Act 1990 introduced two systems for controlling polluting emissions from industry: integrated pollution control, which limits emissions to all environmental media from large installations; and local air pollution control, covering emissions to air from small and medium sized plant.

  The draft UK national air quality strategy, issued in August 1996, sets out the Government's proposals for air quality policy and includes standards and objectives for all the main air pollutants. The Strategy builds on the requirements of the Environment Act 1995 which includes a new system of local air quality management. Under the Act, local authorities will be required to review and assess air quality in their areas. We are preparing guidance for local authorities to assist them with their new air quality management duties.

  Roseate Tern
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment has he made of the numbers of roseate tern in Wales over the last 10 years; what plans he has to encourage the growth of the roseate tern population in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [15062]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Roseate tern numbers are counted annually. The last 10 years data show that numbers have declined to virtual extinction within Wales and an action plan under the biodiversity programme will be prepared.

  Child Care
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of child care facilities for(a) students and (b) staff in further and higher education in Wales; [15130]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the organisation and financing of child care facilities in further and higher education in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [15069]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. The provision of child care facilities for students and staff in further and higher education is a matter for individual institutions.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the adequacy of provision of(a) short-term sessional and (b) out of school child care schemes for (i) staff and (ii) students at further and higher education establishments in Wales. [15061]

  Mr. Evans
  It is for individual further and higher education institutions to assess the adequacy of child care provision for their staff and students in the light of patterns of recruitment and retention, and the availability of resources.

  Health Authority Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce the final allocation of finance for health authorities in Wales for 1997–98; and if he will make a statement. [15394]

  Mr. Hague
  I will announce the 1997–98 health authority allocations very shortly.

  Osiris Network
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 7 February,Official Report, column 757, if Siemens Business Services gave a discount to his Department on computer hardware under the Osiris contract as a consequence of its receipt of the old computer hardware stock of his Department [15690]

  Mr. Hague
  No. The Osiris contract is for the provision of services, not for the supply of hardware.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answers of 7 February,Official Report, column 757, what consultations he had with (a) education institutions and (b) training and enterprise councils before the decision to dispose of his Department's computer hardware stock via Siemens Business Services. [15691]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Some of the equipment is in use within the Welsh Office and will remain so, managed under the Osiris contract. The majority of the personal computers are obsolete, and it would be difficult or impossible to maintain them.

  The equipment does not belong to the Welsh Office: the transfer of assets formed part of the Osiris contract and was reflected in the pricing structure of the contract. Siemens Business Services and the Welsh Office have a joint review process to make sure that the more recent equipment will be redeployed in the most cost-effective way, taking account of the constraints of existing software licences and of security issues. Where possible, Siemens Business Services will use the present computer hardware
  294
  and peripherals as part of, or in support of the Osiris system. Where this is not possible, the equipment wil be made secure for disposal: this entails removing all hard disk drives and software. Any subsequent user would have to purchase new items to replace these. The method of disposal will depend upon the type and age of the equipment, but might include transfer to educational or training bodies where appropriate.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information is available from his Department to grant-maintained schools on(a) addresses of potential pupils in the school's neighbourhood and elsewhere, (b) sources of finance and (c) the nursery voucher scheme. [15582]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department does not collect names and addresses of pupils/potential pupils of any schools in Wales. Grant-maintained schools are informed of the grants available from the Department for capital and revenue purposes related to the school. No information as to sources of external funding is given.

  In connection with the nursery voucher scheme, grant-maintained primary schools have been sent directly the detailed guide for providers; its update, the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales. "Desirable Outcomes for Children's Learning Before Compulsory School Age"; a provider application form and copies of the "Basic Facts for Parents" leaflet. Grant-maintained schools registered for the scheme will also be receiving a registered providers' pack, which will include advice on the interaction of voucher income with their existing funding arrangements. Grant-maintained schools, along with other providers, can also contact the nursery voucher helpline or the department for further advice.

  North Gwent Mental Health Project
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the north Gwent mental health private finance initiative project. [15689]

  Mr. Hague
  Gwent Community Health NHS trust, with the agreement of Gwent health authority, is discussing a revised, small scheme with the private sector following concerns expressed by local general practitioners about the original proposals.

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales who is to be appointed as chief inspector in the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools in Wales, following the retirement of Mr. R. L. James. [16093]

  Mr. Hague
  By Order in Council, which will be laid before the House in the normal way, Miss Susan Lewis has been appointed chief inspector. She will take up her post on 1 June.

  Police Forces (Finance)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact on
  295
  council tax rates in Wales of the revenue and capital settlements for 1997–98 for Welsh police forces; and if he will make a statement. [14138]

  Mr. Hague
  For 1997–98, the proportion of settlement spending met by central Government support has increased. This means that the proportion to be met by council tax has decreased. The actual level of council tax set by police authorities will depend on the extent to which they budget above my plans.

  Driftnet Fishing
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has made to the Irish Government concerning the potential impact of the changes in driftnet fishing regulations on Welsh anglers; and if he will make a statement. [15138]

  Mr. Hague
  None. I welcome the changes recently announced by the Irish Government on new driftnet fishing regulations which are intended to reduce the level of exploitation of salmon.

DEFENCE

  Royal Irish Regiment
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many full-time soldiers there are in the Royal Irish Regiment; and how many of these serve only in Northern Ireland. [15470]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of full-time trained personnel serving with the Royal Irish Regiment on 1 January 1997 was 3,540.

  Officers

  Soldiers

  Total

  Royal Irish General Service

  119

  614

  733

  Royal Irish Home Service

  101

  2,706

  2,807

  Total

  220

  3,320

  3,540

  The RIHS serve only in Northern Ireland.

  Non-proliferation Treaty
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the proposal from Belarus and Ukraine for a central and eastern European nuclear free zone at the 1995 extension and review conference of the non-proliferation treaty as an alternative to the eastwards expansion of NATO; and if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's response to the proposal. [15332]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have been asked to reply.

  As my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development stated in another place on 18 June 1996, column 22, NATO countries continue to believe that nuclear deterrence makes an essential contribution to preserving peace and stability in Europe. We have made our position clear to both the Ukrainians and the Belarusians. However, NATO Foreign Ministers announced on 10 December 1996 that NATO had no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Policies (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effect of his Department's policies on the residents of Bournemouth since 1995, with special reference to the effects of changes in the resources provided in real terms. [14943]

  Mr. Freeman
  Within the Cabinet Office, the Office of Public Service has responsibility for improving the efficiency of Government and public services for deregulation and for the competitiveness agenda. Clearly, the success of the Government's policies on competitiveness and deregulation impacts on small businesses in the Bournemouth area. Similarly, the citizens charter initiative also impacts on the public services in the area. In 1995, Dorset Health Care NHS trust was awarded a chartermark for its service to the community.

  Notes on Clauses
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will assess the advantages of publishing the notes on clauses relating to Bills. [15230]

  Mr. Freeman
  The notes on clauses prepared for Ministers taking a Bill through the House are, by convention, usually also made available to members of the relevant Standing Committee and to other interested Members. They are not formally published, but are in the public domain and copies can be made available to others on request.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what(a) controls, (b) monitoring and (c) guidance exist in respect of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [15610]

  Mr. Freeman
  Non-departmental public bodies are established to operate at arm's length from Government, often under specific statutory powers. An NDPB's governing board is responsible for the management and control of the body's functions.

  Ministers and their Departments are responsible for monitoring the performance of the NDPBs they sponsor, and for ensuring that they operate within the framework of controls set out in the Treasury and Cabinet Office guidance "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments".

  Guidance on best practice on the procurement and management of external consultants is contained in the efficiency unit scrutiny report, "The Government's Use of External Consultants", which is available to all NDPBs.

  House of Commons Disqualification Act
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what purpose it is proposed to alter part IV of schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 to provide for the omission from the schedule of Her Majesty's lord-lieutenant or lieutenant for an island area in Scotland. [15575]
  297
  Mr. Bates
  Under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994, all lieutenancy areas in Scotland became known as "areas" rather than "island areas" or "regions", with the exception of the four city areas. The amendments proposed to part IV of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act reflect this and propose consolidating the disqualification provisions relating to lord-lieutenants and lieutenants for island areas in Scotland and lord-lieutenants and lieutenants for the Scottish regions under a single entry. The existing entry of Her Majesty's lord-lieutenant and lieutenant for an island area in Scotland could therefore be removed from the schedule.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for what reasons the proposed amendment to part I of schedule 1 of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 does not add the office of recorder or part-time recorder. [15576]

  Mr. Bates
  The House has accepted, for many years, the position whereby hon. and right hon. Members may also serve as recorders or assistant recorders. It has long been recognised that it is not only compatible with being a Member of Parliament to practice some other profession or occupation, but that it can be a positive advantage both to the individual Member and to the House as a whole.

  Those hon. and right hon. Members who are recorders or assistant recorders, however, do not by custom either sit in their constituencies or hear cases remitted from their constituencies.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which offices of Her Majesty's lord-lieutenant or lieutenant are existing offices of disqualification under the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975; and what is the geographical jurisdiction of those offices. [15577]

  Mr. Bates
  Part IV of schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 lists the offices of Her Majesty's lord-lieutenants and lieutenants whose holders are currently disqualified from becoming Members of the House of Commons. The jurisdiction of these offices extend to the county, area or city for which the lord-lieutenant is appointed.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hepatitis B Vaccination
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the level of incidence of liver diseases in children; what proposals he has to incorporate hepatitis B vaccination in the immunisation programme; and if he will make a statement. [14681]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information on the incidence of liver disease is not available. However, 43 cases involving persons aged under 16 years were treated in hospital for liver conditions during the year 1995–96. Current policy is to recommend immunisation against hepatitis B in individuals who are at increased risk of hepatitis B because of their lifestyle, occupation or other factors such as close contact with a case or carrier. Any changes in this policy would depend on the advice of the joint 298
  committee on vaccination and immunisation which advises all four UK health Departments on matters concerning immunisation.

  Regent House Grammar School, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposals to extend Region House grammar school, Newtownards. [14682]

  Mr. Ancram
  Plans to extend and refurbish the existing school premises are being taken forward by the South-Eastern education and library board. The scheme is approaching final sketch plan stage and, when it has reached that stage, it can be considered for a place in the school building programme in light of the resources available.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many cold weather payments have been made in Northern Ireland during the current winter broken down by the station involved in triggering the payment; [14899]

  (2) if he will list the cost of cold weather payments and the number of recipients of the payments for each weather station in Northern Ireland in each year since 1986; [14900]

  (3) if he will list the weather stations in Northern Ireland which provide data used in determining cold weather payments. [14898]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Alan Simpson, dated 11 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about Cold Weather Payments.
  There are four Meteorological Office sites in Northern Ireland which supply the data used to determine if a cold weather period has been recorded or is forecast. They are located in Aldergrove and Lisburn, County Antrim, Carmoney, County Londonderry and St. Angelo, County Fermanagh.
  Since the Agency was established in July 1991, the first cold weather period was triggered in the winter of 1995. Unfortunately, statistics on the number and cost of cold weather payments are not available in the format requested and to obtain this information would involve an extensive clerical exercise at a disproportionate cost. I can provide, however, the number of computer issued payments for each Social Security Office in 1995/96 and to date in 1996/97. Tables are attached showing these figures. Statistics on the clerically issued payments are not available.
  The total number of Cold Weather Payments issued in Northern Ireland so far this winter is 134,288 which equates to a cash figure of £1,141,448.

  299
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Northern Ireland cold weather payment volumes 95–96 Computer issued payments Income support customers

  Social security office

  Number of payments

  Cash total (£)

  Antrim

  3,212

  27,302.00

  Armagh

  3,378

  28,713.00

  Ballymena

  3,667

  31,169.50

  Ballymoney

  2,700

  22,950.00

  Ballynahinch

  1,184

  10,064.00

  Banbridge

  2,412

  20,502.00

  Bangor

  2,986

  25,381.00

  Carrickfergus

  1,671

  14,203.50

  Coleraine

  3,413

  29,010.50

  Cookstown

  2,508

  21,318.00

  Downpatrick

  1,829

  15,546.50

  Dungannon

  4,144

  35,224.00

  Enniskillen

  5,221

  44,378.50

  Larne

  1,723

  14,645.50

  Limavady

  2,165

  18,402.50

  Lisburn

  3,845

  32,682.50

  Folye

  7,099

  60,341.50

  Lurgan

  3,872

  32,912.00

  Magherafelt

  3,349

  28,466.50

  Newcastle

  1,241

  10,548.50

  Newry

  6,761

  57,468.50

  Newtownards

  2,930

  24,905.00

  Omagh

  3,789

  32,206.50

  Portadown

  2,819

  23,961.50

  Strabane

  4,224

  35,904.00

  Kilkeel

  1,154

  9,809.00

  Shaftesbury Square

  3,443

  29,265.50

  Corporation Street

  7,579

  64,421.50

  Shankill

  3,441

  28,398.50

  Knockbreda

  3,938

  33,473.00

  Falls Road

  5,611

  47,693.50

  Holywood Road

  5,386

  45,781.00

  Newtownabbey

  3,343

  28,415.50

  Andersonstown

  5,449

  46,316.50

  Lisnagelvin

  3,472

  29,512.00

  Northern Ireland cold weather payment volumes 96–97 Computer issued payments Jobseeker's allowance customers

  Social security office

  Number of payments

  Cash total (£)

  Antrim

  31

  263.50

  Armagh

  21

  178.50

  Ballymena

  20

  170.00

  Ballymoney

  4

  34.00

  Ballynahinch

  12

  102.00

  Banbridge

  9

  76.50

  Bangor

  29

  246.50

  Carrickfergus

  7

  59.50

  Coleraine

  0

  Nil

  Cookstown

  15

  127.50

  Downpatrick

  11

  93.50

  Dungannon

  30

  255.00

  Enniskillen

  56

  476.00

  Larne

  27

  229.50

  Limavady

  3

  25.50

  Lisburn

  16

  136.00

  Folye

  0

  Nil

  Lurgan

  26

  221.00

  Magherafelt

  22

  187.00

  Newcastle

  14

  119.00

  Newry

  42

  357.00

  Newtownards

  20

  170.00

  Omagh

  39

  331.50

  Portadown

  15

  127.50

  Strabane

  44

  374.00

  300

  Northern Ireland cold weather payment volumes 96–97 Computer issued payments Income support customers

  Social security office

  Number of payments

  Cash total (£)

  Kilkeel

  19

  161.50

  Shaftesbury Square

  12

  102.00

  Corporation Street

  33

  280.50

  Shankill

  22

  187.00

  Knockbreda

  18

  153.00

  Falls Road

  12

  102.00

  Holywood Road

  33

  280.50

  Newtownabbey

  26

  221.00

  Andersonstown

  30

  255.00

  Lisnagelvin

  0

  Nil

  Northern Ireland cold weather payment volumes 96–97 Computer issued payments Income support customers

  Social security office

  Number of payments

  Cash total (£)

  Antrim

  3,208

  27,268.00

  Armagh

  3,916

  33,286.00

  Ballymena

  3,687

  31,339.50

  Ballymoney

  580

  4,930.00

  Ballynahinch

  1,209

  10,276.50

  Banbridge

  2,415

  20,527.50

  Bangor

  3,144

  26,724.00

  Carrickfergus

  1,722

  14,637.00

  Coleraine

  38

  323.00

  Cookstown

  5,027

  42,729.50

  Downpatrick

  1,883

  16,005.50

  Dungannon

  8,565

  72,802.50

  Enniskillen

  10,253

  87,150.50

  Larne

  1,718

  14,603.00

  Limavady

  1,215

  10,242.50

  Lisburn

  3,938

  33,473.00

  Foyle

  0

  NIL

  Lurgan

  4,027

  34,229.50

  Magherafelt

  4,102

  34,867.00

  Newcastle

  1,298

  11,033.00

  Newry

  6,871

  54,403.50

  Newtownards

  3,075

  26,137.50

  Omagh

  7,790

  66,215.00

  Portadown

  2,954

  25,109.00

  Strabane

  8,673

  73,720.50

  Kilkeel

  1,163

  9,885.50

  Shaftesbury Square

  3,572

  30,362.00

  Corporation Street

  7,992

  67,932.00

  Shankill

  3,446

  29,291.00

  Knockbreda

  4,084

  34,714.00

  Falls Road

  5,960

  50,660.00

  Holywood Road

  5,432

  46,172.00

  Newtownabbey

  3,544

  30,124.00

  Andersonstown

  5,907

  50,209.50

  Lisnagelvin

  801

  6,808.50

  Moseys Arch, Killyleagh
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who owns the footway and steps known as Moseys arch between High street and Frederick street in Killyleagh, County Down; how many and which people have made representations to the Housing Executive to have this public right-of-way closed by initiating an extinguishing order; and if he will make a statement. [14840]
  301
  Sir John Wheeler
  I am advised that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive owns most of the footway and steps known as Mosey's arch, but part of the land may be in private ownership.

  The Housing Executive has also advised that the initial request for an extinguishment order came from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Since then, both the Department and the Housing Executive have received further representations from local residents in support of, or in opposition to, the extinguishment of the right of way.

  The next stage in the process is for the Housing Executive to try to resolve the objections. If that proves impossible, the matter will be referred to the Department, which may then decide to hold a public local inquiry to hear the objections to the extinguishment order.

  Stalking
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many groups and individuals responded to the consultation paper on stalking and if he will list them; and how many and which proposed separate legislation for Northern Ireland. [14836]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responses were received from 11 groups, none of which proposed separate legislation for Northern Ireland. They were:

  Democratic Unionist Party

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland

  Northern Ireland Women's Aid Federation

  Soroptimist International of Dungannon

  Soroptimist International of Downpatrick

  Soroptimist International of Bangor

  Women's Forum Northern Ireland

  Police Federation for Northern Ireland

  The Queen's University of Belfast, Faculty and School of Law

  Probation Board for Northern Ireland.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulae for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14804]

  Sir John Wheeler
  In Northern Ireland, the Department of Health and Social Services collects data broken down by postcode area in relation to patient treatment and the processing of benefit claims. This provides the basis of aggregation for research and issues which have a geographic dimension. Postcodes are used by the Social Security Agency in delineating which areas qualify for special cold weather payments to the elderly. The delineation of areas is reviewed each year.

  The Training and Employment Agency collects most of its programme monitoring data on the basis of postcodes. This process has recently been introduced and therefore has not yet been reviewed.

  The Department of the Environment uses postcode areas for the selection of sampling points for the measurement of drinking water quality and radon levels, and for the collection of data on retail outlet usage, urban
  302
  development grant and the "Making Belfast Work" initiative. The use of postcode areas for these purposes has not been reviewed.

  Drinks Licences
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the numbers of drinks licences in Northern Ireland presently in existence, by type, and specify the annual income received from issue of these licences and the costs of their administration in the last year for which figures are available. [14841]

  Sir John Wheeler
  For the period ended 31 December 1995, the last complete year for which figures are available, the number of drink licences in force in Northern Ireland, by type, was as follows:

  Category of licence

  Number of licences

  Public houses

  1,642

  Off licences

  322

  Hotels

  150

  Restaurants

  294

  Place of public entertainment

  10

  Refreshment room in public transport premises

  13

  Seamen's canteen

  3

  Non-seagoing vessel

  1

  Figures supplied by the Northern Ireland Court Service indicate that a total of £742,559 in fees income was derived from the issue of licences and their associated applications during the financial year April 1995 to March 1996. This total is made up as follows:
  Magistrates court: £692,109
  County court: £50,450.

  I am advised that the cost of administering the grant and renewal of liquor licences is part of the overall cost of civil business in the county and magistrates courts. Costs as between the different types of civil business are not maintained.

  Building Societies and Banks (Employees)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons are employed by(a) the Irish Permanent building society, (b) the National bank, (c) the First National building society, and (d) the ICS building society; and how many employees in each of these companies are perceived to be (i) Roman Catholic and (ii) Protestant. [15320]

  Mr. Ancram
  Since none of these companies is currently registered with the Fair Employment Commission, the commission has no figure available to show the number of persons employed by the companies or their perceived religion.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many persons in each parliamentary constituency area in receipt of disability living allowance; [15322]
  303
  (2) how many persons in each (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district council area are in receipt of severe disablement allowance; [15326]

  (3) how many persons in each (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district council area are in receipt of incapacity benefit; [15330]

  (4) how many persons in each (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district council area are in receipt of industrial injuries disablement benefit; [15328]

  (5) how many persons in each district council area are in receipt of disability living allowance; [15323]

  (6) how many persons in each (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district council area have received social fund maternity payments in each of the last three years; [15327]

  (7) how many persons in each (a) parliamentary constituency and (b) district council area are in receipt of one-parent benefit. [15329]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange for a response to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. John Taylor, dated 13 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about the number of people in receipt of various benefits in each district council area and parliamentary constituency.
  I have attached tables showing the number of people in receipt of Severe Disablement Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Disability Living Allowance in each constituency and district council area. Unfortunately, information on Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit, One Parent Benefit and Social Fund Maternity Payments is not held in the format requested.
  I hope this explains the position for you but I would be happy to provide any further information you require.

  Number of people in receipt of various social security benefits by constituency

  Constituency

  Severe Disablement Allowance (August 1996)

  Incapacity Benefit1(August 1996)

  Disability Living Allowance (August 1996)

  Strangford

  652

  4,508

  4,080

  Belfast East

  547

  3,703

  4,213

  North Down

  646

  3,778

  3,721

  South Down

  1,061

  6,228

  5,980

  Lagan Valley

  702

  4,841

  6,063

  South Antrim

  1,054

  4,630

  5,025

  North Antrim

  795

  4,731

  4,002

  East Antrim

  677

  4,756

  4,670

  East Londonderry

  979

  5,399

  4,992

  Mid-Ulster

  1,091

  6,910

  7,195

  Newry and Armagh

  1,130

  6,352

  6,596

  Upper Bann

  821

  6,760

  7,256

  Fermanagh and South Tyrone

  936

  4,676

  5,327

  Foyle

  1,243

  8,179

  10,157

  Belfast South

  482

  3,412

  3,822

  Belfast West

  860

  6,350

  10,397

  Belfast North

  745

  5,893

  7,436

  Unknown2

  624

  3,070

  3,515

  1 Includes customers in receipt of credits only.

  2 Benefit recipients which cannot be assigned to a particular constituency.

  304

  Number of people of various social security benefits by district council area

  District council

  Severe disablement allowance (August 1996)

  Incapacity Benefit1(August 1996)

  Disability living allowance (August 1996)

  Ards

  438

  3,256

  2,907

  Belfast

  2,568

  18,911

  25,363

  Castlereagh

  439

  2,982

  3,042

  Down

  543

  3,059

  3,293

  Lisburn

  685

  4,634

  5,901

  North Down

  504

  2,702

  2,598

  Antrim

  719

  2,232

  2,732

  Ballymena

  412

  2,710

  2,174

  Ballymoney

  227

  1,274

  1,136

  Carrickfergus

  261

  1,700

  1,657

  Coleraine

  403

  2,166

  1,963

  Cookstown

  286

  2,341

  2,248

  Larne

  231

  1,514

  1,321

  Magherafelt

  365

  2,223

  1,811

  Moyle

  156

  747

  703

  Newtownabbey

  520

  3,940

  4,037

  Armagh

  593

  3,010

  3,028

  Banbridge

  264

  2,083

  1,806

  Craigavon

  673

  5,467

  6,088

  Dungannon

  446

  2,754

  3,353

  Newry and Mourne

  939

  5,721

  5,703

  Derry

  1,045

  6,779

  8,438

  Fermanagh

  490

  1,922

  1,985

  Limavady

  269

  1,459

  1,564

  Omagh

  501

  2,810

  3,049

  Strabane

  444

  2,710

  3,313

  Unknown2

  624

  3,070

  3,547

  1 Includes customers in receipt of credits only.

  2 Benefit recipients which cannot be assigned to a particular district council area.

  Handguns
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which type or make of centre-fired pistols or revolvers cannot be readily dismantled; and how many of these are licensed in Northern Ireland. [15247]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government accept that handguns in general can be disassembled with varying degrees of practicability. This will depend not only on the design of the gun but also on the skill and dexterity of the owner. At the end of November 1996, there were 12,808 licensed centre-fire handguns in Northern Ireland.

  Department of the Environment (Compensation)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many persons in each parliamentary constituency have successfully claimed for compensation against the Department of Environment in the last three years; [15324]

  (2) how many persons in each district council area have successfully claimed for compensation against the Department of Environment in each of the last three years. [15325]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is not feasible to identify claims against the Department of the Environment (Northern Ireland) by parliamentary or district council area. However, throughout Northern Ireland, the following numbers of claimants against the Department of the Environment were successful.
  305

  Settlements (prior to court hearing)

  Court awards

  Total

  1993–94

  936

  174

  1,110

  1994–95

  1,256

  141

  1,397

  1995–96

  1,029

  113

  1,142

  Hospital and Nursing Home Beds
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list for each year since 1979 the numbers of(a) registered beds and (b) occupied beds in (i) registered private hospitals/clinics, (ii) registered private nursing homes and (iii) all registered establishments in Northern Ireland, showing separately those which were for (1) acute specialties, (2) mental illness, (3) people with learning difficulties, (4) people with physical disabilities, (5) maternity and (6) other purposes. [15457]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Details of occupied beds in nursing homes, private hospitals and clinics are not available centrally. The first table shows the number of available beds in private hospitals and clinics from 1991. These are the earliest dates for which the information is available centrally. These figures do not include bed availability for

  Voluntary and private residential accommodation

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Voluntary

  Private

  Voluntary

  Private

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  1979

  0

  0

  69

  69

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1980

  0

  0

  69

  69

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1981

  0

  0

  69

  69

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1982

  0

  0

  69

  69

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1983

  0

  0

  69

  69

  9

  7

  0

  0

  1984

  4

  4

  69

  67

  9

  8

  0

  0

  1985

  4

  3

  69

  63

  9

  8

  0

  0

  1986

  4

  3

  58

  54

  34

  25

  0

  0

  1987

  4

  4

  59

  42

  33

  33

  12

  12

  1988–89

  0

  —

  71

  —

  87

  —

  28

  —

  1989–90

  0

  —

  75

  —

  127

  —

  138

  —

  1990–91

  63

  —

  76

  —

  158

  —

  193

  —

  1991–92

  75

  —

  113

  —

  251

  —

  124

  —

  1992–93

  177

  —

  104

  —

  332

  —

  284

  —

  1993–94

  261

  —

  125

  —

  419

  —

  308

  —

  1994–95

  275

  —

  128

  —

  413

  —

  244

  —

  1995–96

  259

  —

  96

  —

  432

  —

  250

  —

  Physically disabled

  Others

  Voluntary

  Private

  Voluntary

  Private

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  1979

  69

  25

  0

  0

  1,802

  1,473

  0

  0

  1980

  69

  20

  0

  0

  1,804

  1,431

  0

  0

  1981

  71

  21

  0

  0

  1,838

  1,441

  0

  0

  1982

  63

  17

  0

  0

  1,737

  1,408

  0

  0

  1983

  63

  16

  0

  0

  1,706

  1,407

  0

  0

  1984

  78

  19

  0

  0

  1,643

  1,237

  0

  0

  1985

  78

  15

  0

  0

  1,512

  1,223

  0

  0

  1986

  56

  14

  0

  0

  1,447

  1,293

  0

  0

  1987

  56

  13

  0

  0

  1,399

  1,229

  0

  0

  1988–89

  51

  —

  0

  0

  1,303

  1151

  0

  0

  306
  acute specialties and maternity services provided by private hospitals and clinics, which are not collected centrally.

  The second table lists the number of available beds in voluntary and private residential accommodation since 1979 and the numbers of occupied beds in voluntary and private residential accommodation up to and including 1987, the last year for which central figures on occupied beds in this category were collected, other than in the case of children's homes.

  Available beds in nursing homes and private hospitals and clinics

  Nursing Homes

  Private Hospitals/Clinics

  1985

  751

  —

  1986

  1,072

  —

  1987

  1,564

  —

  1988

  2,450

  —

  1989

  3,751

  —

  1990

  5,269

  —

  1991

  6,770

  78

  1992

  7,103

  78

  1993

  8,829

  78

  1994

  8,837

  78

  1995

  9,339

  78

  — not available centrally. Available beds are at 31 December each year up to and including 1991. Thereafter figures refer to the number of available beds at 31 March each year.
  307

  Physically disabled

  Others

  Voluntary

  Private

  Voluntary

  Private

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  Available beds

  Occupied beds

  1989–90

  91

  —

  0

  0

  1,152

  1148

  0

  0

  1990–91

  91

  —

  0

  0

  1,107

  1142

  0

  0

  1991–92

  91

  —

  0

  0

  919

  1145

  0

  0

  1992–93

  83

  —

  0

  0

  1,118

  1130

  0

  0

  1993–94

  79

  —

  0

  0

  1,052

  1132

  0

  0

  1994–95

  62

  —

  0

  0

  1,111

  1125

  0

  0

  1995–96

  62

  —

  0

  0

  1,089

  1111

  0

  0

  Note:

  1 From 1988–89 occupancy figures are only available centrally for children's homes.

  Information for 1995–96 is provisional.

  The "Other" category comprises voluntary and private residential accommodation for the elderly, and voluntary children's homes. Figures are at 31 December each year up to and including 1987. Thereafter figures refer to the average available beds during the year except for children's homes which reflect the position at 31 March each year.

  Local Government Finance
  Rev. William McCrea
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce a relief scheme to assist non-domestic ratepayers whose bills will be increased following revaluation. [16173]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government intend to assist small businesses which have experienced relatively large increases in rateable value. To qualify for relief, a business will have to meet two criteria. First, the net annual value of the property shown in the valuation list on 1 April 1997 must not exceed £10,000. Secondly, the rate bill which would be levied on the property in each of the three years following revaluation must, before any rate relief is applied, be at least 25 per cent. higher than it would have been in that year—the base year—if the revaluation had not taken place.

  Relief will be available during the three years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000. The amount of relief allowed in any individual case will be based on the difference between the rate bill which is actually received by the ratepayer and an amount 25 per cent. or more above the base year amount—the revaluation effect. The full revaluation effect will be abated in the first year of the scheme, two thirds in the second year and one third in the third year. The full rate will be payable in the fourth year after the revaluation.

  Rate accounts for 1997–98 will be adjusted before issue to reflect any relief to which ratepayers are entitled. No ratepayer will need to apply for relief under the scheme.

SCOTLAND

  Judicial Reviews
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many decisions by his Department were challenged through judicial review in Session 1995–96; and in how many cases(a) the Department's decision was upheld by the court, (b) the court found for the applicant, (c) the Department submitted to the judgment and (d) the Department appealed successfully against the judicial review decision. [14374]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: During session 1995–96, 10 decisions were challenged by judicial review in the Court of Session; and (a) two decisions were upheld by the court; (b) and (c), one of these decisions was not
  308
  defended by the Secretary of State and accordingly the judicial review petition was successful; and (d) none were appealed. Of the remaining seven cases, four judicial review petitions were withdrawn and three are yet to be decided by the court.

  Scottish Charities Office
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the powers of the Scottish Charities Office to recover funds which may have been inappropriately used by registered charities. [14925]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Charities Office has no power under the legislation to recover funds. The Court of Session may make an order requiring any bank or other person holding money or securities on behalf of a recognised charity or of any person concerned in its control and management not to part with the money or securities without the court's approval. The full powers of the Court of Session are set out in section 7 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990.

  Songbirds
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the summer use of(a) organophosphates and (b) pyrethroids on the numbers and range of songbirds. [14677]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 12 February 1997]: The Department of the Environment and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee commissioned a consortium, comprising Oxford University and a number of nature conservation organisations including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, to carry out a review of available information on the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. The results are expected to be published later this year.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to strengthen the law in relation to the protection of rights of way in Scotland. [15668]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government wish to promote responsible access to Scotland's countryside and considers that this can better be achieved through voluntary arrangements than by legislation. Established rights of way are already protected in law. In general,
  309
  other access issues are better tackled through initiatives such as the access concordat concluded last year, and Scottish Natural Heritage's "Paths for All" project.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he proposes to introduce to ensure the take-up of nursery vouchers in remote areas with small numbers of pre-school children. [15500]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information so far is that take-up of pre-school vouchers in the four pilot areas has been extremely high—over 97 per cent. overall, and higher in the remoter Argyll and Bute and Highland pilot areas. About 93 per cent. of parents with vouchers are also using them. In the pilots, playgroups have often been key providers in rural areas, and we are taking action, specially through activity by national development officers and support to the Scottish Pre-School Play Association, to help rural playgroups meet the stringent quality standards which we require before they may redeem vouchers.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the Stirling university study of pilot nursery voucher schemes about the(a) take-up of vouchers and (b) availability of nursery places within the scheme in remote areas with small numbers of pre-school children. [15501]

  Mr. Robertson
  The four pre-school voucher pilot schemes are proving highly successful: over 97 per cent. of parents there have taken up vouchers, and despite a low level of provision before the pilots began, 93 per cent. of these have been able to use them. The formal independent evaluation of the pilots commissioned from Stirling university has, in accordance with my commitments to the House last year, given priority to operational matters. I welcome the December interim report of the evaluation. Although results are as yet provisional, this shows a very positive response from parents, and has enabled us to make some significant improvements to procedures before national implementation. Though the pilots cover a range of rural areas, including Caithness, Badenoch and Strathspey, parts of Argyll and Bute and Arran, the researchers have not yet addressed issues relating to rural provision. They are expected to do so before submitting their final report in August 1997.

  Feudal System (Abolition)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Lord Advocate has given approval to the Scottish Law Commission to give high priority in its fifth programme to the abolition of the feudal system; and if he will make a statement. [15495]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The Scottish Law Commission has been considering abolition of the feudal system as part of its fourth programme of law reform. I understand that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has, at my request, said to the Scottish Law Commission that this should be treated as a matter of priority in any fifth programme. Until such time as the Scottish Law Commission's fifth programme of law reform has been presented to Parliament, it would not be proper for me to make a statement on its contents.
  310
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has received from the Scottish Law Commission as to the likely time for the receipt of its final recommendations on the abolition of the feudal system. [15496]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I expect the Scottish Law Commission's fifth programme of law reform to be presented to Parliament in the near future. A timetable for the completion of the commission's report on the abolition of the feudal system will be part of the programme but, until such time as the programme has been presented to Parliament, it would not be proper for me to make a statement on its contents.

  Fish Farming
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding he is making available for research into the farming of different fish species; where such work is being conducted; and what findings have been received to date. [15497]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office spends around £1 million a year at the Marine Laboratory in Aberdeen on research into the farming of different fish species, including the control of diseases and parasites. Research findings are described in the Marine Laboratory's published annual reviews.

  European Council
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of European Union Council meetings held in each year from 1979 to 1996, indicating the number(a) attended by Ministers from the Scottish Office and (b) at which Ministers from the Scottish Office are minuted as having spoken. [13892]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 31 January 1997]: The information is as follows:

  Total number of Council Ministers meetings1

  Scottish Office Minister attendance

  1979

  60

  —

  1980

  63

  —

  1981

  62

  —

  1982

  70

  —

  1983

  80

  —

  1984

  80

  —

  1985

  73

  —

  1986

  79

  —

  1987

  81

  —

  1988

  77

  5

  1989

  87

  4

  1990

  91

  4

  1991

  84

  5

  1992

  90

  8

  1993

  98

  8

  1994

  94

  8

  1995

  81

  7

  1996

  88

  15

  1 Information obtained from the press office of the Council of the European Union.

  Records of the meetings attended by Scottish Office Ministers between 1979 and 1988 were not collated and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The records of Council meetings do not attribute individual contributions.

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on income tax levels. [14183]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have received a number of representations welcoming the income tax cuts in the Budget. We now have the lowest headline rate of tax for 60 years and more than a quarter of all taxpayers pay tax at only 20p in the pound.

  Tax Allowances (Teachers)
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding tax allowances for teachers who carry out work at home. [14184]

  Mr. Jack
  A limited number of representations have been received from teachers.

  Mortgage Tax Relief
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy to maintain mortgage tax relief at existing levels; and if he will make a statement. [14185]

  Mr. Jack
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his 1995 Budget speech, mortgage interest relief will remain unchanged for the lifetime of this Parliament. Beyond that, the level of mortgage interest relief is a matter to be considered each year in the Budget.

  Business Investment
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about prospects for business investment in 1997. [14187]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The prospects for business are excellent. The Government's policies have produced low inflation and steady growth, and low interest and tax rates. Demand has strengthened and profitability is high. The latest CBI and British chambers of commerce surveys show that companies are expecting to increase investment in plant and machinery in 1997. The current climate is one in which businesses can expand and invest with confidence.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of current levels of business taxation. [14188]

  Mr. Jack
  In 1995–96, total tax on business raised £63.2 billion, 25 per cent. of total taxes and social security contributions. The UK tax burden on business is the lowest of the major European economies and is among the lowest in the G7. Low tax rates help to make the UK the No. 1 destination for inward investment into the EU.

  VAT (Fuel)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenues from VAT on fuel for each of the first two quarters of 1997–98. [14190]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No forecasts are made of VAT receipts at this level of disaggregation.

  Taxation
  Mr. Legg
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the impact on the United Kingdom economy of the level of taxation in the United Kingdom relative to that in other major EU countries. [14191]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The overall burden of taxation on the economy in the United Kingdom was 35.75 per cent. of GDP in 1995–96. This represents one of the very lowest levels in Europe and is below that of France, Germany and Italy.

  The Government are committed to low taxation and a tax system that raises revenue in ways that do least damage to the economy and encourage enterprise.

  Investment
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Chancellor Exchequer if he will make a statement on current investment levels in the United Kingdom. [14192]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  UK businesses have invested more in relation to GDP in the 1990s than in the 1980s, having invested more in the 1980s than in the 1970s. In setting the right climate of low inflation and steady growth, the Government's economic policies are encouraging business to expand and invest with confidence.

  Single Currency (Convergence Criteria)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic consequences to the United Kingdom of entering a single currency in circumstances when the convergence criteria have not been fully met by each of the participating countries. [14194]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  For the single currency area to be successful, there must be a high degree of sustainable economic convergence among the countries participating. If the single currency were to proceed without reliable convergence, we would not be part of it.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he expects to be the cost of the mortgage interest relief at source scheme in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [14195]

  Mr. Jack
  In 1996–97, the estimated total cost of mortgage interest relief is about £2.3 billion, of which £2.2 billion is given through the MIRAS scheme.

  These figures are provisional. They are based on the assumption, by convention, of no change from the current estimated average building society interest rate of 6.43 per cent.

  VAT
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's current estimate of revenue from VAT for the current financial year. [14196]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The most recent forecast of VAT receipts for 1996–97 published in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" is £47.5 billion.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the scope of VAT. [14177]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Value added tax in the UK applies to about 60 per cent. of consumer expenditure on goods and services.

  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the additional tax that would be raised if VAT were imposed on(a) private education fees and (b) public health provision charges. [14870]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: Based on information in HM Treasury's "Tax Ready Reckoner and Tax Reliefs", the estimated revenue costs of (a) the VAT exemption of private education fees and (b) the zero rating of drugs and medicines on prescription are approximately £1,050 million and £750 million respectively in 1996–97. The estimates exclude the effect of behavioural changes and may tend to overestimate the extra revenue from withdrawing the exemption of zero rating.

  VAT (Domestic Fuel)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much money has been collected by HM Customs and Excise since April 1992 as a result of the extension of VAT to domestic fuel. [14197]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Domestic fuel and power has been subject to VAT only since April 1994. The total revenue raised from VAT on domestic fuel and power since the 8 per cent. was introduced is estimated to be as follows:

  1994–95: £850 million

  1995–96: £1,100 million

  Cumulative Debt
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cumulative debt as a percentage of gross domestic product of(a) Britain and (b) other major EU countries. [14198]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Budget forecast of the ratio of gross general Government debt (GGGD) to gross domestic product (GDP) was 55¼ per cent. at end-March 1997. The latest European Commission estimates of the corresponding ratios of GGGD to GDP in Germany, France, Italy and Spain at end-December 1996 are 61½ per cent., 56 per cent., 124½ per cent. and 673¾per cent. respectively. The European Commission estimates that Luxembourg is the only EU country with a lower ratio of GGGD to GDP than the UK.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's ability to meet stage 3 of EMU. [14174]
  314
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I believe that the United Kingdom economy is highly likely to satisfy the economic conditions of low inflation, low fiscal deficit and a low burden of public debt required to contemplate stage 3 of EMU.

  VAT (Food)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the European Community has for the harmonisation of taxation with special reference to VAT on food. [14186]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There are no specific EC plans for harmonisation of VAT on food. The European Commission aspires more generally to further harmonisation of VAT rates as part of its suggested programme for a common system of VAT. There are no legislative proposals on rates on the table and the UK's zero rates—including that for food—are fully safeguarded under existing EC agreements. These cannot be changed without our approval.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the real take-home pay of a family on average earnings in(a) 1991–92 and (b) 1996–97. [14193]

  Mr. Jack
  Real take-home pay in 1996–97 prices for a family on average earnings around £296.40 per week in 1991–92 and £311.05 per week in 1996–97. This same family should be around £370 better off next year.

  UK Economy (Growth Prospects)
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the prospects for growth in the United Kingdom economy for the first six months period of the present calendar year, with particular reference to(a) consumer spending, (b) spending on net new domestic capital formation from all sources and (c) the estimated impact of major public sector infrastructure schemes; and if he will make a statement. [14310]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The prospects for growth are excellent. The UK economy is now well into its fifth year of sustained expansion, and all forecasters share the Government's view that 1997 will see another year of healthy growth. Growth is expected to continue to be broadly based, with faster growth in consumers' expenditure, accelerating investment and rising exports. Lower public sector capital expenditure during 1997–98 will be offset by rising capital expenditure under the private finance initiative.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of how adherence to the criteria for joining the European single currency would affect the United Kingdom economy. [14175]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Maastricht convergence criteria of low inflation and sound public finances make sound economic sense in their own right, with or without EMU. They will continue to form the basis of the Government's policies to ensure future growth, job creation and rising living standards.

  Factor 8 (VAT)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total revenue raised from the imposition of value added tax on recombinant factor 8 used in the treatment of haemophiliacs. [15386]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 12 February 1997]: The application of the standard rate of VAT to recombinant factor 8 is common to all manufactured drugs. It is estimated to raise approximately £1 million per year.

  Paymaster
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the privatisation of the Paymaster agency. [16092]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Conditional agreements for the sale of both the pensions and banking businesses of Paymaster, together with its IT support and its building in Crawley, were exchanged with a joint venture between EDS and Hogg Robinson yesterday. These are subject only to Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment Regulations 1981) consultations, which can begin with the company at once.

  The £22.7 million consideration agreed with the purchasers represents a good outcome for the taxpayer. The purchasers have made it clear that they intend to develop the business through the winning of new contracts and the transfer-in of other existing business, and to continue operations from its current Crawley and Basingstoke locations, so the outcome is equally good for the agency's staff and customers.

  On the pensions side, the schemes will, of course, continue to be funded and have their rules set by sponsoring Government Departments, which will also remain responsible for ensuring service levels; only the administrative functions are being contracted out to the privatised agency.

  On the banking side, I announced on 31 October 1996, Official Report, column 255, the creation of a new Office of HM Paymaster General as a separate statutory body within the National Investment and Loans Office to maintain control over the Paymaster General's accounts at the Bank of England. The privatised agency will supply transaction services to this office on behalf of its departmental and other public sector customers.

  I believe that this is an excellent outcome for all. The purchasers are eager to keep the present business intact and to build on the service improvements introduced in recent years by the current management. They bring formidable IT and transaction-processing expertise to support those efforts, combined with a powerful private sector pensions reputation and marketing experience. Paymaster can look forward to becoming a player of repute in the private sector market that was previously closed to it, and customers can expect even higher service levels and more competitive prices in future.

  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have for the disposal of their shareholding in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. [15223]
  316
  Mr. Jack
  The Government own some 12.4 million shares in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, representing around 13.9 per cent. of the company's issued share capital. The Government have no immediate plans for the sale of their holding.

  Arms Supplies (Rwanda)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1996,Official Report, columns 636–37, if he will place in the Library copies of pages 2 to 4 of the letter of 30 November 1995 from the chairman of the United Nations special commission on arms supplies to Rwanda to the international liaisons section of United Kingdom Customs and Excise. [14961]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The letter of 30 November 1995 indicates that the attachment accompanying the letter was a copy of the United Nations Security Council resolution 1013 (1995). That was the sole content of pages 2 to 4 of the fax. A copy of that resolution is already held in the Library.

  "Social Trends" Data
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tables and graphs in "Social Trends" that make use of data drawn from the general household survey. [14686]

  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 Dennis Roberts to Mr. Dafydd Wigley, dated 13 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking for a list of the tables and graphs in Social Trends which make use of data drawn from the General Household Survey. The Director has asked me to reply in his absence.
  The tables and graphs which use data from the General Household Survey in the 1997 edition of Social Trends are shown in the list below.

  Number

  Title

  2.2

  Households by size

  2.3

  Households: by type of household and family

  2.5

  People in households and communal establishments: by type of household and family in which they live

  2.9

  Families headed by lone parents as a percentage of all families with dependent children

  2.10

  Percentage of dependent children living in different family types

  2.12

  Percentage of women cohabiting

  2.19

  Women remarrying: by year, and length, of separation, 1993–1995

  2.28

  Contraception: by method used

  4.10

  Percentage of full-time employees who started their current job in the previous 12 months

  5.26

  Membership of a current pension scheme: by gender and earnings, 1995–96

  6.10

  Households with consumer durables

  7.4

  Chronic sickness: by age, 1974 and 1995–96

  7.19

  Adult cigarette smoking: by gender

  7.22

  Consumption of alcohol: by gender 1984 and 1994–95

  8.15

  Site of NHS GP consultation

  8.18

  Sight tests: by source of funding and socio-economic group, 1994–95

  317

  Number

  Title

  8.20

  Use of selected personal social services: by age, 1994–95

  10.2

  Owner-occupation: by socio-economic group, 1981 and 1995–96

  10.3

  Tenure: by age of head of household, 1995–96

  10.4

  Household composition: by tenure, 1995–96

  10.7

  Type of dwelling: by tenure, 1995–96

  10.8

  Type of dwelling: by construction date, 1995–96

  10.9

  Under-occupation and overcrowding: by type of household, 1995–96

  10.15

  Length of time at current address: by tenure, 1995–96

  13.5

  Participation in home-based leisure activities: by gender

  13.20

  Participation in the most popular sports, games and physical activities: by gender

  2001 Census
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the draft religious questions which are being tested for inclusion in the 2001 census are being phrased in such a way as to identify each of the main Christian denominations. [14389]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The question on religious affiliation to be asked in the 1997 census test in England and Scotland will include pre-coded tick-boxes for Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Jewish and Sikh, but 318
  will not identify the main Christian denominations. The census test in Northern Ireland will include a different question, which is worded to meet the local requirements for information, and which does identify the main Christian denominations present in the Province.

  The final choice of questions to be included in the census will be made after a full evaluation of the results of the census test, further research, and a further extensive round of consultation. All this information will be taken into account when the Government publish their proposals for questions to be included in the 2001 census in a White Paper in mid-1998. The White Paper will invite comment. The census order paper will be debated in Parliament.

  Car Production
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect on the United Kingdom's balance of payments of Ford Escort production being transferred overseas. [15099]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Identifying the change in the balance of payments following the transfer of car production overseas would be a major research task, which could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

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

EU: Visits by Foreign Secretary
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the recently announced intention of the Foreign Secretary to make a series of speeches in countries of the European Union to explain directly to the electorate of those countries the Government's policy on the further development of the EU and the reasons therefore is to be reciprocated by an invitation by Her Majesty's Government to the Foreign Secretaries of other EU governments to explain directly to the United Kingdom electorate their governments' policies on the development of the EU.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, representatives of other European Union governments are welcome to speak in the United Kingdom about their governments' policies on the development of the European Union.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Foreign Secretary's statement that he intended to appeal to the electorate of Europe over the heads of governments is a departure from the convention, often repeated by the Government, of the sovereignty of the other nation states as represented by their democratically elected governments? I believe that it is a welcome departure; but does the Minister agree that invitations should be extended to the foreign ministers of other countries to come here and give to our electorate the benefit of their views as the Foreign Secretary considers that their electorate would benefit from his views?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, there is no question of the Foreign Secretary going over the heads of governments. Each of his visits includes meetings with political counterparts, as well as discussions with students, young people and groups of ordinary voters. Of course, during the past two years we have had the opportunity to listen to Klaus Kinkel, Werner Hoyer, Wim Kok and to Jacques Chirac, who spoke to both Houses of Parliament. It is a two way process. We believe in free speech; we should be able to speak there and they here.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the Foreign Secretary meets other foreign secretaries, will he take advantage of the opportunity to point out to them that the obligation under the Rome Treaty to harmonise all the laws of 15 nations with 11 different languages and several types of legal systems has become a chaotic task
322
which can scarcely be properly fulfilled and that that therefore the Rome Treaty should be revised accordingly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, I have much sympathy with him in the complexity of 15 nations looking at their own systems in parallel. That has been one of the reasons why we have firmly supported flexibility. We wish to avoid the imposition of burdensome obligations which build up resentment on any particular country. Flexibility will allow the European Union to harness the wide range of diversity that it embraces and that will help us to avoid the issues which are not in the best interests of the British people.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I would very much agree with government policy—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I would if I knew what it was! I assume that it is the policy which the Foreign Secretary is espousing around Europe; that the Government are in favour of keeping open the option on the single currency and not in favour of pulling out of a European Union. However, will the Minister confirm reports that a fellow Cabinet Minister—namely, the Chairman of the Conservative Party—has sent letters to parliamentary candidates telling them how they can best say how they disagree with the Government in that they would never, in any circumstances, support a single currency?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord summed up the policy precisely. That is exactly what the Foreign Secretary has said. We shall see what is in the best interest of Britain, and I am delighted that the noble Lord agrees with that. As regards the Chairman of the Conservative Party, I believe that no such letters have gone out. However, the noble Lord knows only too well from his time at the Treasury that rumours are halfway round the world before the truth has a chance of coming out.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may take my noble friend closer to the Question on the Order Paper. Is she aware that last year, as is my custom these days, I attended the Labour Party conference and I observed large video screens upon which appeared a number of continental politicians imploring us all to vote Labour? Is not that a rather sharper interference in our affairs than a discussion about European policy in the capitals of Europe?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what the Labour Party gets up to at its conferences is always an eye opener to us all, but I am grateful to my noble friend. The important point about the Question and my noble friend's supplementary question is that they illustrate the difference in attitude. We are prepared to have free speech and to go through each and every aspect of the European Community to see what is and

323
what is not in our interests. It is clear from our discussions and from the report of the Irish presidency that there is a great deal of support for UK ideas in important areas. When we started to talk about those issues, we were told that we should be quiet because no one would support us. Many are now supporting us on the importance of national parliaments and in reviewing European legislation; and many others are working with us in opposing some of the suggested changes which have taken the headlines in recent months.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, apparently Mr. Rifkind is embarking on the 20th century equivalent of the Grand Tour. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House whether Mr. Rifkind's views on Europe are the same as Mr. Portillo's; whether those of Mr. Portillo are the same as Mr. Clarke; and whether those of Mr. Clarke are the same as those of Mr. Howard. Following what my noble friend said, perhaps the Minister will tell the House what the Foreign Secretary is telling the electorates of Europe about the fact that apparently some 150 Conservatives have said that they will put in their election address a pledge that they are totally against a single currency, in spite of the fact that the Leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister, is in favour of a wait-and-see policy on monetary union.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I assure the noble Baroness that all Members of the Cabinet are in favour of waiting to see exactly what is the situation on a single currency before any decision is taken. If that is then recommended and the Houses of Parliament accept it, there will be a referendum for the people.
To turn to the Foreign Secretary's visit to a number of capital cities, his aim is to spell out our policy of the modern vision of the European Union as a partnership of nations for the very reasons that my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned. The European Union must be more than a free trade area but co-operation must be in a form with which people are comfortable. We must balance supranational action where that is needed with intergovernmental action in more sensitive areas. The day that one hears that the Labour Party might even consider that is perhaps the day it will have more credibility regarding a policy on Europe.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that the visits by the counterparts of our own Foreign Secretary in the member states are very welcome indeed? Surely the Government will agree that the more exposed those statesmen are to the predominant views in Britain on this matter, the better it will be. But will the Minister bear in mind also that the British public do not like periodic political interventions by members of the European Commission?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the way in which Europe works needs very careful examination. The Foreign Secretary and his colleagues are doing that. If Foreign Ministers of other countries visit this country, it is important that they should explain their integrationist vision, which they hold very sincerely but which we do
324
not believe to be in the interests of a partnership of nations. Those advocates of integration must explain its limits. They must explain the difference between their vision of a common currency, common defence, employment, immigration, social policy and majority voting, because people are genuinely anxious about the constant process of change. That is why the Foreign Secretary has spelt out so clearly and with great acceptance exactly what we mean by a partnership of nations, and exactly how we can overcome the complexities of being currently a 15-nation European Union, but also possibly a larger one in a few years' time.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that her original Answer to my noble friend's original Question was a little disingenuous since the Foreign Secretary made it clear that he was seeking to appeal to public opinion in countries on the mainland of Europe over the heads of governments? Is not the Government's real purpose to swing the opinion of voters in Europe or voters in this country by the back door?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary's purpose is to achieve a sensible outcome of the IGC in June, and to make sure that Europe continues on a sound path for the benefit of all the peoples of Europe.

Treaties: Parliamentary Scrutiny
3.18 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are opposed to setting up a parliamentary Select Committee to scrutinise treaty-making on behalf of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is for both Houses to consider whether to set up a parliamentary Select Committee. However, we do not consider that it is necessary to introduce additional measures to scrutinise treaty-making.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is she aware that there is widespread welcome of the fact that the Government have recently changed their practice to provide more information to both Houses before they ratify international treaties? Is she aware also that that pleasure is marred by disappointment that the Government are unwilling to set up specialised scrutiny machinery of the kind established so successfully in, for example, Australia through a joint parliamentary committee and of the kind which exists so successfully in this House to scrutinise European legislation and treaty-making under the third pillar? Is the Government's position obdurate or will they remain open-minded on the subject to improve parliamentary accountability?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the Government are in no way obdurate on this matter.

325
As the noble Lord knows, we have opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lord brought forward a Bill which we debated. It was eventually withdrawn because we decided on a policy of bringing forward explanatory memoranda about treaties before those treaties came into effect. The noble Lord will know that in the House of Lords, it is for the Procedure Committee to decide whether additional scrutiny mechanisms are appropriate. I refer the noble Lord to the House of Lords Select Committee report on the committee work of the House of February 1992 which, at paragraph 123.1 decided, on balance, at the time, not to recommend the appointment of a committee which could have done that sort of work although the steering committee might review the proposal from time to time. We do not believe that it is necessary to move in the way that Australia has; indeed, our own procedures are closely mirrored by the Australian reforms introduced last year. I believe that we have a good system which is now coming into effect. The first of the explanatory memoranda under the system is due in a few weeks' time. Let us at least see how that innovation works before suggesting that we move to the next change.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord Lester, right to suggest that we need a more methodical way of examining foreign treaties which the Government submit to the House for approval? While the new method which the noble Baroness has introduced with the explanatory memoranda is extremely welcome, will she recognise, on reflection, that our present method of examining such documents is really rather perfunctory in that they appear listed in the daily Minutes of Proceedings of the House but are not subjected to any form of corrective examination? Will the Minister be so kind as to reconsider the matter with a view to discussions taking place in the Procedure Liaison Committee in due course? I should make it clear that I am not suggesting that we need a full-blown Select Committee on foreign relations. I concur entirely with the recent judgment of the Select Committee on the matter.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I know of the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, in the matter. Of course the whole question was examined during the procedures of the Committee on the Bill which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, proposed. I believe that it would be sensible to see how the new explanatory memoranda system works. It is a supplement to the Ponsonby Rule; it came into operation only on 1st January this year. It will provide an efficient and a workable method of bringing to the attention of Parliament the main features of treaties without the need for additional machinery.
However, if the Procedure Committee in this or another place decides that there should be greater scrutiny, that can be done. It is a matter for both Houses to decide. At present we are just embarking on a new process. Let us at least see first whether that works before moving on to
326
some other procedure which may not be necessary and which may waste the valuable time of your Lordships and Members of another place.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the extremely vigorous defence of our belief in free speech and in parliamentary accountability given by the Minister in answer to the previous Question today, perhaps I may add my voice to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. As the Minister will be aware, the Government's own position in either welcoming or discouraging such a move is very important as regards the proceedings of the Procedure Committee and possibly the Liaison Committee. Given the fact that several European parliaments have the right to discuss treaties on the basis of committee findings, and in view of the fact that the European Parliament itself has such a right, can the Minister say, on reflection, whether she will consider that this ancient House of Parliament should at least have the same right as other parliaments in the European Union?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, each parliament has to do what is right for that parliament. The explanatory memoranda system is in line with openness. That is one thing I believe we should try. However, as the noble Baroness will undoubtedly know, parliamentary legislative action may be required before a treaty is ratified for certain specific classes of treaty—for example, those which require modification of existing law or taxation; those that require new and additional powers for the Crown; and those that increase the powers of the European Parliament.
Let us live with what we have at present. If that does not work satisfactorily, I am quite certain that the Procedure Committees of both Houses will be willing to re-examine the matter. We are taking one step forward. Let us at least give it a try and not dismiss it as unworkable before we have even started.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, as I believe the Minister is aware, we on this side of the House welcome the Government's response to the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. I confirm that we accept that there is a case for trying out the new system. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to say that it is a matter for both Houses of Parliament as to whether or not we set up a Select Committee. However, does she not agree that if we want to see greater transparency and accountability, there is a case for coming back and considering whether we need a Select Committee once the new system has been tried?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her acceptance of my response. I simply say, yes; I agree with her. Let us see how it works. The Procedure Committees in both Houses can return to the matter if it is not seen to be working in the way in which I certainly intend it to work; namely, with a policy of openness, assisted by the explanatory memoranda, on all treaties before they are ratified.

Prisons: Use of Police Cells
3.25 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect remand or convicted prisoners to be placed in police cells because of overcrowding in the prison system.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, government policy is that police cells should not be used to relieve overcrowding except as a last resort. The Prison Service will continue to make every effort to accommodate the prison population without the use of police cells.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's assurance. However, did the noble Baroness hear the speech of the Director General of the Prison Service in Manchester earlier this week in which he estimated that the 135 prison establishments would be full by mid-March and that, thereafter, police cells would have to be used at a cost of £300 per night? He also said that that would mean the removal of police officers from their proper duties and would thereby turn them into gaolers.
Can the Minister confirm, on present policies, what the director general also said; namely, that 6,000 extra prisoners would need to be housed by the year 2000 and that, if the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Bill were to go forward (as suggested in the Explanatory Memorandum), there would be a need for a further 12,000 places over a period of 12 years? Can the Minister say where those prisons will come from and how much they will cost? If they retained power, would this Government ever implement the provisions of that Bill or are we wasting the rest of the day on an election gimmick?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we will not be wasting the rest of the day on an election gimmick; indeed, we shall spend most of today defending the right of the victim to be properly protected against criminals who commit burglary, who commit violent offences and who deal in Class A drugs. However, to answer the noble Lord's question specifically, I should tell him that I am aware of the speech made by the Director General of the Prison Service. I can also tell him that by March 1997—that is, this year—there will be 720 places in open and low-security prisons. By March 1998 there will be 1,900 places in three new prisons and by September 1998 there will be 3,200 new house-block places, plus 350 reclaimed places at existing prisons. Moreover, by March 2000 there will be three more new prisons which will provide 2,400 places. In addition, we have a robust refurbishment programme. I should like to pose a question to the noble Lord and anyone who wishes to support him: who would the noble Lord not put into prison if he believes that some of these people should not receive custodial sentences?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister only answered one half of the question;
328
indeed, she only gave one half of the equation in answer. She told us how many additional prison places will be available, but she did not comment upon or give any proper governmental response to the considered judgment of the Director General of the Prison Service who said that despite the number of extra places we would still run out of accommodation. If, as the director general said, we are to have prisoners housed in police cells from March 1997, can the Minister say, on present trends, how long it will be before the current availability of prison cells runs out and what will happen then?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is the convention of the House that the Minister replies to two questions. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, asked at least five of which I was conscious—possibly even more. I answered him very specifically as regards the number of planned places that will be in place.
However, in defence of the director general, I have to say that he is right to refer to the tensions in the system. It is true that the courts are dispensing more custodial sentences and it is true to say that accommodation must be provided. I have said that police cells will be used as a positive last resort. I have given all the details of places that are coming on stream.
One of the questions asked by the noble Lord I did not answer, but I am happy to do so now. For 1996–97 £120 million has been provided, £86 million of which will be used to finance an increased prison population; £34 million will be used to improve security. There are plans for a further £692 million over the next three years. We are committed to building six new prisons under the private finance initiative which must, of course, be subject to planning considerations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is the Director General of the Prison Service right or wrong?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Director General of the Prison Service was right to point to the tension. The Director General of the Prison Service does not know that police cells will be needed. What he is saying is that if these places do not come on stream—they are planned to come on stream—there could be a danger that police cells may be needed. That is what he addressed at the conference.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right to draw attention to the conventions of the House, one of which is that members of the Government do not ask questions of members of the Opposition. Is she aware that the director general, the chief official responsible for people in Her Majesty's prisons, has indicated quite clearly that by next month there will be prisoners in police cells? The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has asked: is he right or is he wrong? That has nothing to do with tensions in the prison system, although, heaven knows, we are all well aware of that. We are asking the simple question: do the

329
Government accept the judgment of their director general that by next month we shall have prisoners in police cells, thus taking police officers off the streets?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord's question if he will give me a verbatim account of what the director general said in his speech. He rightly referred to the tensions.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have read the speech. I have seen the verbatim account.
Noble Lords: Is it in the brief?
Baroness Blatch: No, my Lords, I do not have it in my brief. However, I have read the speech and I know what he said. He is absolutely right to refer to the tension and to the possibility that if the timing slips in any way there is a possibility that police cells will be used. I have made it quite clear it is our policy that should be done as a positive last resort and in an emergency only. As for posing questions to the Opposition, I posed a rhetorical question for the following reason. Noble Lords on the opposite side of this House have consistently brought me to the Dispatch Box to comment on there being too many people in prisons and the fact that more prisoners who have received custodial sentences should be free in the community. I ask a rhetorical question of those people who make that point. They should be telling the country, not me the Minister, which prisoners convicted of crimes they would have walking free in the streets who should be serving custodial sentences.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, if the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, are correct, is the Minister aware that the numbers and the timescale involved indicate a building programme of 12 prisons with at least the holding capacity of the Strangeways gaol in Manchester? If the Government by any chance win the next election are they committed to a building programme on that scale?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we are certainly committed to making sure that the public are protected and that we have the prison cells available to house those who commit crimes in the community. The noble Lord was not correct. We shall have 8,600 new places by the turn of the century. We are expecting a rise of about 6,000 or 7,000 in the system at this moment. In addition, about 10,800 places will be needed to accommodate the provisions of the crime Bill which is before the House. The financial memorandum makes it clear that the Government will supply those places. There is a robust building programme, much of which I have referred to in the detail of this Question.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I speak as someone who does not have any responsibility for responding to any of her questions from these Benches. Nevertheless I am involved in the
330
Probation Service. Is the Minister aware that there is a class of prisoner whom many people think should not be in prison; namely, fine defaulters?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am delighted to respond to the question of the noble Baroness. I have specific responsibility for the Probation Service. It is interesting to note that in the course of a year more people are put in the charge of the Probation Service than serve custodial sentences. Our record on bringing fine defaulters out of prison is quite a remarkable one. In 1995 there were 20,100 fine defaulters in prison; today the figure is below 8,000.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, the question that could rightly be put to this Government is: how has this problem arisen? Is this one of those circumstances where the Government will seek to blame the Opposition? How have the Government allowed a situation to arise where police cells may be filled with prisoners next month? Is the Minister aware that often police cells are already filled by people whom, for their own safety, the police keep in custody overnight and who ought to be in psychiatric establishments, which the Government have closed down?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I simply do not accept that point. I have not conceded that police cells will be used in anything other than an emergency or as a last resort. We have not used police cells as prison cells since 1995. As regards the other point the noble Baroness made, it is, of course, the case that police cells are used to house people overnight where the police make arrests, where drunken people are admitted, for example drink drivers and people who are incapable of finding their way home. All sorts of people are taken into custody as a result of the police doing their job and addressing crime in the community. If the noble Baroness is present later today, as I suspect she will be as she is an assiduous attender of this House, she will hear that we are making the courts more responsive to those mentally disordered people, who commit crimes in the community and who will be better provided for under the provisions of the crime Bill.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the answers that she has given. Does she not agree that the cost of the prisons that have to be built—that will be about £1 billion—might be better spent on the Probation Service, on rehabilitation and on the prevention of crime? I apologise for asking so many questions.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am delighted to respond to the single question that the noble Lord has asked. As I have already said, it is important to remember that more people who commit crimes are put in the charge of the Probation Service than serve custodial sentences. There is a lower reconviction rate among people who serve custodial sentences—it is only a marginal figure—than among those who do not. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, shakes his head. He ought to look at the facts. About 50 per cent. of those people who

331
commit crimes and who serve custodial sentences commit further crime within two years of their release. The figure for those who serve community sentences is about 52 or 53 per cent. As I have said, the difference is marginal. What is important is that those people who serve custodial sentences are given the facilities to address their offending behaviour. We are continuing to strengthen the effectiveness of community sentences to make them as effective as possible.

Education Bill
3.38 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Education Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 12,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 13 to 25,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 26 to 29,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 30 and 31,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 32 to 37,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 38 to 43,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 44 to 58,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 59 to 72,

Schedules 9 and 10,

Clause 73.—(Lord Henley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Overseas Domestic Workers (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is a modest and narrowly drafted Bill. It gives a limited protection only to a tiny minority of all domestic workers from overseas now in Britain—to those who are plaintiffs or witnesses in cases coming before our courts. It is in the interests of justice.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
CONDITIONS RELATING TO MANDATORY AND MINIMUM CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
(".—(1) This section has effect for the purposes of setting out the basis on which the court shall carry out its sentencing functions under this Part.
(2) Under section 1 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a life sentence the court shall have regard to the circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender.
(3) Under sections 2 and 3 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a custodial sentence of at least seven years under subsection 2(2) or, as the case may be, of at least three years under subsection 3(2) the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which—

(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender: and

(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 1 I speak also to the consequential amendments, Amendments Nos. 4, 18, 20, 26 and 28. As usual, I take the first few moments to allow noble Lords to leave the Chamber in an orderly but not too slow manner.
As I said in the debate at Second Reading, mandatory determinate sentences are at the heart of the Bill. It is therefore essential that Members of the Committees should get this matter right as we embark on the Committee proceedings. The starting point for our consideration of the amendments must be the statement of the Home Secretary at the Conservative Party Conference in 1995. It has been referred to on a number of occasions. When announcing the plan for mandatory minimum sentences, the Home Secretary made no exceptions whatsoever. That was the pledge he gave to his party: that there would be mandatory minimum

333
sentences; and that people would be locked up on a basis to be determined by Parliament rather than by the judges without any provision for discretion.
Last year he produced a White Paper. That White Paper contained for the first time an exception. It said that there could be judicial discretion under genuinely exceptional circumstances. In November last, the Bill was produced. The Bill no longer refers to "genuinely exceptional circumstances", if indeed that phrase ever meant anything. It now refers to "exceptional circumstances". If anyone talks about U-turns, let us be clear that the U-turn was that committed by the Home Secretary in resiling from his pledge to the Conservative Party Conference and introducing a Bill which provided for the first time for judicial discretion.
When the Bill was before another place, my colleagues in the Commons, and other Members from all parts of the House, spent a great deal of time seeking to discover what "exceptional" meant. We failed even to gain examples, let alone a definition, of what it meant. The only example that I can find was given by the Home Secretary at Second Reading. He seemed to think that a police informer might be an exceptional circumstance which would deserve other than the minimum sentence. I find that curious because other suggestions have been that "exceptional" would be unforeseen circumstances; and the fact that a defendant is a police informer is not unforeseen. The Conservative chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons thought that this was bad law because it was unclear. It is still unclear; and it is still bad law.
The amendments which we have set down today follow our probing in the Commons and represent our determination to provide a workable definition of judicial discretion. Mr. Douglas Hurd in his speech, to which I have already referred at Second Reading, said that it was important to get the phrasing right. Indeed it is. It is important that we should try our very best to do that today.
The independent legal watchdog Justice—I am sorry not to see the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, in his place today—described the effect of our amendments as being,
"to ensure that judicial discretion is preserved while retaining a presumption in favour of mandatory sentences".
I accept that definition. Under that definition it cannot be said that these are wrecking amendments.
Why is it essential to clarify the Bill at this stage and in this way? It is essential because if judges cannot make the Bill work there are no answers to the serious questions which I and other noble Lords raised at Second Reading. If there is inadequate discretion, and if the Bill is bad because it is unclear, how can we be sure that in the appropriate circumstances the Crown Prosecution Service will prosecute? How can we be sure that juries will convict? How can we be sure that witnesses, in particular family witnesses, will give evidence? How can we be sure that there will not be an increase in not guilty cases of people who feel that they have nothing to lose by pleading not guilty because if they plead guilty there is a mandatory minimum sentence which cannot be varied in any way. There has
334
been reference in particular to the danger of not guilty pleas in rape cases where cross-examination of the victim can be such a painful process. How can we be sure that there will not be effects on the prison population—we have already referred to that issue at Question Time—and on prison conditions, rehabilitation, education and training? We have to be clear: the Bill has to be clear: and these amendments seek to make it clear.
The other amendments in the group are strictly consequential on the statement of principle in Amendment No. 1. Amendments to Clauses 1 to 3 allow judges to have regard to either or any of the offences and to the offender. The issue was discussed at Second Reading and it was made clear that it was necessary to have that provision to allow judges to be secure of their discretion. I believe that the phrase "acceptable" in Clause 1 is acceptable. As I said at Second Reading, in that case the judge sets the tariff and the Parole Board sets the release date. However, for those Members of the Committee who disagree with that judgment, there will be an opportunity in debate on Amendment No. 3 to discuss an alternative point of view.
In Clauses 2 and 3, where "exceptional" is particularly obscure, the word is removed and replaced by the words that the court shall have regard to the specific circumstances which,
"(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and
(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances".
In a letter to my honourable friend Jack Straw, the Home Secretary said only yesterday,
"tough and effective action to deal with serious criminals like professional burglars and drug dealers",
is necessary. We agree entirely. Judges will award much tougher sentences to professionals. For example, sentences of 12 to 20 years' imprisonment for professional Class A drug dealers are quite common now even on the first offence. But we have to accept that the kind of offences that come under the categories of burglary and Class A drug dealing are very varied. Many burglars are pathetic losers; many small drug dealers are themselves addicts who need treatment rather than lengthy prison sentences. The effect of the "three strikes and you're out" policy in California as first applied—I do not claim that that is what is provided in the Bill—is very well known. In the past month, a man convicted under that policy, given 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pizza, had his sentence reduced to two years on appeal.
In case there is any doubt that judges would operate these clauses fairly but firmly, which may be an argument that the Government will use, my Amendments Nos. 8, 21, 29 and 32 clarify and secure the power of the Attorney-General to appeal against leniency for any of the offences in the Bill.
This morning on the "Today" programme the Home Secretary said three or four times that these amendments would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. At the same time he refused to hold the kind of constructive talks requested by Jack Straw which took place to such good effect on the Police Bill.
The Committee does not have to take my word for it that these are not wrecking amendments. The view of Justice, which I quoted, that they,
"ensure that judicial discretion is preserved while retaining a presumption in favour of mandatory sentences,"
is a just judgment. It proves that these are constructive and workable amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I rise to support these amendments to which I have put my name, and I know where the Committee resiles from my still confirmed view that I am against mandatory sentences as such. I am against them for the very good reason that I believe that the role of the legislature, the role of Parliament, is to provide the sentencing framework within which judges should pass sentence. I believe that judges should always be free to fit a particular punishment to a particular crime. May I dare to say to the Minister that I share the view of the Government expressed as recently as February 1990 that,
"The Courts will properly continue to have the wide discretion they need if they are to deal justly with the great variety of crimes which come before them. The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework on the lines of those introduced in the United States or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences".
That was the view of the Government as recently as 1990. I still share that view. I have heard nothing during the course of debates in this Chamber to persuade me to understand why the Government have apparently changed in the way that they have.
If we are, nevertheless, to go down the road of mandatory sentences, as appears the case, and if at the same time we are to avoid injustice in individual cases, it is essential that we have a discretion that will allow the courts to sentence other than by means of mandatory sentences when they believe, given all the circumstances of a case, that it is unjust to impose such a sentence. I cannot see how we advance the cause of justice, or confidence in justice, by requiring judges to impose sentences that they believe to be unjust. I cannot see how we advance the cause of justice by sentences that clearly are unjust, as will happen.
I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in moving the amendment. I am not in any way against severe sentences. It is not a matter of being tough or not being tough on crime. It is a matter of providing sufficient discretion to allow justice to take place.
There is enormous variety in the cases that appear before the courts. I turn immediately to the provision in Clause 3 of the Bill relating to burglary. Burglars divide between, on the one hand, the professional, who perhaps breaks into a house at night and strips it of valuable property, and on whom I am sure the whole Committee would wish to see a serious penalty imposed, to, more commonly, the young, often opportunist burglar acting on impulse, often entering a house that is unoccupied. Those two ends of the spectrum cannot be dealt with by one simple system of mandatory sentencing.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, the Bill provides that there shall be an exception; namely, if there are "exceptional circumstances". With the greatest
336
respect, I believe that provision to be totally inadequate. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has pointed out in this House and other places, the term "exceptional circumstances" has always been construed by the courts extremely narrowly. I wish to make it clear that, not only has it been construed extremely narrowly; it is clearly the intention of the Government that it shall continue to be construed extremely narrowly. In another place on 15th January Mr David Maclean, the Minister of State, said:
"It is the Lord Chief Justice's view, which I believe to be correct, that the term 'exceptional circumstances' will be construed very narrowly. I believe and hope that that is the correct interpretation".—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/97; col. 395.]
Later he said:
"It is the Government's intention that the courts should interpret 'exceptional circumstances' in exactly the same way as they have been in other legislation over the past five years".—[col. 396.]
What does that mean? It means that it is accepted by the Government that the exclusion that they are attempting to put into the Bill is to be construed narrowly. As the noble Lord said in opening, the only example given in another place by any Minister was the suggestion of the Home Secretary that the provision could apply to someone who had given exceptional assistance to the police.
What we do know—and there is clear authority for this—is that exceptional circumstances do not include good character, youth, an early plea of guilty or contrition, whether taken separately or in combination. It is essential that if the Bill is not to be found in practice to cause injustice, during this Committee stage we should replace the provision of "exceptional circumstances" and, as these amendments attempt to do, introduce the idea that a court need not pass a mandatory sentence if it is satisfied that it is unjust in all the circumstances. With respect, I should have thought that that was not a difficult concept but one behind which all sides of the Committee might unite. Surely it cannot be said that Parliament wishes to see courts being required to pass sentences which they believe to be unjust.
Having read the debate that took place in this House on Second Reading, I wish to attempt to answer some of the points made. My noble friend Lady Young said that under the Bill there would be stiffer minimum sentences for persistent house burglars who had committed serious offences. She said:
"I find it difficult to believe that that includes stealing a milk bottle. It would make a mockery of the whole situation if that were the case".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 1005.]
I have to tell the House that, according to the Minister in another place, that is apparently the case. The very issue was put during the Committee stage in another place. Mr. Maclean, the Minister, said:
"Whether someone is charged with theft of milk bottles or with burglary is a question of fact and law. If the Crown Prosecution Service decide to charge burglary, not theft, the person is so charged. It is up to the court to determine whether the offence is burglary. I have no sympathy for a third time burglar whose excuse is. 'It wasn't a proper burglary. I only reached in the window to steal a milk bottle'. In the honourable gentleman's view, it would be more serious if the person had reached in and grabbed a purse from a woman.

337
"I do not intend to pontificate on whether that burglary would be more or less serious. If a person is charged with a set of circumstances which, in the court's view, constitute domestic burglary, and he is found guilty, I am content for the provisions of the clause to apply to him".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 21/11/96; col. 146]
It is clear that as the Bill stands it would cover the very case which my noble friend Lady Young said would make a mockery of the whole Bill.
I turn to another matter. Both my noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lady Anelay referred to their situation as magistrates. I wish to remind the House of what the Magistrates' Association said in its considered submission to the Home Office:
"The Magistrates' Association considers that domestic burglary is a singularly unsuitable offence for a mandatory sentence. While we acknowledge that burglary can be a very serious offence, e.g. night-time burglary with ransacking, soiling and damage, nevertheless the scope of the offence is so wide that the criminal justice system could he brought into disrepute if courts had to impose mandatory three year sentence for, say, the theft of a bottle of milk through an open window. Moreover, we see great problems in defining 'genuinely exceptional circumstances' at the time of the mode of trial decision, resulting in all cases being referred to the Crown Court".
I believe that the Magistrates' Association was absolutely right in its view.
The point I wish to make to the House is different. I ask my noble friends who are magistrates a question. One of the principles on which the White Paper is based is the claim that on the third offence of domestic burglary half the cases are dealt with in the magistrates' court and that some 64 per cent. of those convicted are not sentenced to prison. Those who are get an average of four months. My question is this: is it really to be suggested that magistrates sitting in court are so out of touch with the community they represent that it is to be argued that all those cases which make up the 64 per cent. who, in the magistrates' view, should not go to prison at all, are instead to receive a mandatory three-year sentence? Indeed, rather more. If we take into account the effect of honesty in sentencing, it is now a sentence of four-and-a-half years. I ask magistrates to reflect: are they saying of themselves and their colleagues that they have got it so wrong that in 64 per cent. of the cases that do not go to prison at all the court should instead be required to impose a sentence of three-and-a-half to four years' imprisonment? I believe that the message to be drawn is not that the magistrates have it wrong, but that it shows the wide variety of incidents that amount to domestic burglary.
Finally, like the mover of the amendment, I was frankly amazed to hear the suggestion by the Home Secretary that the amendment would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. Is it really considered that to say that a court should not be required to pass a sentence which it believes unjust drives a coach and horses through the Bill? If it does, then all I can say is that it shows the total injustice of the Bill with which we are dealing.
It has also been suggested that if the amendment were passed it would be a wrecking amendment because it would leave the situation as the status quo. With respect, that is totally untrue. I wish to remind the House of what
338
would happen if the amendment were to pass. Instead of half the cases today being dealt with in the magistrates' court, under the terms of the Bill every third case of domestic burglary would have to go to the Crown Court. When those cases reached the Crown Court there would be a presumption that the defendant would serve the mandatory sentence of three years because the Bill says:
"The court shall impose [such] a sentence".
The defendant would have the burden of satisfying the judge that it was unjust in the circumstances to do so. On top of that the judge then has to state in open court his reasons for coming to that conclusion.
I do not believe that sentencing should be a matter for party political debate. Judges are appointed from practising lawyers without question as to their political allegiance. Magistrates are chosen to represent the areas and communities in which they live. Surely, we should attempt to provide a system of justice and sentencing which is agreed across the political divide. I believe that I am the only person on this side of the House who at the moment sits as a recorder and tries and sentences people. I realise that my noble friend Lord Renton did so with distinction for many years. I know that, across the Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is also a recorder, as is the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. We sit on different Benches in this House but I am sure that we will all vote the same way on this amendment. We will do so because we all believe that sentencing should not be a matter of party politics. It should be a matter of doing justice between the individual and the state.
I apologise for going on so long. Finally, I believe it is tragic that the Government appear to be in total conflict with the judiciary over the matter. I have absolutely no doubt that the overwhelming majority of those who sit in the criminal courts, whether they be High Court judges, circuit judges, recorders or assistant recorders, are totally opposed to the effect of mandatory sentences unless there is a sensible exclusion clause. I find it extraordinary that apparently the Government do not heed the advice of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls and the two previous Lord Chief Justices who sit in the House today. I hope desperately that we can come to an agreement to find a set of words which will allow the Bill to proceed but to proceed in a way that will do justice. If the Minister feels herself unable to accept the amendment, then all I can say is that I hope that it will be carried by the House.
Baroness Seccombe: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make one comment. I admit that I am not qualified in any way. However, the guidance given to magistrates is that the magistrates' court is not the right place to hear the offence of burglary of a dwelling house because the sentence that a magistrates' court can impose is not severe enough. I am amazed to hear the figures given by the noble Lord and that so many such cases appear to be dealt with in the magistrates' courts. I understand they would not hear them.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I took the figures from the White Paper—that was my justification. They are to

339
be found on page 52 of the White Paper. Figure 11 shows the number of convictions and average sentence lengths for burglary of a dwelling for, I believe, 1994. The table shows that 305 of them were given in the Crown Court, and 277 in the magistrates' court. Of those 277, 36 per cent. were sent to prison and the average length of sentence was four months.
My noble friend is right. Under the Bill, magistrates will no longer have the power to deal with a third offence of domestic burglary. There will rightly be a requirement to commit, because higher sentences than those should be considered. My point was that it seems an extraordinary jump from saying in those days that 64 per cent. of such offenders do not go to prison at all to saying that we should enact a Bill which requires every one of them to be sent to prison for at least three years.
Lord Renton: Can my noble friend make it clear whether the figures given in the White Paper relate to first, second or third convictions?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The figures I gave related to third convictions. That was my point. Figures are also given for first and second convictions. I shall not bore the Committee by reading them out but I can assure noble Lords that such is the case. I shall hand the White Paper to my noble friend.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, who spoke so powerfully in favour of the amendments.
The Committee will know that for many years the noble Lord has been chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In that capacity he has been involved in the problems that affect victims. I had the privilege of serving on the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under the chairmanship of the noble Lord and previously under Sir Michael Ogden for a period of about eight years. Every member of that board has passing before him every year something in the region of 2,000 files of victims of violent crime, and day by day and week by week the members of that board are concerned to see what happens to people who suffer from violent crime. Members are provided with medical reports. They see what follows. The overwhelming impression that one receives as a member of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is that victims must be protected.
So when the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and I speak, I hope that we do not speak from the point of view of recorders or part-time judges. We do not represent a trade union. We speak because we have practical experience of the effects of crime upon people. We are anxious to ensure that the limited resources available for dealing with crime in this country are spent properly in the prevention of crime and not simply in the containment of people for longer and longer periods. If those resources have to be spent upon people who are in prison, then they should be spent on rehabilitation, to enable prisoners, who are still human beings and not
340
statistics, to come out of prison and take a rightful place as fruitful and, it is to be hoped, more honest and less violent members of our society. That is the point from which we come when we address the issues that are now before the Committee.
I ask the Committee to ponder for a moment on what we are seeing; namely, a most extraordinary attack upon the judiciary. Its discretion is to be taken away and limited by statutory restraints as set out in the Bill at the very time when, as the Committee heard earlier today, the gaols are full. There are 62,000 people in prison today. The judges who are so failing in their duty to society have succeeded in filling every cell, doubling up in some cells and perhaps tripling up in others, in gaols which have been made available by the state for punishing people.
There is a paradox which I am sure the Committee must comprehend. How can the judges of this country be said to be failing in their duty and a soft touch all of a sudden, as we approach an election, and be accused of not doing their duty, when all the gaols are full? The practical experience of those who have been involved in the criminal law for a period of time is that over the past 20 or 30 years the Crown Courts, the circuit judges and High Court judges have become tougher and tougher in their response to an increasing crime wave.
I refer to an increasing crime wave because over the period that the Conservative Government have been in power, since 1979—I do not, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, want to make a political point; it is merely a fact—crimes of violence have doubled and the judges have responded. They have increased the sentences. But it is not right to interfere in the balance between the judiciary and Parliament (the executive), by taking away from judges the discretion which for centuries they have exercised in sentencing matters.
I support the amendment, although I am not completely happy with it—our amendment will be discussed later—but as the noble Lord said, the issue in the amendment is the question of exceptional circumstances. What is an exceptional circumstance? Is it exceptional that a wife who has been battered by her husband takes a knife to him, or, in a case which I recall, that a wife should strike her husband on the head with a hammer and kill him? Is that exceptional? It is not. It happens all the time. I am afraid that it is a fact. There is nothing exceptional about circumstances of that sort which come before the courts. There is nothing exceptional about the manner in which burglaries take place: young people break into premises, steal on a whim and under the influence of alcohol or drugs. There are people who come from a rough background and who have had no chance in life. Those are everyday matters with which the courts have to deal and there is nothing exceptional about them.
A judge tries to listen to what an individual criminal has done—what his crime is—and consider its circumstances. He balances it against all the other circumstances of which he has learned throughout his career and asks how that appears in the scale. Against that he sets the mitigating circumstances relating to that particular individual in front of him. Having carried out

341
that exercise, he passes a sentence which he considers from his experience is just. Are politicians to interfere in that? Is the Home Secretary to come along and say, "Well, I know better. I am responding to a wave of feeling in the country, expressed through the tabloid press"? Or is it better that we should rely upon the instincts, the training and the just feeling of the individual judge who tries a case? I ask those noble Lords who may be thinking of voting against the amendment seriously to consider what they will be doing to the constitution of this country.
The Earl of Dudley: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he not agree that the issue before the Committee this afternoon is not whether judges are too soft, but whether the law is too soft?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The law, in all the offences set out in the first clause of the Bill, permits a life sentence to be passed; therefore, it cannot be said that the law is soft. In the first clause the law allows judges to pass condign sentences, and they frequently do. I am not aware in my experience of a person who has raped for the second time not receiving life imprisonment.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: I find myself in such complete agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that, perhaps uncharacteristically, I can be very brief. I hope I shall be forgiven for stating the obvious by reminding the Committee that for one citizen, whatever office he holds, to pass sentence on another is a solemn and serious task. However deserving of punishment a defendant may be, it is always a difficult and anxious task to measure that punishment.
Judges do their best. They weigh what they perceive to be all the relevant factors: the interests of the public; the legitimate interests of the victim; the protection of other potential victims; and the interests of the defendant himself. They are not always right. I make no claim for infallibility. Judges alone among mortals are not so gifted. If they pass sentences which are excessively severe, then a Court of Appeal exists to correct those sentences. If they pass sentences that are unduly lenient, then the Attorney General has power to refer those sentences to the court for review. Members of the Committee will not hear me resist a request for an extension of the Attorney General's power. It is a power which, since it was introduced, has been exercised—to the best of my belief—with great responsibility and discretion. I have no fears that it would be misused if extended.
No doubt our sentencing system is imperfect; any human system of the kind must necessarily be so. But I invite Members of the Committee to search the world for any system that is less imperfect. Rules of thumb do not provide an answer to these problems because the passing of a sentence is not a mechanical task. Nowhere in the world does one find evidence that logarithmic tables or mechanical rules of thumb yield better answers than the courts of this country.
I hope the Committee will not be seduced by the analogy of compulsory disqualification. To draw an analogy between the compulsory deprivation of a
342
driving licence and a period of incarceration potentially for life is to trivialise this discussion to such an extent as to defy rational argument. All that we plead for is that the courts be given the power to decline to pass sentences which are offensive to the professional and moral consciences of judges. Surely that is not asking too much.
Lord Burnham: I rise with a little diffidence after so many noble and learned Lords have expressed their views on this amendment and on the Bill in general. My concern is with what seems to be a major misunderstanding in relation to the purpose of this section of the Bill. I was particularly concerned that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice should express his total support for my noble friend Lord Carlisle.
My noble friend talked of young, and implicitly innocent, burglars who might suffer as a result of the Bill. But they are young burglars with three previous convictions, after cautions, warnings and anything else that may have gone before. The noble Lord talked also of their good character. Can a man have a good character after three convictions? Surely, this is a Bill which is dealing with a confirmed and persistent criminal.
Members of the British public are the victims, and they have scarcely been mentioned in discussion on the Bill. The early parts of the Bill talk of sexual offences, drugs and burglary. If the Bill can help to reduce the incidence of those crimes, it will be worth while. The Bill emphasises the persistence of offending more than the seriousness of the offence. A later amendment seeks to take manslaughter out of the Bill. But three instances of manslaughter or grievous bodily harm must indicate that something is wrong.
It is clear that judges fail to understand the deep concern felt in this country about crimes of this sort. Even so, under the Bill judges will retain the right not to use the sentencing policy in "exceptional circumstances". The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice stated, quite correctly, that he and the Attorney General have the right to appeal if it is felt that sentencing in any specific case has gone wrong; but, after three convictions, a custodial sentence of some severity is unlikely to be wrong. It may be, in exceptional circumstances, and the Bill deals with that.
When discussing the firearms Bill, we were told that the public demanded it; and the Bill was passed this week in this Chamber. Members of the public have to face few Members of the Committee, including myself—whether or not they are noble and learned. The Bill addresses the major anxieties of those members of the public, who see these offences being committed around them all the time; they want just a little peace and quiet. G.K. Chesterton was right when he said:
"Smile at us, pay us, pass us; but do not quite forget.
For we are the people of England, that never have spoken yet".
The same poem talks about the "staggering lawyer". I find the attitude of some lawyers quite staggering!

343
The Bill goes a considerable way to achieving what those outside this Chamber want. The amendment weakens it and, with other amendments, takes us back virtually to where we are at the moment. The amendment should be opposed.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Ackner: When I listened to the indignant observations of the Home Secretary on the radio this morning, I realised yet again that I am but a child in these political matters.
The amendment seeks to achieve merely that a judge is given a discretion to match the punishment to the crime. I shall submit that Members of the Government Benches can, with a wholly clear conscience, support it. What it seeks to achieve was sought by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He thought he had achieved it; but in fact he failed to achieve it because of his misunderstanding of at least the English meaning in the forensic context of "exceptional circumstances". Let me make that good.
The subject matter with which we are concerned is justice: justice in the administration of the criminal law and justice in relation to the imposition of sentences of imprisonment. The Lord Chancellor, by virtue of his great office, is deeply concerned that Parliament does not legislate in such a way as to prevent a judge doing justice or, worse still, to oblige him to do an injustice. That was the concern of the Lord Chancellor, who initially baulked at this legislation.
What happened? I can tell your Lordships by reference to an interview which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor gave early in November and which was the subject matter of an article in The Times on 5th November. I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, notice that I would refer to this article. I have taken the precaution of speaking to the law correspondent to ensure that what she wrote was not the subject matter of any correction. Indeed, I have learnt that the interview was recorded in the Lord Chancellor's Department and a transcript of that recording was provided very helpfully to the legal correspondent.
The article is headed:
"Proposals for minimum sentences 'enable judges to deal justly with particular cases—.
Underneath that:
"Mackay has change of heart over Crime Bill".
There is then a very genial picture of my noble and learned friend. Underneath that is written:
"He admitted he had been behind some of the wording in the Bill".
The opening of the article is in these terms:
"Plans for tougher sentencing have won the crucial backing of the Lord Chancellor as they start their passage through Parliament. In a change of view, Lord Mackay of Clashfern says the Home Secretary's proposals on minimum sentences are now framed so as to meet the concerns of judges.
Lord Mackay, who had baulked at the idea of minimum sentences, said in an interview with The Times that the Crime (Sentences) Bill would enable judges to 'deal justly with particular cases'".
344
A little later on, referring to exceptional circumstances, the article states:
"Lord Mackay said he had ensured that this phrase was included so judges could escape what they saw as a restriction on their ability to match punishment and crime.
'I expressed the view that one needed to consider that and the Home Secretary obviously did have that under consideration and this is the result of it,' he said. 'I think it enables them to deal justly with particular cases, while at the same time giving very clear warning to anyone who's contemplating a crime of this kind what the result will be, unless there are exceptional circumstances.'"
It is absolutely nothing to the point—certainly nothing to the point that I seek to make—that the Lord Chancellor was in error in his construction of "exceptional circumstances". The point which I want to make, and which I submit is of vital importance to your Lordships, is that the head of the judiciary, a very senior member of the Cabinet, recognised the paramount importance of the judge having sufficient discretion to enable him to match punishment with crime, an elementary requirement of justice. He thought, sadly wrongly, that he had achieved that by persuading the Home Secretary to put in just the simple words "exceptional circumstances".
That is why I have said that Members on the Government Benches can with a clear conscience support this amendment, because clearly it seeks to achieve that which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor sought to achieve; namely, a sufficient discretion in the judiciary to enable them, and I quote again the words from the article,
"to match punishment and crime".
As it stands at the moment, they cannot do so; as it stands at the moment, there will be occasions when they are prevented from doing justice; as it stands at the moment, there will be occasions when they will be obliged to do injustice. For those reasons, I firmly support the amendment.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I rise as a non-lawyer and I take a somewhat different approach to these amendments from those noble Lords who have spoken in favour of them. I think it is generally agreed in the country that there is a strong feeling that the state is not doing enough to protect innocent victims from persistent and serious criminals. It is the main duty of any government to do their utmost to strengthen law and order and to ensure as far as they possibly can that citizens can go about their business without let or hindrance. In the circumstances we now face, the Government would have been failing in their duty had they not reacted to the increasingly serious situation.
It is well known that it is a cardinal principle of British justice that an accused person is innocent until he is proved guilty. We all respect that principle and expect the courts to uphold it. At the same time, in a debate of this kind it is very appropriate—indeed essential—to stress the plight of innocent victims. As your Lordships know, the amendments we are debating deal with repeat offenders who have been convicted of serious crimes which cause great injury and distress to innocent victims. I remind your Lordships that a person has to be convicted for a second time. In Clause 1 of

345
the Bill, the serious crimes which are specified are sexual crimes, attempted murder, manslaughter, rape or serious wounding. One has only to mention these very serious crimes to realise the immense damage and harm they do to innocent victims and the fear they spread throughout the community.
In the case of Clause 2, the minimum sentence laid down is again for people convicted of a second offence for trafficking in hard drugs. How many promising young lives are blighted, sometimes for life, by this evil trade? In the case of Clause 3, the minimum sentence is for people who again have been convicted a second time for domestic burglary. All your Lordships know the mess and the misery caused by burglary to innocent victims who often have little prospect of recovering treasured heirlooms. In all these cases, as has already been pointed out, there is the important saving phrase,
"unless … there are exceptional circumstances".
Edmund Burke, in a famous speech to his constituents in Bristol many years ago, said that a Member of Parliament is not a delegate or an acoustitude for his constituents. He is a representative and owes them his judgment. That means that he must not be over-borne by public opinion. But Edmund Burke also said—and this was long before universal suffrage was introduced—that a Member of Parliament must take very careful note of public opinion. Indeed, this is an essential element in the parliamentary and democratic system upon which we pride ourselves. It is all the more important when we are dealing with intensely serious matters of this kind.
I believe that this Bill is necessary to respond to the present situation. It seems to me that the amendments would greatly weaken the essential principle of the Bill. For that reason, I shall vote against the amendments.
Earl Russell: I listened with great care to the noble Lords, Lord Burnham and Lord Dean of Harptree. Except for the last two sentences of the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree, I do not believe that I need to join issue with anything they said. I wish to draw attention to what they did not say. I believe they have illustrated a confusion which has been at the heart of our debate from the beginning of Second Reading. What we have heard from the other side of the Chamber from the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is a case for longer sentences in response to a public concern. I hear that message. What we have not heard from the other side of the Chamber is any specific principle defence of the mandatory sentence.
They are not the same issue. It is my view that a mandatory sentence must be unjust whatever its length because as I understand the word "justice" it must involve passing an individual judgment—as this amendment spells it out—both on the offence and on the offender. Many of us here have had the task of disciplining our children. I do not believe that many of us have disciplined them according to a flat tariff regardless of the circumstances, mood and the conditions of the offence. I believe that most of us would have thought that that was unjust because it would not have been making the punishment fit the
346
crime. That is a vital objective. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, referred to this approach to a mandatory sentence and treating sentencing as a mechanical task, he hit the nail on the head. As W.S. Gilbert had it, "Five crimes at half-a-crown, that is exactly 12s 6d".
I hear the argument that has been made about exceptional circumstances but, as I understand it, any sentence which is not based on a specific consideration of the circumstances is necessarily unjust. So if we accept the exceptional circumstances formula we are saying that only in exceptional circumstances can justice be done. That is completely unacceptable. All successful amendments are compromises: this amendment is a compromise. If I live with it, I, like the Home Secretary, will have to make sacrifices of principle. But in the real world one must reach compromise. This is a compromise with which I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, am prepared to live. I hope that the Home Secretary may be able to say the same.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others have addressed the question of principle which lies behind the Bill and these amendments. There are two questions of principle and a number of questions about practice which follow. The one which has bulked large in earlier speeches and in the minds of many of us is whether or not it is proper in principle for Parliament to tell the judges what to do.
In the days of King James we rightly resisted the view that the judges were "lions under the throne". Since then ultimate power in this country has been drawn into the Crown in Parliament. Historically, the Crown has always acceded to the wish of Parliament. Therefore, it is in no way a breach of principle if Parliament is to tell the judges what to do.
The question then arises of what it may tell the judges to do and the authority that it has to do so. Reference has been frequently made to the opinion of the public. We are not an elected Chamber; our knowledge of public opinion is accidental and private. The knowledge of the other place of public opinion is professional and deliberate. Therefore, in this Chamber we are in a sense the jury in a contest between the judges on the one hand and the other place led by the government on the other. I remind the Committee that the judges may be lions under Parliament, but they are not lions under the government. It is not for Her Majesty's Government as the executive to tell the judiciary what to do, but it is for Parliament to interpret what the nation wants the judges to do for its protection.
Let us not forget that a principal duty of any government and any judiciary is the preservation of the Queen's peace, and that is what we are discussing. It is said that the Queen's peace is being unacceptably destroyed by the threat posed to innocent and often defenceless citizens by breakers of the law who may or may not be innocent young people in other respects but who have broken the law and therefore the Queen's peace and must be brought to justice. If the Government were to say that in every such instance and regardless

347
of the innocence or otherwise in other respects of every offender, then first offenders in any of the categories should be subject to a mandatory sentence. I submit that that would be an unacceptable proposition. But that is not what is proposed. I had an elegant paragraph rehearsed, although I should probably have forgotten it. But it was so well put by my noble friend, Lord Burnham. I merely ask the Committee to remember the catalogue of offences and re-offences which he read out which would not qualify for this treatment.
Where a really grave crime such as a violent or sexual crime—the list is long, extending from murder, through rape, to intercourse with a girl under the age of 13, none of which can be brushed off lightly or undertaken unintentionally—is a second offence it stretches the imagination a little that there should be extenuating circumstances which make it worthy of less than an extreme penalty. Those circumstances would have to be exceptional and there is provision for exceptional circumstances in the Bill.
The same argument applies a fortiori to the other less serious cases because they are to be subject to a mandatory sentence, not on the second but on the third offence. The third accidental burglary? The third forgivable class A drugs trafficking ruining hundreds of lives? It seemed to me that at the outset noble and learned Lords and their allies appeared to build an impregnable fortress for their position, to which I was strongly drawn because I am one of those people who has spent much time trying to soften the impact of punishment on young people. But that was as regards the first offence. What one needs with the first offence is the certainty—not the possibility or the fear but the certainty—of what the punishment will be on the second offence and, a fortiori, on the third offence. Justice requires reliability. Young people in particular want to know where they are and this Bill meets that demand. If my noble friend makes the speech I expect in reply to the amendment, I shall vote for her.
Lord Renton: I rise to make two points which have not so far been made but which I believe to be of relevance and importance. First, the joint effect of the amendments would be to restore judicial discretion completely, as for first and second offences at present. There is no doubt that that would be their effect. Indeed, the last words of Amendment No. 1 state:
"would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances".
That takes us back to square one. That is the position in which the judiciary operates at present. Various other provisions relate to,
"the offences or to the offender",
and to "specific circumstances" and so on. So, the various matters that arise when the courts are considering sentencing will be considered as a result of the amendments.
Secondly, the amendments conflict completely with Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and the movers and supporters of the amendments might just as well have suggested omitting
348
those three clauses from the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said—I agree with him because I have often operated in this way myself in various circumstances—"Let us compromise if we can". Yes, by all means let us compromise, but these amendments are not a compromise; they are an obliteration.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, argued earlier that, when sentencing, judges ought to be able to take each and every circumstance into account with each and every particular offence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice referred to the fact that if the judges at first instance get the decision wrong, we can nevertheless rest easy because we have the formality of the Attorney-General's reference and the Court of Appeal can look at the matter afresh and come to another decision.
As a layman looking at the practice, I was somewhat intrigued because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said earlier that the reference power was a power that has been exercised with great responsibility and discretion. However, I understand that over the years the Court of Appeal has evolved a policy of double jeopardy which it applies when carrying out its duties. That is not a power which appears in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but it means that the Court of Appeal takes into account the fact that when an offender appears before it, he or she is being sentenced on a second occasion. Therefore, the sentence which might properly be imposed by the Court of Appeal would be reduced.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships a fairly recent example of that, as reported in The Times on 27th January this year (with the Attorney-General's Reference No. 28 of 1996). A sentence of four years' imprisonment had been passed by a High Court judge in a case of the rape of a prostitute where the offender had insisted on intercourse without protection although she did not so consent. The Lord Chief Justice ruled that the sentence was unduly lenient and that the shortest sentence which the trial judge could properly have imposed was eight years but, taking into account double jeopardy, the court substituted a period of just six years' imprisonment.
I chose that example because it is the most recent that I have to hand, although I have several others. As a layman and a member of the public, I know that there are people who perhaps would not have confidence in extending the powers of the Attorney-General's reference or leaving all sentencing in the hands of the Court of Appeal when policies such as double jeopardy have evolved which appear to result in the offender not receiving the sentence which even the Court of Appeal says should have been passed at the court of first instance.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I should like to make two brief points. The first arises out of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he said that it was no breach of principle to tell the judges what to do. I should like to emphasise that to my recollection no judge in this House has ever suggested that the judges

349
do contest the right of Parliament to tell them what to do. Indeed, I know that the Lord Chief Justice has made that absolutely clear. It is Parliament's constitutional right to do that. But there is a world of difference between having the right to do that and doing it.
However, even the noble Lord, Lord Elton, seemed to balk at the idea that Parliament should tell the judges that they should impose a particular sentence for every first offence. That would not be a breach of principle; it would be a monstrous thing to do, but that is something quite different. I hope that we shall not be told again that the judges are in some way obstructing the will of Parliament. They are advising that what the Government propose is wholly wrong and that it would involve them in being asked to do things which they believe to be wholly unjust.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that the amendment takes us back to square one. With respect, I disagree. It gives the judges a discretion which they badly need. But it is a discretion that is exercised against a background. At the moment, there is no background except the maximum sentence. The amendment would substitute a different background. It would be saying, "This is the sentence"—whether mandatory or minimum—"which in the view of Parliament is the norm". Indeed, it would be the minimum norm because there is nothing to stop judges going above it. It would be saying, "This is the norm in terms of minima, but if you, the judges, find that there are circumstances in which the norm would be unjust, you will be free to depart from it". That is something quite different from the wide-ranging discretion which judges have at present.
I hope that when the Minister replies—and no doubt relies upon "exceptional circumstances"—she will think for a moment in terms of percentages. In my book and, I suggest, in the book of most judges, an exceptional circumstance would be a fraction of 1 per cent. of all cases, yet we know that many of the cases which have been mentioned—the young inadequate drug addict and the opportunist young burglar who has been tempted—are not to be counted at under 1 per cent., still less at a fraction of 1 per cent. Large categories fall into what many people would regard as "exceptional circumstances" which the judges could not conscientiously regard as "exceptional circumstances" in the light of the meaning which judges have always given to those words.
The Marquess of Hertford: May I ask my noble friend the Minister whether there is any truth at all in the rumour that the Home Office is considering in a few years' time hiring ships to house the number of prisoners for whom there may be no room in our existing gaols or even in the gaols which are now being built? If that rumour is true, I feel some anxiety that we are going back to the days when Charles Dickens was a young man and prisoners were housed in hulks on the Thames Estuary, when an ex-convict could say with perfect truth that he might as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. It follows that ex-convicts who are
350
committing a crime might well be tempted to use a great deal more violence than they otherwise would in order to avoid being caught.
Lord Monson: In view of the time, I shall not elaborate on why I support the amendment. But I wonder whether the Minister could kindly indicate in her reply whether any other country in the civilised world, apart from the United States of America, imposes mandatory minimum sentences in the way that this Bill proposes.
5 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: The pendulum has swung too far in favour of the criminal in the mechanism of defence, the length of sentence and early release from prison. I am delighted that the pendulum is swinging back with this Bill and others like it. There are too many cases where people who have been released from prison have gone straight back to crime. A murder was committed near my home by someone who had just come out of prison.
I very much support higher sentences, but I do not believe that the Bill as it stands will be effective. The Bill removes the decision from judges and places it in the hands of the CPS. The CPS will decide whether or not it wants a life sentence to be imposed and bring the appropriate charge. It must be wrong to place that decision in the hands of the CPS, which is what this Bill seeks to do.
I do not believe that an amendment of this nature weakens the Bill. It strengthens it. Without it burglars will know that if they are caught on a third occasion they will be subject to a life sentence. Therefore, they must go out to murder because that is the only way they can avoid a life sentence.
Lord Elton: I believe that my noble friend has misread the Bill. There is no question of imposing a life sentence for burglary.
Lord Gisborough: However, there are other crimes that carry such a sentence. I do not believe that juries will dispense justice because they will not want very long sentences to be imposed. Therefore, they will not bring in verdicts of guilty when such verdicts are justified. Having sat as a magistrate, I know that there is no doubt that each case is different. Discretion is vital. For example, a 20 year-old may commit three crimes one after the other and render himself liable to a long sentence. Although it is very inconvenient, the fact is that such people grow out of it. Some discretion must be allowed.
I believe that as it stands the Bill is little short of grotesque. I do not necessarily support this amendment, but I hope that my noble friend will come back with something that improves the present position.
Baroness Blatch: The proposed new clause standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, relates to the circumstances in which courts should have discretion to set aside the mandatory

351
penalties prescribed in Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. That is inconsistent with the position adopted by the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place. They abstained from voting on an amendment which would have had exactly the same effect as this amendment would have on Clauses 2 and 3. It would have the effect of removing the test of exceptional circumstances and replacing it with the test of injustice or justice—whichever word one wants to use.
As far as concerns Clauses 2 and 3, burglars and drug dealers will rejoice at these amendments. They set aside exceptional circumstances and substitute the court's view of what is unjust in all the circumstances, as is the case at the present time. That was evidenced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, Master of the Rolls—who has not spoken in today's debate—at Second Reading. If the amendment were passed it would have the following effect. For example, having already disposed of special circumstances in Clauses 2 and 3, if a third time burglar or drug dealer came before the court for an offence which would have attracted a much lower penalty in the mind of the judge but for Clauses 2 and 3, under this amendment the court could take the view that the circumstances were such that a mandatory penalty would be unjust.
There would be nothing to prevent the court from taking that view in a high percentage of cases, if not all cases, because there would no longer be a requirement to prove exceptional circumstances. Your Lordships must tell that to the thousands of victims of burglary, the thousands of people who are at the receiving end of the activities of drugs dealers and the community at large who have lost confidence in the willingness of the courts to punish persistent offenders. I shall return to that matter when I deal with court records.
The Bill as it stands provides that the court may set aside the automatic life sentence if it considers that there are exceptional circumstances which justify doing so. As I understand it, the effect of the amendment to Clause 1 would be to stipulate on the face of the Bill that the circumstances in question must relate to either of the two qualifying offences or to the offender. But it is not clear whether the circumstances would have to be exceptional because that word does not appear anywhere in the new clause. However, it appears in Clause 1 of the Bill. As far as one can tell, the new clause does not change that. Although I have listened to the supporters of the amendment, the issue is still far from clear. Therefore, in this context I invite the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, when he rises to respond to the debate on this amendment to make clear to the Committee what his attitude will be when Amendment No. 3 is debated.
The court should be able to consider any exceptional circumstances of the qualifying offences or the offender, but I do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to specify it in the Bill. I believe that it would have the effect of fettering the discretion of the courts. Section 22 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 similarly provides that a court may suspend a prison sentence if that can be justified by the exceptional circumstances of
352
the case. Courts have interpreted that as extending to the circumstances of the offence and the offender and to any other background circumstances.
The amendment could have the effect of limiting the court's discretion because by stipulating that the exceptional circumstances must relate to either the qualifying offences or the offender the court could be precluded from taking account of other background circumstances. For those reasons, while I do not disagree with the view that the circumstances of the qualifying offences and of the offender may be relevant and exceptional—they are subsumed in the Bill as it now stands—I do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to specify this on the face of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but before she leaves the point can she tell the Committee to what other exceptional background circumstances she is referring?
Baroness Blatch: There is a body of evidence that results from statute and court practice. I shall give the noble Lord an example. I have in mind a case involving a policeman where the court exercised its right to suspend sentence. Perhaps I may refer to another case. An appellant pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding. He was a taxi driver and the victim was a passenger in the taxi who disputed the fare requested at the end of the journey. As the appellant drove away the victim kicked the back of the taxi and caused damage. The appellant stopped, got out and chased the victim. When he heard the victim call to his wife to bring him a crowbar the appellant took a chisel from a toolbox in the taxi and struck the victim a number of blows to the head and face. The victim suffered several lacerations that required stitches, bruising and swelling to the face and a suspected fracture to the orbit of the left eye. The appellant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. The sentencer stated that he considered the offence so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified for the offender, and that he imposed a shorter sentence in view of the mitigating circumstances—the appellant's good record, the fact that his wife and mother-in-law were dependent on him and his remorse. In the view of the court, there was no error in the sentencer's decision that the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified. The court would not accede to the submission that the sentence should be suspended. In that case the court was not allowed to.
Perhaps I may turn to the other case, because the noble Lord wants an example. The appellant had been a serving police officer for almost 20 years and had lived in a police house. His wife had become seriously disabled and could walk inside the house only with the aid of a stick. Outside the house she required a wheelchair. The appellant had been advised to have building works done to the house to make life easier for her and had been under the impression that he would receive a grant for the whole of the cost of the necessary work. When the work was started and the appellant was committed for the whole sum, he discovered that only 75 per cent. of the cost could be covered by the grant and he fell into financial difficulties as a result.

353
As a result of the offences—which were that he was stealing money from the police station—the appellant had lost his employment and his house and the work that had been done to it still had to be paid for. His pension was frozen and would not be payable until he was 60. He had made two attempts at suicide and had been under psychiatric care for reactive depression, partly arising from the stress and anxiety of the offence before his arrest. A medical report described him as devastated by the charges and indicated that he was in need of continuing psychiatric care.
The decision was that the mitigating circumstances should not be allowed to obscure the fact that this was an exceedingly serious breach of trust committed by a police officer in the course of his responsibilities for the administration of justice. Although the largest sum in any one of the counts was just over £500 and the next largest £360, there could be no question that each such offence, whether taken individually or in combination with any one such offence, was so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified. It was not suggested that the sentences of three months were not commensurate with the seriousness of the offences, as was required by Section 2(2)(a). The court had been invited to treat the case as one in which there were exceptional circumstances so as to justify the court in suspending the sentence under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
I am not saying that that is an example of what will happen in this case. But there are surrounding circumstances which can be taken into account. We are saying simply that we should not fetter the discretion.
Perhaps I may continue, because I believe that the noble Lord is artfully taking me away from the thrust of what I want to say about the importance of the debate—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister has been led astray!
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord has a vested interest in doing just that.
The effect of the proposed new clause, combined with the other amendments to Clauses 2 and 3, is quite a different matter. The effect would be to replace the "exceptional circumstances" test altogether. Instead, the court would have the discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty where there are specific, not exceptional, circumstances which relate to the offence or the offender and which would make the mandatory sentence unjust in all the circumstances.
This is a wrecking amendment. It would quite simply drive a coach and horses through the provisions in these clauses. They are designed to protect the public from persistent and serious offenders and to ensure that punishment takes proper account of the persistence of the offending. The changes proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would seriously undermine these important objectives. No longer would the circumstance have to be exceptional; it would simply have to be specific. Any judge could exercise any judgment whatever—as indeed judges do now—that it was unjust, and against no test at all.
354
We have accepted that the court needs to have some discretion to set aside the mandatory penalties. However, any such discretion should not be so wide as to allow that mandatory penalties will not be imposed perhaps in the majority of cases of serious persistent offending. We believe that exceptional circumstances should be just that—exceptional—determined by the court and explained clearly in open court.
I should like to examine the differences between the "exceptional circumstances" test and the alternative which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has put forward. The new test differs from the "exceptional circumstances" test in three respects. First, the circumstances must be specific. Specific to what? Secondly, they must relate to any of the qualifying offences or to the offender. I have already discussed this point in relation to Clause 1 and will not therefore say any more about it. Thirdly, and most important, they must be such as to make the mandatory sentence unjust in all the circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has suggested that the words "specific circumstances" would serve to narrow the test of unjust in all the circumstances. His colleague in another place, Mr. Michael, did not agree with that view. But to my mind they do not. It seems to me that they simply mean any circumstances that can be clearly defined and spelt out as specific. This of course is what courts are already asked to do under the Bill when explaining what the exceptional circumstances are.
The phrase "unjust in all the circumstances" goes to the heart of these amendments. In relation to this aspect of the amendments, my concern is that the discretion to set aside the mandatory penalty would be too wide. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, has said that the courts interpret "exceptional circumstances" to mean very unusual at the very least. I make no apology for saying that that is exactly what we want to achieve. The whole essence of mandatory penalties is that they should be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of cases. If they are not, then mandatory penalties will not have the effect which we intend and expect that they should. My noble friend Lord Elton gave the most elegant justification of why it is important to have the near certainty, except for exceptional circumstances, that those mandatory sentences will apply if people are persistently burgling, dealing in Class A drugs and repeating violent offences.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, also said that a test based on the trial judge's view of whether or not the mandatory sentence was unjust would enable the judge to avoid imposing the mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so. That is the effect of the amendments to Clauses 2 and 3, not to Clause 1.
The amendments would negate the purpose of mandatory sentences and would allow the judge to set aside the mandatory penalty in any case where he would otherwise have been minded to impose a different penalty. And that would make nonsense out of the whole concept and purpose of mandatory penalties.

355
This is a wrecking amendment and would destroy the essential point of statutory minimum sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers by allowing such a wide discretion to the courts which would lead us back to where we are now.
Mandatory penalties will not lead to injustices. On the contrary, I would contend that without mandatory penalties justice is not being done to the wider community. Perhaps I could remind the Committee of the figures. A recent sample showed that the average sentence imposed by the Crown Court on offenders convicted of domestic burglary for the first time is 16.2 months. After three or more convictions, the average rose to only 18.9 months, and after seven or more convictions to 10.4 months. And 28 per cent. of offenders in the Crown Court with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary were not sent to prison at all. Where is the justice in that? Is it any wonder that the public have lost confidence?
We believe that where the stringent qualifying conditions set out in Clauses 2 and 3 are met mandatory sentences should be imposed as a matter of course in most cases. There is no injustice involved in Parliament saying that persistent offenders who continue to offend should go to prison for a period not less than that stated in the Bill or that dangerous offenders should not be released without a risk assessment being carried out first.
There may be occasional cases where the mandatory penalty would be unnecessary or inappropriate. That is why the Bill provides discretion for the court to set aside the mandatory penalty in exceptional circumstances. In my view, this strikes the right balance. Deliberately widening the scope to set aside the mandatory sentence would seriously undermine it.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the USA. This is not American-style justice. In the United States, if somebody commits any crime, however serious or trivial, on three occasions, he receives a sentence of 25 years. These are narrowly focused propositions set out in the Bill. I stand by that.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to the sovereignty of Parliament. I must say to my noble friend that Parliament is sovereign in these matters. If it should take the view that mandatory penalties should apply for certain categories of crime, then it is for the courts to implement the will of Parliament.
My noble friend referred to the fact that many senior members of the judiciary support his proposals. I speak for the man on the top of the bus. There is another group of people whose views are paramount in these matters, not just senior judiciary. I am talking about the victims of crime and the public who look to Parliament for the right degree of protection set out in a framework to be implemented by the courts.
My noble friend appears to suggest—and I find this almost offensive—that stealing valuable items from people who have such items should be taken more seriously than the persistent burglar who daily terrorises people who are much less fortunate by stealing items of lower value such as a bottle of milk, 50 pence from a
356
purse or small but essential items from people who do not have very much. Persistent burglary on any scale is a scourge on our community. A disproportionate number of people at the lower end of the income scale suffer almost daily from it.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: That is a parody of what I was arguing. There is a distinction between the persistent, professional burglar on the one hand and the small opportunist burglar on the other. Of course I believe that persistent and professional burglars should go to prison for a long time. However, I give one example. A man commits two offences at the age of 16 and then, at the age of 30 or 35 in totally different circumstances, when he is married, with a job and family and having done nothing wrong in the intervening years, on the spur of the moment he commits a burglary of the type mentioned by the Minister. Perhaps he steals a bottle of milk or something of that nature. Is she really saying that a sentence of three years should automatically follow? I do not believe that that is just.
Baroness Blatch: I have not advocated an automatic sentence of three years for anybody. I am simply saying that I support the proposals set out in the Bill. If somebody burgles persistently, whether he steals a loaf of bread, a pint of milk or 50 pence from a purse, he should receive a sentence of at least three years. It is just possible—and I do not wish to suggest that it is—that the case outlined by my noble friend could be a special circumstance to be considered by the court.
My noble friend said also that mandatory penalties mean that the same sentence follows for the same crime. That is simply not true.
I have some statistics in relation to burglars receiving sentences of more than three years and sentences of more than five years, given that the maximum sentence is 14 years for burglary. I have the 1995 figures. Of 4,400 offenders sentenced for domestic burglary at Crown Courts, 179—only 4 per cent.—received a sentence of more than three years when the maximum was 14 years. Moreover, only 18 received sentences of more than five years. Nobody received the maximum sentence.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that courts impose long, determinate sentences for violent crimes. But when the offender has served his sentence he must be released, even if there is every reason to believe that he will commit a further serious offence. That is the point being missed by the noble Lord. That is exactly what happens in a significant proportion of cases.
I give the Committee an example. A rapist was sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court. He already had two previous convictions for rape, including a conviction for rape of a child. Because he was not given a life sentence on those occasions, he had to be released at the end of each sentence. Under Clause 1, he would automatically have received a life sentence on his second conviction and would not have been free to rape on that third occasion. Such offenders will no longer be released automatically into the community.

357
The noble Lord does not know of a single case where a life sentence has not been given for the second offence. Perhaps I may refer him to paragraph 10.4 on page 46 of the White Paper. He will see the statistic that in 1994, 434 offenders were convicted of rape or attempted rape but only 12 were sentenced to life imprisonment. In 1994, 217 offenders were convicted of a second serious violent or sexual offence which included rape but only 10 received a discretionary life sentence.
The noble Lord referred to overcrowding and an increase in doubling and trebling of prisoners in cells. The practice of three prisoners to a cell for one has been completely eliminated. As regards the practice of two prisoners in a cell designed for one person, 27 per cent. of prisoners were in that situation in 1987 and that figure has now fallen to 17 per cent. It is our policy to continue to reduce that.
Perhaps I may defend my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who was prayed in aid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I confirm that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor believes that the courts should have discretion to set aside mandatory penalties in exceptional circumstances, as does my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I too believe that.
Perhaps I may say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, that at this moment no one can say whether the figure for the use of exceptional circumstances will be 0.5 per cent., 1 per cent., 1.5 per cent. or 2 per cent. This is a new set of propositions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said that we must not compare this with driving offences or other offences. This is a new set of proposals. It is a matter for the courts to use them. There is an appeal system which serves both the defendant and the Attorney-General and that can be used to determine what is just in all cases.
The proposals are narrowly focused. I believe that they are a proper response to public concern. I ask noble Lords who will be voting in a few moments whether it is not reasonable that except in exceptional circumstances, a person who has committed repeated violent crimes should receive a sentence which ensures that he is released only when it is safe to do so. Is it not reasonable also that there should be power to recall such offenders if they display further violent behaviour? Is it not reasonable for persistent dealers in Class A drugs who have been convicted not once, twice but three times to receive a sentence of not less than seven years? Thirdly, is it not reasonable to say that persistent domestic burglars who are convicted not once, twice but three times, and possibly on the back of many multiple burglaries, should receive a sentence of not less than three years?
I believe that these proposals are supported by the public. This Bill arrived in this House with a majority of 200 from another place. Should the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seek the opinion of the House, on behalf of those who suffer daily from the activities of
358
violent offenders and persistent burglars and drug dealers I invite the Committee to join me in the Division Lobby to vote against the amendment.
Lord Hacking: I intervene with great reluctance from these Benches after the Minister has sat down. I do so with great reluctance because I am concerned about the penal policy of this Government, my Government. On a number of occasions during this debate, Members of the Committee on these Benches referred to these amendments as wrecking amendments. But I am concerned that this Bill is wrecking the established penal policy of this Government.
My noble friends sitting beside me clearly are not aware of the Government's penal policy and have not read the Government White Papers on penal policy. It was clearly established in the 1990 White Paper. As with the latest White Paper, there was a concern about crime and a concern about the need for tougher sentences. It is all in that document. It is all in that White Paper. I have it with me. I shall read from it again, especially for the benefit of my noble friends on this side of the Committee. They should remind themselves of it. I quote from paragraph 2.16 of Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public:
"The legislation will be in general terms. It is not the Government's intention that Parliament should hind the courts with strict legislative guidelines. The courts will properly continue to have the wide discretion they need if they are to deal justly with the great variety of crimes which come before them. The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework … or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional circumstances".
That is why I have a continuing concern. I hope that more of my noble friends on this side of the Committee will share that concern and that they will remind themselves of the established penal policy of this Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Members of the Committee will be grateful for the passionate intervention of the noble Lord. I believe that we would do ourselves credit if we ignored phrases like, "Burglars and drug dealers will rejoice on behalf of those who suffer daily", "Tell that to the victims" or "Speaking on behalf of the man on the top of the bus". Let us remind ourselves of what we have agreed upon. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, reminded us, we agree that it is right and proper that Parliament should tell the judges what to do. But, having said that, it is also right and proper that Parliament should be circumspect and wise in what it tells the judges to do.
We are not discussing an issue of longer sentences. If we were, then the Government would be accepting our amendments about the power of the Attorney-General to appeal against the leniency of sentences. No one is saying that there should not be maximum sentences for hardened drug dealers or hardened burglars; indeed, we have all made it clear that we agree with the Home Secretary about the penalties which should be imposed upon professional burglars and drug dealers.

359
As I said, we are not discussing the issue of longer sentences; we are discussing the mandatory minimum sentence. The amendments say that that mandatory minimum sentence should be tempered where appropriate in the interests of justice by a measure of judicial discretion. It is no good saying again and again that these are wrecking amendments. They are—again these are not my words but the words of the independent body, Justice—an attempt to ensure that judicial discretion is preserved while retaining a presumption in favour of mandatory sentences. I recommend that view and these amendments to the Committee.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 180; Not-Contents, 172.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Acton, L.

Ezra, L.

Addington, L.

Falkland, V. [Teller.]

Alderdice, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Aldington, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ampthill, L.

Geraint, L.

Annan, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Avebury, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bath, M.

Hacking, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hamwee, B.

Bingham of Comhill, L.

Hankey, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Borrie, L.

Harrowby, E.

Brightman, L.

Haskel, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hayman, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hayter, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Healey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Calverley, L.

Henniker, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hereford, Bp.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hertford, M.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Carter, L.

Hoffmann, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Hollick, L.

Chandos, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chorley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Clancarty, E.

Hooson, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Howell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Congleton, L.

Hughes, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hylton, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Davies, L.

Ilchester, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Inchyra, L.

Desai, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Diamond, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jeger, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Judd, L.

Dubs, L.

Kennet, L.

Eatwell, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

360

Kirkwood, L.

Russell, E.

Lane, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Lawrence, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Leathers, V.

Sandwich, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Listowel, E.

Sempill, L.

Longford, E.

Serota, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shannon, E.

Lowry, L.

Shepherd, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

McNair, L.

Stallard, L.

McNally, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swinfen, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Meston, L.

Taverne, L.

Methuen, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Molloy, L.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Monkswell, L.

Tenby, V.

Monson, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Nicol, B.

Thurlow, L.

Nolan, L.

Thurso, V.

Norton, L.

Tope, L.

Ogmore, L.

Tordoff, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Pender, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peston, L.

Walpole, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Warnock, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Waverley, V.

Prys-Davies, L.

Weatherill, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rea, L.

White, B.

Redesdale, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wilson of Tillyorn, L.

Rochester, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Byford, B.

Ailesbury, M.

Cadman, L.

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carnock, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Chadlington, L.

Annaly, L.

Chalfont, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Arran, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Astor of Hever, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Attlee, E.

Coleraine, L.

Balfour, E.

Coleridge, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Colwyn, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Courtown, E.

Bauer, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Bearsted, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Crathorne, L.

Berners, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Bethell, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Biddulph, L.

Davidson, V.

Birdwood, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Blaker, L.

Denham, L.

Blatch, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Bowness, L.

Derwent, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bradford, E.

Downshire, M.

Brentford, V.

Dudley, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Burnham, L.

Elibank, L.

Butterfield, L.

Ellenborough, L.

361

Elles, B.

Munster, E.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Erroll, E.

Norfolk, D.

Exmouth, V.

Norrie, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Northesk, E.

Feldman, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Peel, E.

Gisborough, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Goschen, V.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Plumb, L.

Harlech. L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Rawlings, B.

Henley, L.

Rennell, L.

Holderness, L.

Renton, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renwick, L.

Home, E.

Rodney, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

Rowallan, E.

Inchcape, E.

Saatchi, L.

Inglewood, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Ironside, L.

St. Davids, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Sandys, L.

Kenyon, L.

Savile, L.

Kimball, L.

Seccombe, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Knutsford, V.

Simon, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stewartby, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Leigh, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lindsay, E.

Sudeley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Swinton, E.

Long, V.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Lucas, L.

Tebbit, L

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Teviot, L.

Luke, L.

Teynham, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

McConnell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Trumpington, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Ullswater, V.

Vivian, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Wakeham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Marlesford, L.

Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Mersey, V.

Wilcox, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wise, L.

Milverton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Wynford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 [Mandatory life sentence for second serious offence]:
5.44 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 12, at end insert ("committed when he was over 16 years of age").
The noble Lord said: I thought I would have to pause to allow Members of the Committee to leave the Chamber. But let us move on. This is a minor but
362
morally rather important series of amendments. In moving Amendment No. 2 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 24.
The issue here is the following: if the original triggering offences were committed when the offender was under the age of 17 they should not count towards the tariff of a mandatory sentence. It is important to reaffirm that the amendment that has been carried has not driven a coach and horses through the Bill; mandatory minimum sentences are still there. This amendment is still relevant in the light of what the Minister has said. However, it is an established principle of sentencing practice that youth, and the consequent immaturity of an offender, is a mitigating circumstance which, other things being equal, could justify a less severe sentence than would be imposed on an adult in similar circumstances.
I hope I shall not be accused of any coach and horses tactics here. This amendment states that someone who has committed an offence at the age of 16 or under, and who might commit a further offence 10, 20, 30 or 40 years later, should not have that youthful indiscretion held against him under the mandatory minimum sentencing procedures. I do not know what the figures are. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell me; that would be most helpful. She is indicating that she will be able to do so. I do not know whether this measure will affect a significant number of offenders. I do not really mind very much. What I seek to achieve is that people who are little more than children should not be trapped into the progression of sentencing which is proposed under the mandatory minimum sentencing procedures. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This is an extraordinary group of amendments. It is proposed that crimes of violence, crimes of burglary and crimes of dealing in hard drugs which are committed by young people up to the age of 17, and who are tried and convicted in court, will not count as qualifying offences in relation to the mandatory penalties set out in Clauses 1, 2 and 3. The Bill as it stands provides that convictions for relevant offences may count as qualifying convictions irrespective of the age of the offender at the time he committed the offence in question. However, none of the mandatory penalties can be imposed unless the offender was over 18 when he or she committed the final qualifying offence.
Let us consider the implications of this in relation to the various mandatory penalties. Clause 1 covers serious violent and sex offences such as attempted murder, manslaughter, the most serious woundings, rape and attempted rape. The Government do not propose that an automatic life sentence should be imposed on a juvenile offender. However, if a juvenile offender rapes as a 16 year-old and then rapes again as a 19 or 20 year-old, we believe that an automatic life sentence should indeed be imposed. The purpose of Clause 1 is not to punish offenders for what they did as juveniles; it is to ensure that adults who have been convicted for at least the second time of a serious violent or sex offence are not released from custody until the Parole Board is satisfied

363
that it is safe to do so. On that basis it seems to me that the age when the first offence was committed is beside the point.
It is fair to say that only a small proportion of those convicted of serious violent or sex offences, or trafficking in Class A drugs, were under the age of 17 when they committed the offence in question. However, the picture is different in the case of burglars. Eighteen per cent. of offenders convicted of domestic burglary in 1995 were under the age of 17 at the time of the conviction. And we should not forget that many young people are cautioned, not prosecuted, when they first offend. In 1995 42 per cent. of 10 to 16 year-old boys and 67 per cent. of girls who committed domestic burglary were cautioned. So when a juvenile is convicted of burglary it is likely to be a serious offence, and quite possibly involves second, third or multiple burglaries. Allowing those who offend as young people and then as adults in effect to get away with or ignore their earlier offending behaviour will simply encourage that behaviour.
There is a good deal of evidence that domestic burglars are highly persistent offenders and that many begin to offend when they are very young. Research shows that the great majority of offenders with multiple convictions for domestic burglary were first convicted of that offence when they were a juvenile. Three fifths of a sample of domestic burglars indicted in 1993 and 1994 who would have been eligible for the mandatory penalty under Clause 3 of the Bill had it been in force, were first convicted of domestic burglary before the age of 17. In other words, many offenders who are first convicted of burglary at the age of 15 or 16 do not grow out of it after a few years. What they are more likely to do—it is even more likely under these amendments—is to embark on a long criminal career.
Why should convictions for offences committed under the age of 17 be disregarded once the offender has become an adult? Where an 18 year-old already has two or more previous convictions for burglary, why should the public have to wait until he gets another three before he is taken out of circulation?
We should remember that the offences covered by Clauses 1, 2, and 3 are all serious offences, whether they are committed by a juvenile or an adult. From the victim's point of view, being raped, burgled or seriously wounded is every bit as serious whether the offender is 16 or 26. It has long been recognised that long sentences may be appropriate and necessary where juveniles commit serious crimes. Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provides that courts may impose sentences up to the adult maximum on juveniles convicted of serious offences, including all those covered by Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on behalf of his colleagues in the Labour Party, wants to disregard those crimes for the purposes of this Bill.
The purpose of Clause 1 is to protect the public against serious repeat violent or sex offenders. The purpose of Clauses 2 and 3 is to ensure that stiff minimum sentences are imposed on persistent burglars and drug dealers. In no case will mandatory penalties
364
ever be imposed for an offence committed when the offender was under the age of 18. But I have to say that I can see no reason whatsoever why serious offences committed under the age of 17 should simply be ignored if the offender continues to commit similar offences as an adult. To do so would send a very strange message to the public and offenders alike.
We have substantially widened the exceptional circumstances test. The noble Lord can rest in his bed. Sadly, victims will not be able to rest in their beds. The noble Lord gave an example of a long period of time elapsing between the juvenile up to the age of 17 committing a crime and the third qualifying crime not being committed until many years later. Under our proposal at least the test would have been "exceptional circumstances". However, having set aside completely "exceptional circumstances" for burglary, and "special circumstances" for drug dealing in Class A drugs, replacing those words with "in the interests of justice", if we accept Amendment No. 3., the noble Lord need not worry about that circumstance.
I have given the figures of people who are committing crimes at the ages of 15, 16 and 17, causing deep distress and anxiety to the community. I cannot think of any justification whatsoever for disregarding those crimes as qualifying offences.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: The noble Baroness asked two rhetorical questions. Perhaps I may answer them briefly. She asked why the public should have to wait for a burglar to commit three offences above the age of 16 before he is sent to prison for three years. The answer is that they do not. If the circumstances justify it, he will be sent to prison for that period. The noble Baroness speaks as though the amendment were seeking to impose maximum sentences. It is not.
Perhaps I may answer the second question. Why should the offences committed at the age of 16 or below be ignored? They are not ignored. They are taken into account by the courts but they do not trigger mandatory or minimum sentences.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say, first, to the noble and learned Lord that if he could give me some evidence that the courts are giving sentences of over three years I should be impressed with the point he makes. I have given the figure that shows how reluctant the courts are even to reach the minimum sentence of three years that we suggest in the Bill, and their almost total reluctance to go beyond five or 10 years. The rationale of the Bill is the record of reluctance of the courts to impose even the minimum sentences. A young burglar almost never goes to prison for three years.
On the related matters, I entirely take the noble and learned Lord's points. The courts are indeed free to pass sentences on young people not just of three years but up to 14 years. But it never happens. We are simply saying that because it does not happen those offences committed by 14, 15, and 16 year-olds should count as qualifying offences if someone is a persistent burglar, a persistent drug dealer, or a repeat violent offender.
Lord Elton: At one point the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, implied that the distance

365
of time was relevant, and asked why a person who had committed an offence 15, 16 or 20 years ago should have that taken into consideration. Am I not right in saying that in a recently reported case a respectable married gentleman—he had been married for over 20 years—committed a violent sexual assault very nearly killing his subject and, I think, being killed himself in the process? It appeared that way down the perspective of time, long before, he had committed a similar offence. It seems to me, therefore, that the distance between two offences is not relevant. The age at the time of the offence may be relevant. That is being discussed. But I do not think that we should consider the distance in time.
The Marquess of Hertford: Does the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act apply to this Act? If so, am I not right in saying that if someone committed two offences as a juvenile and then went straight for 20 years the previous offences would have been taken out of the record in any case?
Baroness Blatch: We shall later discuss an amendment linked with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. But the purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to allow people to return to the community, to get back into work, and to be treated as people who have spent convictions. In other words, a period of time elapses, and the period is different for different crimes. But for the purposes of qualifying as a persistent offender and for the purposes of Clauses 1, 2 and 3, we do not ignore spent convictions. If someone has been violent in his lifetime, and is repeatedly violent, or has burgled once, twice and three times, or dealt in Class A drugs once, twice, three times or more, we simply say that they should qualify for the purpose of consistency which is established by the measures in the Bill.
Lord Ackner: It is quite clear from what the noble Baroness said that the Government have no confidence in the judges imposing the appropriate sentence in serious cases. If the Government have no confidence in the judges, then I must take it that the noble Baroness has no confidence in the Attorney General. It is the Attorney General's function to bring to the attention of the Court of Appeal in serious cases sentences which are inadequate.
There has been a consistent reference to 207 cases of offenders convicted on a second serious violent or sexual offence in 1994, only 10 of them receiving a discretionary life sentence. The Attorney-General referred only two of the 207 cases, and he did not seek a life sentence in either.
I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had time (I can well understand it if she has not) to read the reference in The Times on Tuesday, 11th February to the obligations of the Attorney-General to defend the public interest. The article ends with this quotation:
"Judges are now very aware what is the proper range within which they should sentence. They are thinking about it more carefully than ten years ago".
The position is that the Government are 10 years out of date in their attack on the judiciary; and even then, the current attack is excessive.
6 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may follow a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The Minister has constantly clung to the three-year sentence as though it were handed down on tablets of stone. Why is that the right sentence? Why not four years, or five years? Why not two?
As the noble and learned Lord said, judges have for a long time been subject to training during which sentencing problems are discussed and they receive lectures from academics, social workers and psychiatrists. Coming together as they do, they have ample opportunity to discuss levels of sentencing all over the country. They are also engaged in the practical work of the courts throughout their working lives. Why is the collective opinion of judges wrong and the Home Secretary right? If the sentences for the sort of offences referred to by the Minister do not reach three years, that is the collective wisdom of the whole judiciary. Why is it wrong?
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred constantly to "the Government" in relation to these issues. I suggest that what we are doing as a government on behalf of the people is reflecting the anxiety of the public on these matters that in certain circumstances sentences should not be—I did not say, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, suggested, that they should be three years—less than three years for persistent burglary and less than seven years for persistent dealing in hard drugs for at least three convictions, or less than a life sentence for repeated violent offences. I do not advocate any particular sentence. It is possible that one of the previous qualifying offences could have been very serious and beyond the minimum mandatory sentence that we suggest.
It is entirely proper and legitimate for the Government to pick up substantial disquiet on the part of the community about these matters. As I want to keep repeating, we are simply saying that there should be a floor on the sentencing of people who persistently commit these crimes which are offensive to the community.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, mentioned the Attorney-General referring cases to the Court of Appeal. As he knows, the Attorney-General can refer cases to the Court of Appeal only if the sentences fall within the narrow definitions of being unduly lenient compared to the levels currently imposed in the generality of cases. But longer term sentences are frequently imposed on serious violent and sexual offenders—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—which cannot be challenged as unduly lenient.
The point that has been missed throughout this debate by senior noble and learned Lords as well as others is that the offender must be released irrespective of the risk of reoffending. What is most disquieting to the public is to see somebody whom the police, prison officers and the Probation Service know is dangerous but who at the automatic release date must be released into the

367
community. The most dangerous offenders, who would normally be refused parole, are released into the community with the least amount of supervision—and again, they are released at the automatic release point without any regard to the danger that they pose to the public.
Turning to burglary, I return to the record of the courts. The average sentence on a third conviction for burglary is 18.9 months in the Crown Court and four months in a magistrates' court. If an offender receives a custodial sentence at all in a magistrates' court, the three-year minimum (that is, not less than three years) will therefore represent a step change, and we intend that it should.
Lord Ackner: I intervene only to correct the noble Baroness. The fact that, at the end of a determinate sentence, a person who is thought still to pose a risk has to be released has not been overlooked by the judiciary at all. We have said in terms that there is a lacuna. We have respectfully drawn the Home Secretary's attention to the fact that his predecessor, some 25 years ago, recognised this and produced a report which provided a remedy; namely, a reviewable sentence. In a recent debate I said that that was preferable to the false label of life imprisonment—because such persons are not intended, except in a tiny percentage of cases, to stay in prison all their life—and that it should apply to the first time offender; it need not apply to a second time offender.
I also drew attention to the point that if this were described properly as a reviewable sentence, the danger referred to on many occasions with the false label of the life sentence—of the victim being done in, dispatched, killed in order to avoid detection and then life imprisonment—would not arise. The suggestion that we have overlooked this position is, with great respect, totally unmade-out. Why has not the Home Secretary taken advantage of the wisdom of his predecessor contained in the report to which I referred and which has been gathering dust on the shelves of the Home Office?
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord makes an interesting point. I can tell him that many hours were given over to consideration of that option. In many respects, the proposal in Clause 1 is not so different—there is a significant difference to which I shall turn in a moment—in the way that a reviewable sentence would work and the way the automatic life sentence would work.
In the proposals set out in Clause 1 the person would receive an automatic life sentence; the tariff to be served would be set in open court by the judge, taking into account all the circumstances surrounding the case. At least at that point the person serving the sentence would know what the tariff was and would know that at the end of that period, if he or she did not pose a risk, they would be released subject to the agreement of the Parole Board; but if they continued to pose a risk, the sentence could be continued. The significant difference lies in the words, "beyond
368
release". Beyond release, such people remain life prisoners. If they continue to display the kind of behaviour which gave rise to the offence in the first place, there is a facility for recall. We believe that the facility for recall for violent offenders is very real.
Sadly, we read all too often in our newspapers of cases where someone who has automatically been released from prison goes straight out and commits another violent crime. We wish to put a measure on the statute book that addresses the same lacuna as those to which the noble and learned Lord referred, but at least it has two important safeguards for the community. One is that the person is released only on the basis of a proper assessment of risk. The second is that he can be recalled if he repeats or starts to display the violent behaviour and can be taken into custody again.
Lord Ackner: As one would expect, both those safeguards were featured in Lord Butler's carefully drawn report: the fact that the release could only be allowed after an expert view that the person was no longer a danger; and that release would be on the most stringent terms with regard to recall and other such matters. How one can advise honesty in sentencing with a false label we must explore further.
Baroness Blatch: I must come back on that because there is no transparency about the noble and learned Lord's proposition. At least in the case of the second offence, the person knows immediately that he will receive a life sentence. The reviewable life sentence does not apply particularly to the first, second, third or fourth offence, it would be in the judgment of the court whether it should be applied. The offender would know that. He would also know the period to be served, because it would be set by the trial judge in court on the day. He would also know that his release depended upon the risk assessment, which would have to be approved by the Parole Board. He would also know that his release for life would be conditional upon his not repeating that behaviour.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I wish to say something to the Committee about what I propose to do during the rest of the Bill. I do not propose to personalise issues as the Minister has just done. I do not propose to ask her whether she will sleep easily in her bed in comparison with whether a victim will sleep easily in his bed. I do not believe that that kind of comment is appropriate for this Chamber and it is a pity that it was made.
The amendments are not about longer sentences nor about determinate sentences. They are about triggering offences for mandatory minimum sentences. Much of the interesting and useful debate that has taken place between the Minister and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has concerned the Butler Report and reviewable sentences. It had nothing to do with the amendments. I am sorry, because I very much agreed with the noble and learned Lord and I regret that I have not paid enough attention to reviewable sentences in the amendments that I put down to the

369
Bill. Perhaps I shall have to correct that at the Report stage, because it is a valid point which ought to be considered in the context of a crime (sentences) Bill. But that is my fault and I shall have to think again about my position on it.
However, we are not debating longer sentences. The courts have the power to allocate and award as long sentences as they think fit within the existing statutes about maximum sentences. The Minister keeps on mentioning disregarding offences committed at the age of 16 or younger. They are not disregarded, they are convictions; such people have been punished for them. They are not getting away with it, as the Minister said. I wrote it down because it has nothing to do with the argument. Nor has it anything to do with special circumstances. The word "special" does not occur anywhere in the Bill. In resisting the amendments, the Minister is saying that offences committed and convictions which have been awarded to someone under the age of 17 should count towards a mandatory minimum sentence.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, thought that distance in time had nothing to do with it. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 says that it does have something to do with it. We shall come to consider spent convictions.
Lord Elton: Perhaps I may intervene. I believe I am right in saying that the purpose of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act is to apply not to the delivery of justice but to obtaining a job. When someone comes into court, I do not believe that that protection exists.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We shall come to consider amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has tabled about the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and we shall see whether it comes within the scope of the Bill. I believe that it does and most of us would feel that an offence committed by someone under the age of 17 is rather different in kind from an offence committed as an adult. It is not that he should not be punished; there is nothing in the amendments that suggests that he should not be punished. It is that it should not necessarily count towards a mandatory minimum sentence.
I repeat that this is not about longer sentences or determinate sentences. It is about the provision which already exists in sentencing practice that offences committed by juveniles are treated differently from offences committed by adults. The Home Secretary says—and we agree with him—that professional burglars and professional drug dealers should be treated harshly. It must be rare for professional burglars and professional drug dealers to be under the age of 17. I am not saying that it is impossible, but it must be rare. Under those circumstances, I should have thought it reasonable that we should make this minor exception to the provisions of the Bill. I shall test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 2.
6.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall he agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 147.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Acton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Alderdice, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jeger, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Avebury, L.

Judd, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Berkeley, L.

Lane, L.

Bingham of Cornhill, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Longford, E.

Borrie, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brightman, L.

Lowry, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Calverley, L.

McNally, L.

Carlisle, E.

Mallalieu, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Carter, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chorley, L.

Meston, L.

Clancarty, E.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Monson, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nicol, B.

Davies, L.

Norton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Rea, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Eatwell, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkland, V.

Rochester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Russell, E.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Sandwich, E.

Fitt, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Geraint, L.

Serota, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Hankey, L.

Simon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Haskel, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hayman, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hereford, Bp.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Tenby, V.

Hoffmann, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Hollick, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Thurso, V.

Hooson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hope of Craighead, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howell, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Walpole, L.

Hughes, L.

Warnock, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hylton, L.

White, B.

371

Wilberforce, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Ailsa, M.

Kenilworth, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kenyon, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Kimball, L.

Annaly, L.

Knutsford, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Attlee, E.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Balfour, E.

Leigh, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Lindsay, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bearsted, V.

Long, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Lucas, L.

Berners, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bethell, L.

Luke, L.

Biddulph, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Blaker, L.

McConnell, L.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bowness, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Bradford, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Burnham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Butterfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Byford, B.

Merrivale, L.

Cadman, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Carnock, L.

Milverton, L.

Chadlington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mottistone, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Moyne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Munster, E.

Coleraine, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Coleridge, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Peel, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Denham, L.

Plumb, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L.

Rawlings, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Rees, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Dudley, E.

Renwick, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Rodney, L.

Elles, B.

Rowallan, L.

Elton, L.

Saatchi, L.

Erroll, E.

St. Davids, V.

Fairhaven, L.

Savile, L.

Feldman, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Stewartby, L.

Goschen, V.

Strange, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harlech, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Peckham, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Henley, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hogg, B.

Swinton, E.

Holderness, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Teviot, L.

Home, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Inchcape, E.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wakeham, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Westbury, L.

372

Wharton, B.

Wolfson, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Wilcox, B.

Wynford, L.

Wise, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.26 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling the next amendment, I must point out to the Committee that, if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 17, leave out from ("unless") to end of line 18 and insert ("it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the fact that there is to be a debate on whether the clause shall stand part, I shall not move the amendment at this stage, so as to have the opportunity to reflect on what the Minister may say in that debate.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("relating to either of the offences or to the offender").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert ("or, where the offence is an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the court is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence").
The noble Lord said: This amendment relates simply to the definition of the offence under Section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. As is known, the offence is one of the triggering offences in Clause 1; that is to say, a conviction in respect of Section 18 "wounding", if it is the second offence of the wide range of offences contained in Clause 1, requires the court to impose a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
It seems to us that wounding under Section 18 is of such a variable nature that it ought not to be a triggering mandatory offence. Section 18 relates not only to wounding but also to causing grievous bodily harm. I shall concentrate my brief remarks on the question of wounding.
As is well known, in law a "wound" simply means the breaking of the skin. So it can be a very trivial physical consequence indeed. That is quite different from grievous bodily harm, which is, most judges direct juries, some really serious physical injury. A wound is in a different category.
As drafted, the amendment refers to Clause 1 (5)(d):
"wounding, or causing grievous bodily harm, with intent".
But for understandable reasons, the intent is not there specified. According to the 1861 Act, the intent may be the intention to cause grievous bodily harm, but it may be simply resisting or preventing the lawful apprehension or detainment of any person. So one can quite easily have the following circumstances: a youngish man may have had sexual intercourse with a girl who is almost 13 years of age, which is one triggering offence. Many years later, he may throw a stone at a British Transport policeman on a train because he does not want his friend to be arrested. The stone breaks the skin—that is wounding—and the intent is quite plainly there because he shouted out—I remove the expletives—"Leave my friend alone".
One of the vices of this type of legislation is that one has a ragbag of triggering offences. I move the amendment to draw the Committee's attention to that characteristic of the catalogue of offences, some of which are serious indeed and some of which, as in the example I gave, are not.
On a number of occasions the Minister has said—I join her, as I made perfectly plain when we had our extensive discussion on Second Reading—that serious crime needs to be put down with serious sentences. One does not achieve that desired consequence by including offences which may be as trivial as the one that I described. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, partly because it means that I shall not have to move my own amendment with a similar intention which comes later on the Marshalled List. I appreciate that Clause 1 is different to Clauses 2 and 3. While it contains a mandatory provision, the aim of that provision is different to the aims of the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3. It seeks to deal with the future supervision and control of the offender rather than the length of sentence he serves. For that purpose therefore it is different and the arguments in its favour are in many ways much stronger.
It does not benefit the clause to include Section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act, for the reason put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. That is, as one knows from experience, such a wide offence that one will come across cases which could not possibly require or need a life sentence being caught by it. The clause should be limited to offences such as rape, attempted rape and sexual offences where I accept there is sound need for such a measure.
Earl Russell: In attempting to illustrate the principle outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, it is not my intention to say anything which may in any way injure the privileges of another place. I speak of an occasion after the Bill's Second Reading. I had had lunch with a guest in Strangers. I was ushering out the guest, who was on crutches, and attempting to hold open the door for her when a Member of another place came
374
through in a great hurry. I will not speculate on whether or not there was any mens rea, both for reasons of privilege and because I genuinely do not know. But the door swung back on my hand and shed blood. My noble friend Lord Meston inspected my hand and said that, in his opinion, the injury would come within the meaning of Section 18.
It would be an absolute travesty of the intentions of Parliament if the Member of another place involved should have committed a triggering offence for a mandatory sentence under this Bill. The Minister shakes her head; I am glad to see it. But I shall listen with great interest to her explanation as to why that would not be a triggering offence. It is a familiar maxim that hard cases make bad law; but it is also true that hard law makes bad cases and this would have been one of them.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Bad examples make bad cases. It was a wound but there was no intent. The Minister was about to say that and I thought I would help.
Lord Renton: We must bear in mind that wounding can involve a mere scratch that breaks the skin; it can also involve maiming a person for life. If it is a mere scratch of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that would come under "exceptional circumstances". If not, then I do not know what "exceptional circumstances" can be interpreted to mean.
Baroness Seccombe: As a magistrate my understanding is that if it is a minor wound it would be a Section 47 offence. There is also Section 20 before one reaches the serious matter of Section 18. That is very much the guidance that we are given.
Baroness Anelay of St. Johns: I will not rehearse again the speech I made at Second Reading with regard to the variable aspects of Section 18 cases. Whatever offence one refers to, it is easy to pick out the exceptions.
My noble friend Lady Seccombe said—I agree with her—that a case such as the one referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would not be a Section 18 offence; it would be properly charged as assault occasioning actual bodily harm under Section 47 or perhaps be a matter for no charge at all. If one has faith in the Crown Prosecution Service properly to bring a charge, then one would hope that it would reserve Section 18 for those cases which deserve it.
As I have said before, we are talking about an injury caused with intent. Evidence must be adduced which could found a conviction for murder. The situation must be taken that seriously when the CPS brings such a case. In this context we are talking of people facing a second conviction for a serious matter. Surely the public should be protected from those who are convicted a second time of such a serious matter until an assessment is made as to whether or not they may be released back into the public domain. I hope that the amendment fails.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: This is one of the instances where plea bargaining would take place.

375
Section 18 offences can be so variable, as the noble Baroness said, that they require the same intent as that for murder yet can be just a breaking of the skin. It is in precisely those circumstances, where a person is likely to be facing life imprisonment, that, first, the CPS would be unlikely to bring the charge except where the victim was near death. Secondly, if defence counsel had his wits about him he would be telling the jury that a conviction in that case meant life imprisonment for his client. Thirdly, it is the sort of case where the defendant would plead guilty to Section 20 in order to avoid a life sentence whatever the state of the evidence against him. He may have a good case, but rather than face a Section 18 conviction which results in a life sentence he would plead guilty to the lesser offence. That is exactly the problem that mandatory sentences produce.
Lord Ackner: A further matter must be borne in mind. The Criminal Justice Act 1991 contained some sensible clauses; it also contained some foolish ones which placed a judge in a strait-jacket when sentencing and forbade him from taking into account previous convictions, outstanding offences, cases to be taken into consideration, reaction to previous non-custodial sentences and so forth. It produced occasions in which the court had to say, "I should send you to prison because I have been told of your previous record; I must ignore it. I should send you to prison because I know that there are a number of outstanding offences against you. I should send you to prison because you have asked me to take into consideration further offences"—and so forth—"but I cannot do so. Parliament has obliged me to impose the totally unrealistic sentence of community service". As a result, the Government were humiliated into tabling amendments in the 1993 Act.
Exactly the same situation can arise here. We have the heavy sentence of imprisonment for life. We were told, in the debate on the White Paper introduced as a result of the initiative of my noble and learned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth—I am delighted to see him with us today—by the Lord Chancellor:
"The Government believe that the public and offenders should know that a court's sentence means what it says".—[Official Report, 23/5/96; col. 1072.]
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that the Labour Party believes that the courts should spell out the reality of the sentence at the time of passing it. We can take the example of a boy of 16 who indulges in sexual experimentation with a girl of 12. That is a qualifying offence. Then, 30 years later, he is involved in a fight outside a public house and pushes not a broken glass but a glass into the face of someone who has severely provoked him. The judge will say something of this kind, I hope, because I think the judiciary is becoming a little weary of being castigated quite unfairly by the media. "Parliament has required me, John Smith, to impose upon you a sentence of life imprisonment. Parliament has also required me, and I would do so in any event, to spell out the reality of the sentence at the time of passing it. I do so now. Parliament has obliged me to impose upon you a sentence of life. Now the reality. Life does not mean life. Life in this case is to
376
be properly described as follows. I am obliged to specify what is known as the tariff, which is the length of time which I think you should serve in prison by way of punishment, by way of retribution and deterrence. In all the circumstances, I think, having regard to the mitigation, that 18 months is the right period. So that you are under no misapprehension, life means 18 months. On the other hand, I should go on to tell you that at the expiration of the 18 months' sentence you will be up before a parole board which will have to be satisfied that you do not pose a danger to society. I cannot tell you what the parole board will decide, but I can, and I think should, say this. I have heard not the slightest piece of evidence that you represent a danger to society. I have heard evidence to the contrary. In all the circumstances, then, I state what is the tariff, and I have already been in touch with the chairman of the parole board and arranged with it that your case is considered 18 months hence". That makes a farce of the imprisonment under these terms.
I am much supported by the observations made in the Second Reading debate by the noble Lord, Lord Williams:
"The sentencing regime for which we contend should, as many noble Lords have said, be open and transparent; but it is nonsensical to invite a High Court judge to say, 'I am sentencing you to life imprisonment. By the way, you can expect to serve 18 months'. That is a perversion of the system. It will bring the whole system into disrepute. If it brings it into disrepute on that basis, it will have brought it rightly into disrepute on that basis".—[Official Report, 27/1/97: col. 1063.]
One has to be very careful in regard to the qualifying offences. That has been recognised in an amendment soon to be discussed. The same applies to manslaughter where there need be no intent to do any personal injury. But if personal injury is done unlawfully, and the person dies, that is manslaughter. I support the wisdom of this amendment.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: Perhaps I may say this to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I do not mean to be frivolous about the point I want to make, but someone pushing open a door and catching someone's finger would not only not be a Section 18 offence, which is with intent—the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is right—but I would find it preposterous that anyone—a policeman or Crown prosecutor—would prosecute such a case as a crime. I find that such an absurd example for the purpose of speaking to this amendment that I am at a loss to take it seriously.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, was scathing about the way in which I have been accused of mistrusting the judiciary. I am not sure that the Crown Prosecution Service will be too happy with what he has been suggesting. He was almost suggesting that it could act improperly to circumvent the will of Parliament. That is really what the noble Lord was saying.
The maximum penalty for offences under Section 18 is already life imprisonment and in my view it would be quite inappropriate for such offences not to attract the automatic life sentence. Section 18 is used to prosecute the most appalling assaults committed by dangerous and

377
violent criminals. It requires proof of intent, which typically means that the offender went out equipped with a weapon which he fully intended to use. It is exactly those kinds of people the public need protection from and against whom they will be better protected by the automatic life sentence. Criminals who persist in committing violent and premeditated assaults need to know that they will face a life sentence.
We do not want very minor assaults to attract the automatic life sentence, and that is not what the Bill provides. For lesser offences against the person, lesser charges can be brought. My noble friends Lady Anelay and Lady Seccombe made the point very well. Section 20 of the 1861 Act, wounding without intent to do grievous bodily harm, or Section 47, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe said, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, can also be used. The maximum penalty on conviction under Section 20 is five years. Furthermore, the clause already provides a suitable means of imposing a sentence other than life imprisonment where the life sentence would be wholly inappropriate. So the court may decline to impose a life sentence where there are exceptional circumstances. Now that that has disappeared—except that at this moment it has not: we are not sure now what will happen about Amendment No. 3, which was to have removed "exceptional circumstances" from Clause 1.
It will be for the courts themselves to determine the interpretations of "exceptional circumstances". But it is perfectly possible that they would consider, for example, that two very minor examples of qualifying offences committed in the face of provocation would amount to exceptional circumstances justifying setting aside the automatic life sentence.
We expect such circumstances would be very unusual indeed. We must not lose sight of the fact that those convicted of offences under Section 18 and facing an automatic life sentence will tend to be those who have committed very violent attacks with intent to do grievous bodily harm and, what is more, have shown a pattern of serious offending.
Wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent is always a serious crime and it is right that the automatic life sentence provisions should extend to them, except, of course, where there are exceptional circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made an extraordinary point. He suggested that the defence would tell the jury about previous convictions. I hardly think it likely that the defence would tell the jury that the accused had previous convictions for similar offences. How would that assist in achieving an acquittal, which was the suggestion? If it did—
Lord Thomas of Gresford: As the noble Baroness has—
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may finish the point. I am addressing it to the noble Lord because it is the point he raised. I shall finish the point and then the noble Lord can come back on it. If it did, I am not by any means sure that the jury would think the accused
378
deserving of sympathetic treatment by virtue of the fact that he had admitted that there were previous similar offences, and particularly if it emerged that at the previous trial the defendant had disputed his guilt, as he does in the current trial under the example given by the noble Lord.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness. Circumstances arise in different cases when of course the previous convictions of the defendant are disclosed. It may be to the advantage of the defendant to do so. One such circumstance is that referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. I would not hesitate to tell a jury in the circumstances outlined by the noble and learned Lord that many, many years ago an offence had been committed and that the effect of its verdict would be that the defendant would go to prison on a life imprisonment sentence.
Perhaps I may add one other point. I learnt my prosecution ethics at the feet of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson. I had to get down a very long way to do it, but I did. Thirty years ago he had a very straightforward ethic for prosecuting, which was to be tough but fair. Those who prosecute are human beings and they would reduce a charge, as I would, if I thought that injustice would follow if I did not do so. I would not fail to do that because of what some long-gone Home Secretary or government had decided.
Baroness Blatch: I hope the noble Lord will also include the caveat that it would be tough and fair, but consistent with the law of the land.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My noble friend said in the course of her comments that the normal wounding with intent case usually involved a man who went out armed intending to do injury. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I do not believe that that is the normal case at all. On the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board we must see more of these cases than any High Court judge or anyone else. Invariably these woundings occur not with people setting out armed intending to cause injury, but as a result of a flare-up in a public house, usually on a Friday night, when somebody bashes another person with a glass. To my knowledge, both as a barrister and chairman of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, that is a far more common example than someone going out armed.
We must face the realities of what actually happens. Whereas that person clearly needs severe punishment for an individual offence, is there any benefit to be gained by giving that person a life sentence and then saying, "Incidentally, I mean it to be only four years"? I do not think that there is any benefit. I suggest that this Bill would be better if we accepted that that kind of case does not fit in easily with the grave matters of rape, attempted rape and attempted murder which occur in this clause.
Baroness Blatch: There is such a gulf between myself as the Minister with responsibility for this Bill and my noble friend. I have to say to him that if

379
somebody takes a glass in a pub brawl and causes injury to another person with intent deliberately to do so, that person should jolly well be caught by this Bill.
The Earl of Onslow: I had not intended to intervene in this debate except that I would like to tell Members of the Committee this personal story. A man I know well had one, if not two, previous convictions for thumping people. He got involved in a punch-up in Guildford. He ended up by hitting someone who had hit him 20 minutes before with a cricket stump. He faced very serious charges. He came to see me and I gave him the following advice which, in the end, I believe turned out to be correct. I said to him, "All you must do is to go into overtime grovel, plead guilty, co-operate with the police and promise that you will never do it again and say that you are really, genuinely sorry". That is exactly what the man did. He was sentenced to community service. I do not believe for one moment that sentencing that man—who is hardworking, intelligent, has just got married and has contributed to the community—to prison would have done any good whatsoever, let alone sentencing him to life imprisonment. It is in relation to that kind of specific case that I have grave doubts about the moral correctness of mandatory sentences.
Baroness Blatch: The point made by my noble friend is an interesting one. The particular type of crime that my noble friend spoke about, I take it, was completely out of character for that man. My noble friend has said that he was not a violent person.
The Earl of Onslow: I am saying exactly the opposite. It was at least his second offence and that is the point I am making. He had got to the stage of growing up. Had he been sent to prison it would have ruined his life, cost the taxpayer a lot of money and done no good to the community at all. Of course, if it ever happens again he will go down for a very long time, and justifiably so. I genuinely believe that this man has been saved by not going to prison. Under this Act he would have been forced to plead not guilty and that would have been a bad thing.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may offer a footnote to the exchange between the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Baroness thought it extremely unlikely that a jury might be moved to acquit by the disclosure that a person had previous convictions and therefore might face a mandatory sentence. I know that the best guide to this is what happened when we last had mandatory sentences before the penal reforms of the 1820s. In those cases, as I pointed out at Second Reading, juries very frequently did perversely acquit. The noble Baroness has talked quite rightly about public opinion on crime. What she has not taken into account is that the public's attitude to crime in general is not always identical to its attitude towards an individual, live criminal about whom it has heard evidence in detail. That point is vital.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may make a second attempt to pose the question. Perhaps I was the
380
only one who did not understand. I make the observation that in the case of a person who commits an offence which, at the second or third instance, could incur a mandatory sentence, the records of the court hearing will have to be preserved for the rest of that person's life. Therefore, the circumstances of the first and second offence will be known to the court and taken into account. Am I right in believing that the records of such trials are normally destroyed after three years?
Baroness Blatch: That is not the case. Records are kept.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: When we discussed the Police Bill and an amendment had been successfully carried, the Minister described the then state of the Bill as a "dog's dinner". I have a dog myself and I do not believe that she would look twice at the sort of dinner that we are being presented with at the moment.
On a number of occasions the Minister referred—and I sympathise because she is in the unhappy position in which many of us, as practising lawyers, have found ourselves in the past of trying to sustain an unarguable case—to those who commit a series of similar offences. That is not the scheme of the Bill. There is nothing similar about having sex with a girl who is nearly 13 years of age and murder. There is nothing similar at all. So let us put the shibboleth of a long series of similar offences to one side. There is a case for putting that in context, but it is not the context of this Bill.
I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said about the general run of Section 18 grievous bodily harm cases. It is very rare indeed for practitioners to come across someone who has deliberately gone out with a weapon. Incidentally, as we are dealing with people who go out deliberately with weapons, if one looks at Clause 1, as I did in the long wastes of our earlier debate when the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was not speaking—this is the party of brotherly love—robbery, which is a curse on society, is only a triggering offence if it is committed when the robber is in possession of a firearm or imitation firearm. Go out dressed in a balaclava and, with a machete or a chainsaw, terrorise the neighbourhood and your victim—and that is not a triggering offence.
There is no coherent thought behind the Bill. The examples given cannot be disputed. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said that it is easy to pick out exceptions. Of course it is; that is why we have judges to deal with exceptional, differing circumstances which vary so enormously across the spectrum of human activity.
It is said that the Crown Prosecution Service has been impugned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The noble Lord has done no such thing; he has simply pointed out the fact that, things being what they are, the Crown Prosecution Service charges down—not least for the reason offered by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow: so that it will get a plea of guilty. The example given by the noble Earl is a classic illustration of what is wrong with the Bill. My amendment is a modest—I would say that it is a drowning and despairing—attempt to try to improve what is virtually incapable of being saved in its

381
present form. As numbers are a bit on the thin side—although we have virtue on our side—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.5 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Wind Farms and the Rural Environment
7.1 p.m.
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby asked Her Majesty's Government to what extent they have taken into account the impact of wind farms on the rural environment.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford is to take part in this short debate. I am sure that we all look forward with great interest to what he has to say.
I declare an interest at the outset as the president of a county branch of the CPRE, but one that has no wind farms within its area. In any event, the views expressed by me this evening are entirely my own. I come with no lance for tilting purposes, and on foot, having left my donkey at home. My purpose in tabling this Unstarred Question is to give the subject an airing—an appropriate word to use in this context—and it would seem that there are so many noble Lords who share that view that I now rather regret not having gone for a debate. Perhaps we may be able to rectify my omission later this year.
It is a subject on which there are strongly held opinions on both sides and it seems to me that the arguments and statistics quoted depend very largely upon the side one takes. Accordingly, my intention to hold the ring, as it were, may well end up with my being under attack from both sides, but an intermediary's role has never been a bed of roses.
I suppose that my interest in the subject was fired by making a journey, as I frequently do, through the heartland of rural Wales, the country in the UK with the largest number of wind turbines—Llandinam has 103, Carno Tranhon Moor 56, Cemmaes 24, rising to 32, Bryn Titli 22, and so on. There is a smaller wind farm at Trysglwyn in Anglesey on land farmed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, with whom I have often enjoyed working in the past on various unrelated matters, as I am sure that the noble Earl the Minister will fondly recall. We very much look forward to the noble Lord's knowledgeable contribution later.
Anyone undertaking such a journey will immediately be struck by the number of wind turbines dominating the upland landscape and I remember thinking on that first occasion, "I hope it's all worth it". To have such thoughts—"airy-fairy thoughts", the unusual alliance of Greens and dedicated businessmen might call them—
382
does not in any way question the desirability of wind power and the part that it and other sources of renewable energy might play in meeting part of our future energy requirements, but we must, I believe, come to a decision before long on the price we are prepared to pay to go down this road.
First, we must assess the environmental implications. Because they are wind power stations, they must be sited where there is the best chance of maximum wind supply and this will usually mean in upland areas of outstanding natural beauty. So much is obvious and inevitable. In addition, the most favoured areas will be the most popular ones for developers, with the consequent risk of overcrowding bringing in its wake the danger of "intervisibility", as it is called—that is, a situation where one site is visible from another. That is particularly the case in parts of Montgomeryshire, for example.
Despite surveys which have been conducted at Delabole in Cornwall and at Cemmaes, both before and after commissioning, which record substantial support for the structures from local residents, there is nevertheless considerable opposition from countryfolk generally. The degree of noise (which to a large extent depends on the type of equipment involved and its age) emanating from the gearbox and drive mechanism; the noise from the blades themselves (obviously greater in a high wind); the amount of flicker experienced in the surrounding countryside; and the amount by which the local economy benefits through spending on employment—these are all matters of contention between the opposing groups. It is also right to add on the environmental aspect that there are other factors to be taken into consideration besides the opinions of immediate residents. The impact on the tourist trade is also of considerable importance, particularly in Wales, and it is doubtful whether those who pay good money to see incomparable scenery wish to see it to the accompaniment of flailing arms, seemingly pointing in all directions.
To many, any damage to the environment is more than paid for by the reduction, however small, in pollution levels caused by fossil fuels. One cannot help noting, however, that some of the movers and shakers in the wind farm stakes have other interests too and that those promoting Rookhope, for example, in County Durham, a projected site with 55 turbines 300 feet high, also have plans for an orimulsion plant in Pembroke at the other end of the UK. It also cannot be ignored that the conversion to gas-fired power stations in coming years will inevitably constitute the largest single contribution to a reduction in pollution levels, far exceeding anything from the renewable energy sector.
Secondly, there is the question of viability. Planning Policy Guidenote 22, issued by the Department of the Environment in 1993, declares that government policy is being pursued through a continuing programme of research and development and by allowing renewable energy promoters to compete equitably in the market with providers of conventional sources of energy. Because of the high initial capital cost of establishing a wind farm, this can be achieved only by the use of NFFO subsidies, but it is only right to add that all wind

383
energy developments throughout the world receive subsidies in one form or another. In fact, some of the 17,000 or so wind turbines in California have been scrapped or shut down because of the withdrawal of subsidy.
Although wind power is infinite, it is also variable. Turbines cannot cope with too little wind or too much, and the farm at Cemmaes, for example, was severely damaged by storms some years ago. It is also claimed by some that output has not always lived up to expectations. In the case of Cemmaes, there has been real output of 25 per cent. against a projection of 43 per cent. when the project started. That is the downside. On the upside, there is the progress being made in the development of ever-more efficient and powerful turbines. Both these factors, however, in their different ways make accurate forecasting of the future output of the industry doubtful, to put it as mildly as I can.
The Government have said that they will seek 25 per cent. of their total energy requirements from renewable technologies by 2025. It has further been calculated that it would take anything between 20,000 and 38,000 of the smaller turbines and 10,000 of the larger 1.5 megawatt turbines, depending on which side you take, to supply 10 per cent. of the UK energy market. At present there are some 550 turbines (representing 40 farms) in the UK, their presence eliciting opposition in many quarters. One quails at the thought of the unease which would ensue once we were to get anywhere near realising that government calculation for future years.
Thirdly, we must consider planning. PPG 22 says that planning applications must be determined in accordance with the development plans of an area and must then take into account environmental concerns, the effect on wildlife and so on. Particular care, it continues, must be taken in assessing development in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, SSSIs and the Broads. It is hardly surprising that, given those criteria, many applications are rejected. Indeed, I believe that it may be true to say that no application has been successful within the past 12 months, which indicates that planning officers are rightly applying the highest standards in their assessments.
Irrespective of the merits or demerits of wind farms, we do not want to be so bedazzled by the new technology and our fear of the greenhouse effect that we repeat the mistakes of 150 years ago in allowing the new factories of the industrial revolution to proliferate without control. Clearly, every application should have an environmental impact assessment and, furthermore, should be in harmony with whatever the development plans may be for the particular area. Surely, to this there should be no exceptions. I would welcome the assurance of the Minister on that point.
It would be wrong to diminish the need for, and use of, renewable energy, be it solar, water or wind. We must all hope that research and development in these areas will increase as the years pass for our future may well depend on it. Who knows? We may yet see the Severn Bore harnessed. Wind farms will undoubtedly
384
have an important role to play as well but they must always be sensitively sited and strictly controlled. There should be greater emphasis on offshore development. I particularly welcome the Scroby Sands development. However, the greatest contribution to reducing the earth's pollution can be made only by reducing our energy requirements across the board. This mammoth task is dependent on something that no government since the war have seen fit to give us: a rational and co-ordinated transport policy with emphasis on, and wholehearted support for, public transport. Until that challenge is accepted we shall only be tinkering with the problem, wind farms or no wind farms.
7.11 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, since the passing of the 1988 Act I have been trying to follow the Government's advice given on 15th June 1989. On that occasion my noble friend Lady Hooper said that renewable generators could always look to the future with optimism. That was reinforced by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, on 19th June 1990. He said that noble Lords opposite did not believe that the Government had shown enough enthusiasm for renewable sources of energy. He particularly had in mind wind power.
After an eight-year struggle, in May 1996 14 turbines became operational on my wife's farm, the nearest being within 200 metres of our house. I invite any noble Lord to visit them and understand that, first, they are not noisy; secondly, they do not disturb wild life; thirdly, they do not pollute; fourthly, they have improved immeasurably the farm both economically and environmentally; and, fifthly, they are a tourist attraction. I am sorry to argue with the noble Viscount. They are dramatically beautiful. Eighty per cent. of my visitors say so, as does the noble Viscount's first cousin who lives in Wales.
Further, they subsidise the regional electricity companies. They fully comply with PPG22, the planning document referred to by the noble Viscount. That was instigated by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I trust that all noble Lords who are to speak have studied it carefully. For all those reasons, I hope that my noble friend Lord Ferrers will confirm that the Government's proposals take full account of the impact of wind farms on the environment.
7.13 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for this opportunity to speak, however briefly, on the subject of wind farms. It is rather difficult to develop any arguments but I will do my best. Global warming is a reality. We cannot prevent it happening because it has gone too far for that. All we can do is try not to make it any worse by the things we do and to avoid reaching a point where life becomes intolerable for our children and grandchildren. That means reducing harmful emissions across the board.
Wind farms are part of that exercise. But if we are not to destroy our most cherished landscape we must be very careful where we put them. I agree with the noble

385
Lord, Lord Stanley. I, too, find them beautiful but not when they are stretched across a scene I once loved. I refer to a mountain in Wales. I do not know whether the noble Lord's wind farm is sited on a mountain in Wales. I find that very unattractive. However, I like to see wind farms in action. I do not find them noisy.
I make a special plea on behalf of the national parks—I speak as a vice-president of the Council for National Parks—which contain our most precious and valued landscapes. I believe that they are a special case and must be treated differently in the context of the installation of wind farms. They are our most valued areas for recreation and spiritual renewal. I speak not only of national parks but for example of mountains in Wales which are not within national parks.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, referred to PPG22. I believe that that must be amended to give greater emphasis to environmental considerations. It goes some way but not far enough. No application for a wind farm should be approved without a full environmental impact assessment that takes into account the visual impact and the cumulative effect to which the noble Viscount referred. Further, decommissioning and the restoration that inevitably follows should be built into the initial planning requirements.
Above all, the Government must lead a new campaign for energy conservation. Support for the Energy Saving Trust must be maintained. All of us as individuals must play our part. It seems trivial to say that we must switch off unnecessary lights and appliances but, with 13 million homes in the country, that could make a considerable impact on electricity demand. Building regulations could and should demand higher levels of insulation. There is much more that can be done to reduce the demand for ever more energy production. It would be encouraging to know that this philosophy had spread through all government departments.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, on tabling this Unstarred Question. It is a shame that we are limited to 60 minutes. I live in a beautiful part of Montgomeryshire which has the two largest wind farms in Europe. It also has the first such wind farm at Cemmaes which has already been referred to. My initial reaction was one of qualified support because of the renewable energy implications. It brought to some farmers much needed income at a time when life was very difficult in the farming community. I am bound to say that nearly a decade later my reaction is that enough is enough. On some sites they are a desecration of the countryside and an unacceptable visual intrusion, especially when very large wind farms are situated on exposed hillsides and so forth. I entirely agree that there should be very much tighter planning controls with a right of appeal on both sides and that very strict rules should be applied. One must remember just how much pressure local planning committees are subjected to by vested interests in this matter.
There is also unacceptable noise pollution in some places. I know of places in Montgomeryshire where close to the windmills there is virtually no noise, and
386
yet half a mile away or even further people complain of incessant noise. The experience in California, where there are very much larger wind farms and turbines, is that as the years go by noise pollution becomes greater and greater.
I also now doubt the whole economic case for these ventures as the main contribution to renewable energy installation. My noble friend Lord Geraint—who because of the limited time will not speak but has left the matter to me—pointed out to me earlier that a hydro-electric scheme was within 100 yards of the nearest wind turbine on a new farm in Cardiganshire. That hydro-electric scheme produces in two hours per day more than all the wind farms in this country. If we are to have anything like 10 per cent. of our energy supplied by wind farms we are looking at an increase of about 40 to 50 per cent. during the next few years. I believe that that is totally unacceptable.
The Government should turn their mind to something like the Severn River barrage. I have had experience as chairman of the company building the Severn River bridge and I believe that it is time we looked at the barrage which, it is estimated, would produce 10 per cent. of our requirements.
7.20 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, we must all be agreed on the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is right to look at all forms of non-fossil fuel power generation including wind power. It is important that we should keep abreast of this particular technology and find places where it may be appropriately used. It is good that we now have extensive experience of wind power stations. They are not farms; they are huge industrial installations. Despite their inefficiency and high cost, they are every bit as much power stations as Didcot or Drax.
The question is whether wind power on an industrial scale is the right policy for us, in a crowded island where there are limited areas of sustained high wind speed and where lonely and beautiful landscape is particularly precious. I therefore warmly welcome this timely debate, and am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing it.
There are no wind power stations in the diocese of Hereford, but I have been personally involved in two proposed schemes. One is on the Black Hill, in the far west of the diocese, where the long outline of the Black Mountains is famously visible from countless places in the county. The other is on Reeves Hill, where the Shropshire Hills area of outstanding natural beauty meets the edge of Radnorshire. Both are extremely sensitive sites and are visible from a great distance. These proposals caused much anxiety, anger and deep divisions in local communities, fear for the landscape itself, and worry about the highly intrusive noise of wind turbines. As the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said, that noise can vary enormously. I stood beneath the turbines at Llandinan and heard practically nothing. However, a mile away the noise can be most unpleasant. There was very strong opposition and neither scheme has been carried out. We have been fortunate—others have not.

387
On Monday afternoon I was returning to Hereford from mid-Wales on the mountain road from Machynlleth to Llanidloes, climbing to over 1,600 feet into a lonely, wild and desolately beautiful landscape. After a stormy day the rain had stopped and a crescent moon appeared between the scudding clouds. I thought of the words of Gerard Manley-Hopkins:
"The world is charged with the grandeur of God".
Then I saw them: row upon row of enormous wind turbines, 56 altogether, pale intruders into that elemental landscape, with the relentless movement of the turbine blades, five miles away but very obtrusive. As the road descended to the valley, I saw even more; the horizon fenced in with the 103 Llandinan turbines, strung out along the crest of the ridge for more than three miles.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, that enough is enough. What we have done to that incomparable landscape is deeply regrettable. How does Hopkins go on?
"All is bleared, smeared with toil, and wears man's smudge".
Is wind power on an industrial scale what we need to counter global warming? Environmentally it would be a disaster. A maiden speech is not meant to be controversial, so I do not address the economic case, which I believe to be weak. There are other, and much more cost-effective, fuel-conserving, ways of dealing with CO2.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, it was a great pleasure to hear the right reverend Prelate and it is a great honour to be able to congratulate him on an admirable maiden speech. It must be a rare test for any Member of your Lordships' House to have to make a maiden speech in three minutes—a test he passed with flying colours: it taught me more than has many an eight or nine-minute speech. Those in his diocese are extremely lucky: they can devote a relatively short time to attending his services and can receive considerable enlightenment. We look forward to hearing him frequently.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has introduced this important subject. We need much longer to give proper attention to a subject which is becoming increasingly important. There is no doubt that there is something attractive about wind farms; there is always something attractive about something for nothing. That is the feeling one derives from the use of wind power. Equally, one feels that one is doing a good thing because one is doing something which is non-polluting. Those are attractive features of wind power.
However, the use of wind power as a means of fighting the threat of global warming has become an expensive piece of tokenism in two respects. First, the subsidies are not inconsiderable. I understand that well over £150 million of public money has been spent on subsidising wind power, with the prospect of a further £112 million over the next 15 years. Those are considerable sums, but perhaps more to the point is the cost to the environment and the countryside. I am sure
388
that wind farms are acceptable in many parts of the world but in other parts they are not. In Britain and elsewhere, the beauty of the countryside has been given by God and we have no right to lose it. We must hand it down as beautiful as we found it and therefore we must oppose some such development more rigorously. We need government help to do that through the redrafting of PPG22, which should be made much firmer.
In my opinion the real future for non-fossil fuel resources is nuclear power. Provided that we can solve the three problems of the safe reactor, disposal of the waste and eventual decommissioning, nuclear power offers infinitely more opportunity of providing in an environmentally acceptable way the energy which our civilisation needs without intrusion upon our beautiful countryside.
7.27 p.m.
Lord Davies: My Lords, perhaps I may first declare an interest, in that six of the 103 wind turbines that make up the Penrhyddlan and Llidiartywaen wind farms in mid-Wales are on my land and I enjoy some economic benefit from that.
Wind farms arouse strong emotions; there are those who simply loathe them. There is nothing that can be said in favour of wind farms that is likely to change that view. There is no doubt that, when one is close to wind turbines—say, within five miles—they tend to dominate the landscape. However, I find that many of the arguments used against wind farms by those who have decided that they do not like them are extravagant in the extreme.
There is no doubt that wind farms bring considerable benefits as well as making a worthwhile but small start on reducing our dependence on fossil fuels. Our local wind farm was until recently the largest outside North America. It pays around £180,000 a year in rent which is divided between 19 landowners who are mostly working farmers. About £35,000 to £45,000 a year is paid to the council in rates. The maintenance employs eight staff locally and a four-man full-time maintenance crew. It generates enough electricity on average for about 21,600 homes, the approximate number of homes in the old county of Montgomeryshire.
I spent much of last Saturday among the wind turbines. From there, one can see Hay Bluff, some 50 miles to the south, and Snowdonia, the same to the north. It was possible to see three other wind farms, including Carno, some 10 miles away. As has been mentioned, that has taken over as the largest in terms of generating capacity. But they certainly did not affect the enjoyment of that magnificent view or in any way dominate the scenery. Claims that wind farms destroy beauty and tranquillity even when 20 or 30 miles away remind me of the old Punch cartoon when bathing in the sea became fashionable. When a visitor to a house that overlooked the sea was told that the view was spoiled by the bathers, he protested that they could hardly be seen at that distance. There came the reply, "Ah, but the telescope".

389
The claim is made that wind farms are noisy. It is certainly true that they make some noise, although in my experience it is of a similar order to the noise of the wind in the trees and in any event, that is being addressed successfully in the new designs, which are even quieter.
The claim is made that they are inefficient and need subsidy. But the subsidy required is becoming less as each batch of contracts is let, reducing from about 7 pence per unit four years ago to about 2 pence per unit in the latest round, due mainly to improvements in design and technology.
The recent Canto turbines have twice the capacity, at 600 megawatts, of the turbines constructed four years ago and the capital cost of new installed megawatt capacity continues to fall. Once installed, there is no air pollution, no generation of greenhouse gases and very little running cost. Perhaps most important, they are at no risk of catastrophic failure which might harm the public or the environment, compared with most other forms of power generation, particularly nuclear power. They can be removed almost without trace when their useful life is finished.
However, they must be carefully sited, and kept out of national parks. It would be much better if their siting were part of an overall plan, rather than subject to the present piecemeal planning decisions made on a one-off basis by the present multitude of planning authorities.
7.32 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I intervene to make two brief points. First, as regards economics, industry reports—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, confirmed this—suggest that wind energy will be price-competitive by the year 2000. The Government are entitled to take some credit for that because they have successfully jump-started energy renewables. But it has been expensive. I have a figure of £99 million from the Electricity Association for 1995 alone for not very much electricity, and that figure is likely to rise in the future. That should be contrasted with the modest £25 million allocation to the Energy Savings Trust, an amount which is scheduled to fall substantially in the future. Yet energy efficiency schemes have a far better return than wind energy—typically, £5 of benefit for every £1 invested and (and I emphasise this) at no environmental cost. Therefore, there is a strong case for discontinuing the NFFO wind subsidy after round 4.
I turn to my second point; namely, planning issues. That is a big subject and I have time to touch only on the important question of designated areas such as AONBs. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, dealt with national parks. The Government say that there is no presumption in favour of wind farms in such areas. That is true. But if the words "outstanding natural beauty" are to have any meaning, the presumption should be firmly against those large industrial structures. The Countryside Commission has clearly shown that there is no shortage of other sites. Yet it has shown also that, by 1995, 17 sites with 141 machines were in or adjacent to AONBs. And recently, as my noble friend Lord Tenby said: we have heard of a huge new proposal in County Durham. That is just in AONBs.
390
Moreover, if the Government's aim of a 10 per cent. contribution to natural electricity supply, which has been referred to already, is to be realised, we are talking of more than 1,000 sites involving 12,000 mega-turbines, each about the size of Big Ben or something like double that if they are the current size of turbine. In landscape terms, that is not acceptable.
The Government claim that the advice in PPG22 is "robust". It is not. Moreover, it is quite inconsistent with PPG7, which says that policies and development controlling decisions affecting AONBs should:
"favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape"
However, for major industrial or commercial development only,
"proven national interest and lack of alternative sites can justify approval in an AONB".
The Government's own agencies, the Countryside Commission and the Sustainable Development Round Table, have called for an urgent revision of PPG22 to,
"provide local planning authority with clearer guidance and an updated framework within which to take planning decisions on renewable energy projects".
I urge the Government to think again.
7.35 p.m.
Viscount Addison: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, perhaps I may first declare an interest as a vice president of the Council of National Parks. We believe that renewable energy technologies must be as favourable in terms of their location, scale, appearance and sensitivity to local conditions as they are in their method of energy generation. We maintain that there is ample scope for Britain to adopt a more environmentally favourable energy policy which reconciles the interests of those seeking to reduce pollution from conventional fuel sources and those working to protect the purposes for which national parks were designated.
The introduction of renewable energies need not be at the expense of protecting the integrity of our finest, wilder landscapes. National parks are designated for the beauty of their landscapes, which are living and working, rather than wilderness, landscapes. Those qualities are eroded by the presence of vertical, man-made features like pylons or wind turbines. It is only too easy to destroy the integrity of a wide, open landscape by the presence of an industrial development, however worthy its purpose in reducing the need for burning more fossil fuels.
In national parks, we are trying to sustain and enhance beautiful landscapes for future generations. There are lessons here for sustainable development of the whole countryside—a role given to national parks in government guidance. National parks set standards for the countryside as a whole and require landscape considerations to be brought centrally on to the sustainable development agenda.
The most fundamental consideration this evening is to avoid the need for those industrial installations in the first place by energy conservation. How many wind power stations are absolutely necessary and how many could be avoided by taking simple measures to conserve

391
energy? Can the Minister cast light on the measures which the Government are taking to promote energy conservation, which reduces the impact on the landscape in the countryside as well as the emissions from power stations?
The United Kingdom has some of the most favourable conditions in Europe for generating electricity from the tides and possesses about half of the total tidal energy resource within the European Union. Can we not put further research and development into tidal energy while striving to conserve and utilise efficiently, rather than waste, so much of what we already produce by more conventional means?
7.37 p.m.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, I have a substantial stake in a family wind farm. It was not started for altruistic reasons; we hoped to make some money from it. But, nevertheless, we are greatly improving the nearby landscape. It is on the Goonhilly Downs on the Lizard and it is in an area of outstanding natural beauty—well, it was not when I was a child because in the First World War the Royal Flying Corps had built enormous barracks, air hangars and God knows what else on the down and we could never afford to remove them after the war was over.
Likewise, in the Second World War the military were at it again, setting up enormous bogus barrage balloons and goodness knows what else to act as decoys for the enemy. Again, we could not afford to put the land straight again. But now we have been able to plant wild flowers all over that area of outstanding natural beauty. We have been able to protect too the tombs of ancient Cornish kings. We have 14 very beautiful, very elegant windmills, and artists are now beginning to come to paint them because they are so attractive. You cannot hear the noise that they make if the wind is blowing hard, and if the wind is not blowing hard you cannot hear any noise either. Therefore, it is a lot of rubbish to talk about the noise that wind farms make.
The wind farm is adjacent to what is called Telstar, not far from where Marconi sent his first radio messages across the Atlantic. To begin with, Telstar rather objected to our windmills, saying that they might disturb the balance of the messages from America. We overcame that and now Telstar includes our wind farm as part of its sightseeing tour. It is very popular. It is now very popular in the district. There were protests originally but now you can see those lovely windmills from Mullion, where we supply the electricity. To begin with, I thought that they might not be very attractive but they are in fact extremely attractive. As they continue to develop they will become smoother and more Rolls-Royce like in their manner and there will certainly be no noise at all anywhere.
I have heard about gears. There is nothing wrong with them, but I have never heard a gear noise on our wind farm. It is rather backward looking, even for the right reverend Prelate who made such an interesting maiden speech, to take us back to the days of the noble savage
392
and say that the land must not be disturbed in any way. You can disturb land for industrial purposes and make it more beautiful.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords would care to imagine coming into the Chamber this evening and finding that the Public Works Department had been in beforehand and replaced the chandeliers and the lighting with fluorescent striplights. What would the reaction be? I suggest that it would be shock, horror and outrage that the beauty of the place that we know and love so well had been desecrated in the pursuit of economy. Those of us who appreciate the beauty and peacefulness of the wide open spaces in the countryside feel just the same emotions when faced with the euphemistically named "wind farms".
As many noble Lords already know, I come from Wales. As can be seen from the number of Welsh faces in the Chamber this evening among those who are taking part in the debate, it is a question which affects Wales far more than England. Perhaps I may give your Lordships a statistic. The total consumption of electricity in Wales in 1994 was 18 million megawatts. The total generated by all wind power stations in the United Kingdom was just 1.67 megawatts—that is, 1 per cent. of what Wales requires. If we are to produce 10 per cent. by the year 2,000, that is 10 times what we already have. We just do not have enough hillsides.
I should like briefly to address the question of noise. In this modern industrial society we have to accept the intrusion of noise, be it from roads, airports, industrial estates, discothèques or just day-to-day life. We learn to live with much of it and our planners do their best to regulate the levels, but in the countryside the intrusion is much more noticeable. Whereas in a town a specific noise might not be noticeable more than 100 yards or so away, that same noise in the countryside can be heard several miles away. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee in another place recognised the particular circumstances in the countryside and recommended that very stringent noise levels be set up to 1½ kilometres from a windmill. Industrial sites are the places for industrial noises; the hills and valleys of Wales are not.
It is self-evident but, nevertheless, worth pointing out that the demand for power comes from the urban and industrial areas of the country. Why not address the problems there? As my noble friend Lord Addison said, investment in energy conservation is the only answer in the long run. Naturally, because it is not in the interests of the generating companies which want to sell more and more electricity, it would have to be funded by central government. But it is the only way that we will be able to leave this earth in good order for the next generation.
I know that it is not the right thing to do to acknowledge a maiden speech, except for the speaker who speaks immediately afterwards. However, I, too,

393
should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his speech, and also take the words of the poet Gerard Manley Hopkins—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, perhaps noble Lords will forgive me, but I should point out that we are very tight on time.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, I have but four lines to complete my speech:
"Elected silence, sing to me
And beat upon my whorled ear
Pipe me to pastures still and be
The music that I care to hear".
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Give him 100 lines!
7.44 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, time precludes the ordinary courtesies but I must welcome a fellow Westcott man to your Lordships' House, even if I disagree with practically everything that he said. First, this country committed itself at Rio to a sustainable future. The direct and unavoidable consequence of this is that we must learn to live on renewable energy. Dependence on fossil fuels is not sustainable. Nuclear power is not acceptable for reasons outside the scope of tonight's debate but which were largely dealt with in the proviso that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, outlined in his speech. To make ourselves totally dependent on renewable energy would be expensive in conventional economic terms and it will take a long time, but it must be done.
Secondly, the appearance of the countryside does matter. We shall not be able to preserve it as it is, nor should we wish to. Our countryside is man, as well as God, made and as we move from classical to ecological economics it will reflect that movement. But it is our duty to see that what appeals to most of us as beauty is not unnecessarily marred. Thirdly, the level of decision-making should be local. The people who live near wind farms should have much more say than even the best-intentioned national pressure groups.
The corollary of all this is that we must have an industry which cares and a planning system which works. I submit that we have both of these, even if the industry cares because it must and the planning system works despite the difficulties sometimes faced in the way of local authorities. The proof of the pudding is that surveys show overwhelming local support by those who live near wind farms. My conclusion and that of my party is that the Government should be putting more money into wind energy, not less. We hope that they will do so.
7.47 p.m.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: My Lords, I very much endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. I should also like to align myself with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, in that I too think wind turbines are both beautiful and exciting. It is essential that we have a strategy for dealing with the energy needs
394
of this country in the future. We are fortunate in being on the north-west fringe of Europe, having 40 per cent. of the potential wind energy in this country, of which at present we exploit only 1 per cent.
It is of course important that wind farms are sited sensitively and that they do not despoil those areas of the country which we have set aside as national parks. However, I find electricity pylons much more offensive, and we have allowed them to march across many of our valley landscapes. It seems that some people are particularly sentimental about hills and they sometimes take less notice of beautiful river valleys which we have already despoiled.
It is important for us to have an overall energy strategy which includes energy saving. It is estimated that 20 per cent. could be saved through better insulation and technology. In that regard, perhaps I may repeat what I said yesterday. It is disgraceful that the Government took £31 million off the home energy efficiency scheme last year. However, part of that strategy should be the use of renewable energy, not just wind farms. We should also be subsidising the exploration of wave power. Tidal energy, of course, creates all sorts of ecological problems for river estuaries and is not necessarily an alternative solution to wind power.
Perhaps I may briefly outline what was said in the most recent report in January of the Government's round table on sustainable development. The Government are urged to develop a strategic energy policy which promotes energy efficiency and conservation, incorporates costs relating to climatic factors in energy prices and provides continuing support for non-fossil fuel sources of energy. I believe that we should continue to explore all possible ways of developing non-polluting, non-greenhouse-effect-making sources of energy. I am enthusiastic about wind farms but I feel that they need to be sensitively placed and that local planning arrangements are extremely important.
7.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, for introducing this debate on wind farms. As I expected, it has produced a variety of opinions. However, it was graced with the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. He was quite right to say that these are not farms; he said that they are huge industrial power stations. He may have used a little poetic licence. But, of course, they are not strictly farms. However, those sponsoring the wind turbines cleverly call the sites wind farms as it gives them an agreeable countryside feel.
The right reverend Prelate transported us with his picture of wind farms. We are grateful for his contribution. It was bad luck to have to make a maiden speech in three minutes but he did it with great aplomb and great success. We look forward to hearing from him on many occasions when he will possibly not be restricted to three minutes and will be given a little more licence than he had today.

395
Wind farms are always a controversial subject. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, said that he would try to hold the ring between opposing views. I am bound to say that I thought that that was what I was supposed to do. I shall do my best. It is difficult for your Lordships to make speeches in three minutes. I feel slightly privileged in having rather longer than that. I hope that I shall not abuse the privilege. I would add that it sharpens the mind enormously if one has to express one's views in three minutes.
The noble Viscount, in his Question, asks to what extent the Government have taken into account the impact of wind farms on the rural environment. It is not for the Government to be, as it were, for or against wind farms. As your Lordships have pointed out only too graphically, there is a variety of views about them and different arguments on both sides. Some people feel that they are a total desecration of the countryside—the view of those with whom I slot the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford—and should not possibly ever be erected. I believe my noble friend Lord Marlesford also falls into that category. He said he would rather have a nuclear power station. I am not sure that that is particularly agreeable. I was slightly surprised to hear the chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England say that. However, everyone has his views.
By the nature of things, wind farms tend to be in the country, usually in a quiet setting, which, say their opponents, should not be spoilt by having a whole host of propellers whirling round, although some noble Lords feel that to be peaceful and agreeable. Wind farms are a means of producing a clean, permanent and non-polluting source of power, as has been pointed out. Of course, unlike a coal-fired or nuclear powered station, they can be removed leaving no scars or pollution. They also bring a source of revenue to the countryside. As some noble Lords have said, they have been beneficiaries of that. All that is good.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, says that wind farms are closing down in the United States. I believe that the picture varies across the world. Many new wind farms are being built, for example in Europe. As regards the Government's policy, we want to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy technologies where they have the prospect of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable. Therein of course lies progress. That is good, particularly if it contributes to a variety of energy supplies and to a reduction in the emission of pollutants.
One of the most serious problems which faces not just this country but the whole world at present is climate change. Climate change—the raising of the world's temperature—might have a major effect, much of which would be unwelcome, in this country. This morning I went to the Hadley meteorological centre at Bracknell where, with the aid of a £10 million computer, people are trying to predict what the climate will do over the next half century or so. The prediction in a nutshell—one cannot put these things into a nutshell easily—is that the increase in carbon dioxide will result in the climate becoming warmer and the greenhouse effect becoming greater. The problem is how we balance our
396
needs for energy, industry and agriculture with the problems which are caused by the emissions of greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide, which are produced by the burning of fossil fuels. Wind farms, of course, produce no carbon dioxide, no sulphur dioxide and no oxides of nitrogen. Therefore they do not contribute either to global warming or to acid rain. Therein they have an advantage.
There is nothing particularly new about the harnessing of wind for man's purposes. It has gone on for years with windmills helping to grind corn and to lift water. What is new is the type of windmills, the number of them in any location, and their purpose. The Government want to promote the development of wind energy generation but, at the same time, we want to try to conserve the country and the countryside. That involves a delicate balancing act. If one thinks of England, one conjures up pictures of green fields, lush meadows, mooing cows, bustling farms and quiet villages clustered around church spires. That is a countryside worth preserving. In that respect it would have the approval of my noble friend Lord Marlesford. That is part of what we are. However, if the countryside is to be maintained it must be industrious and efficient. It must be more than just something nice to look at. There have to be jobs, homes and workplaces too.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was right when he said that the countryside is made by God and also by man. There is nothing wrong in that. As there are these difficulties, we have a planning policy. The planning policy is operated through national guidance and through local development plans. The policy is to try to allow appropriate development in the right place which will enable the countryside to thrive without destroying what is unique to it. Last year my department issued for consultation a draft revision of our main planning guidance note on the countryside, Planning Policy Guidance Note 7. It attracted over 400 written responses which we have now analysed. I hope that we shall be able to publish a revised note shortly which will reflect the aims I have just tried to outline.
My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Wales and for Scotland have each issued guidance on renewable energy for their local planning authorities to take into account. For England, this is Planning Policy Guidance Note 22. My noble friend Lord Marlesford said he wanted it redrafted. So too, I think, did the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. The Government believe that Planning Policy Guidance Note 22—it was produced as recently as 1993—already provides pretty comprehensive and relevant advice on planning and renewable energy but, like all planning policy guidance, the relevance of its advice is kept under continuous review.
The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, were concerned about the note. In the recent past the Government have amended the environment assessment regulations to include wind farms. Hence planning applications which are likely to have a significant impact on the environment have to be accompanied by an environmental statement. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, the right reverend Prelate the

397
Bishop of Hereford and other noble Lords were concerned about noise. Noise produced by wind turbines can be regarded by some people as a nuisance. But noise can be taken into account by local planning authorities when they consider planning applications for wind turbines.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to the non-fossil fuel obligation. Its purpose is to encourage the development of energy which, without that encouragement, might never come about. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said that there should be a presumption against wind farms in sensitive areas. If an applicant proposes something which is clearly in conflict with a development plan he will need to produce convincing reasons why the plan should not prevail. Each local authority has to produce a development plan. Planning applications for renewable energy projects have to be determined in accordance with the development plan. Development plans have to recognise that energy which comes from a renewable source can usually be developed only where it occurs. And development plans have to include policies about conserving wildlife and its habitats, and the natural beauty and amenity of the land; improving the physical environment; and taking account of the Government's policy for renewable energy.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to energy efficiency. The Government recognise the importance of that. They have for example the energy savings trust and the home energy efficiency scheme. I can assure your Lordships that the planning system does not give any special presumption in favour of the development of wind farms. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was concerned about national parks. I can assure her that in areas protected by international and national designation, such as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, special considerations apply. The same is true of other areas such as The Broads, areas of archaeological or historic importance, and sites on the coast.
Wind farm developments should be permitted only where they do not have a detrimental effect on the landscape or where they will not cause unnecessary noise or interference. They should not be permitted in areas which are sensitive to wildlife or if they interfere, for example, with the flight paths of migratory birds.
If there were the possibility of an adverse impact on the countryside, the Secretary of State would expect an environmental assessment to be made. The present guidance indicates that a formal environmental assessment should be required where the proposed development exceeds 10 turbines or if the generating capacity exceeds five megawatts. It is possible, though, that an environmental assessment could be required for smaller developments—if, for example, the proposed development were to be in a sensitive location.
Any proposal for a wind farm has to be considered not only in the context of planning policy but also in the context of our policy on renewable energy, our sustainable development strategy, and of the undertakings which we gave at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.
398
Planning Policy Guidance Note 22 makes clear that the local authority has to balance the benefits of developing a clean and renewable energy source against any impact which that might have on the environment. There is no evidence that local planning authorities are giving less weight at present to the environmental impact of wind farms than they are to the important contribution they can make to reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. Each proposal has been, and is, considered on its planning merits. That is quite correct. Our planning system is designed to protect the rural environment but at the same time to enable the development of properly sited, well designed and efficient wind turbines.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until five minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 to 8.5 p.m.]

Crime (Sentences) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) The court shall, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the offender or his legal representative, obtain and consider a pre-sentence report before forming an opinion as to the existence or otherwise of exceptional circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 6 standing in my name and in the name of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey, for the convenience of the Committee I speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 27.
The amendment is straightforward. It is utterly meritorious and doubtless will secure immediate acquiescence from the Government. It deals with the question of exceptional circumstances and upon what basis a sentencing judge should proceed.
Each amendment relates to the introduction on a mandatory basis—if I may use the word "mandatory" without intruding into private grief this evening—of obtaining and considering a pre-sentence report. It is perfectly straightforward. I do not think that anyone present who sentenced an offender in difficult circumstances did not feel the need in most cases for a pre-sentence report. That is the principle underlying the amendments.
I say "in most cases" because that explains the presence of the caveat: that if the offender being legally represented, or his legal representative, agrees in writing that a pre-sentence report in some cases may simply not be necessary, that is a saver to the general rule. There are occasions when an offender wishes to know as soon possible what the sentence will be. The delay of some weeks to obtain a pre-sentence report is unnecessary provided that the defendant is legally represented and advised, and the consent is given in writing. We suggest

399
that that is a suitable safeguard to a defendant facing a mandatory sentence. That is the principle underlying the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I question the purpose of the amendment. It seems to be rather unnecessary. As I understand it, the Bill states that the court shall give a life sentence. It is then required to give the tariff order unless it considers that there are exceptional circumstances. The pre-sentence reports with which the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and I deal relate to character and various other matters. I cannot see that such a report is likely to be necessary on the issue of whether or not there are exceptional circumstances.
The provision would probably mean that a report would be asked for in every case and the poor defendant would have to wait another week or two deciding what his fate would be. I should have thought, frankly, that the amendment was unnecessary.
Baroness Blatch: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, would require a court to obtain a pre-sentence report in every case falling to be sentenced under Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill unless the offender or his legal representative agreed that such a report was unnecessary. I believe that the intended purpose of this requirement is to help the court come to an opinion as to whether there are exceptional circumstances which justify not imposing the mandatory sentences provided for in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill.
However, like my noble friend Lord Carlisle, I see no reason at all why a court should not obtain a pre-sentence report when sentencing under Clauses 1, 2 or 3 of the Bill if it judged that it would be helpful to do so. And, there is nothing in the Bill, or in any other legislation, which would prevent the court from doing so. However, I am not persuaded that it is either necessary or desirable to require the courts to obtain a pre-sentence report in every case in order to determine whether there are exceptional circumstances.
Courts are not compelled to obtain a pre-sentence report in any other circumstances. Indeed, there is no requirement for a court to obtain a pre-sentence report to ascertain whether there are exceptional circumstances that justify suspending a prison sentence. I see no reason to take a different approach in respect of Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill. I find the suggestion odd that a court should be required to seek the agreement of the offender if it decides not to ask for a pre-sentence report.
Pre-sentence reports may provide information which is relevant to the question of whether there are exceptional circumstances which would justify setting aside the mandatory penalties. But that is not their purpose. The purpose of a pre-sentence report, as set out in the 1991 Criminal Justice Act, is to help the courts to decide such matters as: the seriousness of the offence; the risk posed by the offender and the need to protect the public from further offending; and, in respect of certain community penalties, the suitability of the offender for such a penalty. The information is intended to help the
400
court decide whether custody is the appropriate sentence, how long that custodial sentence should be or the appropriate community penalty.
In practice, it is very likely that any exceptional circumstances will anyway become apparent during the course of the trial or hearing. Obtaining a pre-sentence report may, therefore, be of little value to the court or the offender. A requirement on the court to obtain a report in every case may simply cause unnecessary delay in sentencing which would benefit no one, least of all the defendant.
If the court considers that a pre-sentence report is necessary it can obtain a report. If it does not, the court should not, in my view, be compelled against its judgment to obtain one. The court is best placed to make the judgment as to what information it needs and should not have to seek the consent of the offender to the court's decision. I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hooson: Before the Minister sits down, I see all the criticisms that can be made in regard to Amendment No. 19. However, it seems to me that Clause 2 illustrates the total dilemma that could confront a judge in the future.
For example, a youth of 18 who sells an Ecstasy tablet at a street corner commits an offence of Class A drug trafficking. Let us suppose that he has two previous offences, one at the age of 16 and one at age 17, but the police say of him that he is not normally a drug trafficker and that those were casual offences—this is the kind of street corner offence that is often committed in Manchester or parts of London by the casual offender.
As I read this clause, if he is caught in the act, the fact that he is from a deprived area and has a difficult background would not qualify, were it to be in a report, as an exceptional circumstance, because such experience would be common to hundreds of thousands of other offenders. Therefore the learned judge would have no option other than to send him for seven years' custody to one of those universities of crime which the Home Secretary seems so keen to endow these days. I merely seek the Minister's help in this regard.
Let us contrast such a case with that of the drug dealer who is eventually discovered, with years of crime behind him, and is convicted, possibly at the same court, on six counts and an indictment and they are merely specimen charges covering a period of years. No mandatory sentence can be conferred on him because he has no previous conviction. In the latter case the judge can do his duty—and, thank goodness, I have great faith that British judges would impose the right kind of sentence on him—but what puzzles the judiciary is how the right and just sentence can be imposed on the youth I first described.
The amendment is an attempt to remedy that situation. I do not believe it is a successful attempt. However, does the Minister agree that the circumstances

401
which I outlined, even though the police might be very anxious to help the young man, could not possibly qualify as "exceptional circumstances"?
Baroness Blatch: I am not a lawyer; that must have been pretty obvious as I have operated from the Dispatch Box. However, my understanding is that the defendant and/or the defendant's legal representative would make jolly sure to place before the court all possible pieces of information that could be put before it both to acquit the client and to mitigate any consideration of the kind of sentence that he might receive.
If the client is before the court for a second qualifying offence under Clause 1 or a third qualifying offence under Clauses 2 and 3, a number of things would happen. Either the defendant himself would make known to the court those circumstances which he hoped would be taken into account in coming to a view as to whether "exceptional circumstances" should apply—although we are talking slightly in a vacuum following the amendment passed earlier—or the legal representative would submit to the court information that he or she believed was pertinent and should be taken into account by the trial judge in coming to that view. Alternatively, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the judge, if he believes it helpful to have yet another dimension of the defendant's character added to the body of information that he has as a result of hearing the case, simply calling for a pre-sentence report. In cases where enough information has emerged during the course of the trial, why should such a requirement be placed upon the judge when he believes additional information to be otiose?
That is the only difference between us. As the Minister responsible for the Probation Service, I know how helpful pre-sentence reports can be to the court. But, if a judge decides that he does not need such a report, I do not see why he should be required to call for one.
Lord Hooson: The Minister does not quite meet my point. Does she agree that in the theoretical case I outlined there should be a means which would give a judge a discretion with regard to mitigating circumstances? None of the circumstances I outlined seem to me to be "exceptional circumstances". That is what troubles me about this requirement. No distinction is made in this case. The example of a drug offence illustrates the problem that the Government have got themselves into in regard to the mandatory sentence. It does not distinguish in any way between the casual offender and the hard-bitten drug dealer.
Baroness Blatch: Whether we are talking about the Bill as it was earlier this afternoon, or as it is now as a result of the amendment, if an offence is a third, or second, qualifying offence—in other words, the likelihood is that, if "exceptional circumstances" does not apply, or under the new amendment "specific circumstances" does not apply either to the offence or the offender—then the defendant, the defendant's representative and the trial judge will know that the
402
judge has a power under the Bill to consider setting the mandatory sentence aside. Given that, the judge will want all the information that he needs at his fingertips in order to reach a view as to whether the mandatory sentence should be applied, or the mandatory sentence plus whatever sentence he wishes to impose, or whether there is a good case for setting it aside. If he takes the view that it is borderline and that he does not have enough information—that is, there is another aspect of the person's character that can be accessed only by means of a pre-sentence report from a probation officer who has some knowledge of the person—he is entirely free to ask for a pre-sentence report.
The difference between us is whether we should go beyond that and require in every single case, unless there is an agreement that he should not, that a judge, whether he wants it or not, should unnecessarily delay the case by calling for a pre-sentence report.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps the Minister does not appreciate—I am sure she does—that the pre-sentence report comes from an independent source. She referred to the defence advocate or an unrepresented defendant putting forward circumstances himself which a judge may take with a pinch of salt. Before the judge reaches the point of giving some form of mandatory sentence such as is proposed in the Bill, it is vital that he have that information unless, as the amendment proposes, it is agreed by counsel for the defendant or the defendant himself that he does not want one. So instead of leaving it to the judge to decide, in effect it is left to the defendant to decide whether he feels that a report on him would be helpful.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will forgive me if I illustrate the point made by my noble friend Lord Hooson. Last Monday afternoon I appeared in the Chester Crown Court, the court of Sir Robin David, who is an experienced and distinguished judge. As I was waiting for my case to come on, two drugs cases were called, one after the other. The first involved a man who had about 6.5 kilograms of heroin in his car boot when he was stopped on the motorway. That case was adjourned for reports, and I have no doubt that in due course something condign will happen to that person. Chester Crown Court is top of the league for heavy sentencing, and there is likely to be an application to move it elsewhere. The case that followed was of a person who was selling Ecstasy tablets to his friends at a party. The learned judge sentenced the defendant in that case, without a report, to 120 hours' community service. It is a Class A drug; he was trafficking; he pleaded guilty to trafficking. The difference between the two offences is enormous. Yet the same two offences appear as a qualifying offence in the Bill.
With the greatest respect to the ladies and gentlemen in the Box assisting the Minister, it is the lack of practical knowledge of the courts behind these Home Office proposals as embodied in the Bill, the lack of knowledge of how the Crown Courts work, that makes the Bill so bad. We are not speaking, or at least I am

403
not speaking, from on high, condemning from a high position in the judiciary. I speak as a practitioner at the coalface. I know that the Bill will not work.
Baroness Blatch: On the first example that the noble Lord gave, I am surprised that reports needed to be called for—although it had to be a matter for the judge's discretion—as the defendant had two previous convictions from dealing in Class A drugs and as the haul that he was carrying in the car boot was substantial.
In the second case, the noble Lord did not say whether a pre-sentence report had been called for. I suspect that if there was a community service sentence, the likelihood is that a report would have been called for, if only to discuss with the probation service the nature of the community sentence.
For the second time today I am on the side of the judges because I believe that they are people who can be trusted about whether they have a sufficient body of information coming through the trial hearings, with or without the involvement of the probation service, to make a judgment as to whether they need the one last piece of information—the pre-sentence report.
The difference between us is not that the reports are not helpful, nor that pre-sentence reports do not provide illuminating evidence that has an influence on the judge at the time. I simply say that it should be a matter for the judge. Where the judge blatantly, with all the matters that he has had to consider, decides that he does not need a pre-sentence report and believes that he has all the information necessary for him to come to a judgment about the defendant, why should we, in the terms of this amendment, require him unnecessarily to delay proceedings?
Lord Ackner: Is not the answer to the noble Baroness's question that, if you are to impose so serious a sentence as life imprisonment, you should not rely on the judge's hunch as to whether there is some information that could bring the accused inside the class of special circumstances? If you are automatically to impose sentences as horrific as these, then the judge should be provided with all the information which is available and not just the information which he thinks, rightly or wrongly, may still exist. It is as simple as that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: It is indeed as simple as that. The Minister said that she was on the side of the judges. I hope that that will not be fully printed in Hansard because she will be in subversive company these days.
Baroness Blatch: You said it!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As the Minister described the nature and function of a pre-sentence report, I became more and more convinced that she was about to accept my amendment because it would deal with such relevant matters as the background of the offender, perhaps the circumstances of the offending and all the basic material that a judge needs.
404
It is idle to suggest that the stage of the contest in the court at which the prosecution seeks conviction and the defendant seeks acquittal has anything necessarily pertinent to do with the information that the judge needs in the sentencing exercise. As the noble and learned Lord said, if the Bill ever became law, it would impose duties upon judges which they would be able to discharge consonant with their oath only on the fullest possible information. Where is the information to come from?
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out, assertion by the defence advocate is normally taken with at least two buckets of salt. There is always someone who has offered the defendant a job, starting, strangely, next Monday, on paper not headed, not typed and with a signature which is difficult to decipher. No sensible judge pays any attention to that. What he does pay attention to is an independent, informed view from a non-partisan source; that is to say, the person who produces the pre-sentence report.
The Minister said that the judge will want all the information required. Precisely. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, indicated that without a pre-sentence report, unless one raises one's finger in the air, having first spat on it, one does not know precisely what information may be available. Again the Minister asked a rhetorical question, so nobly I offer the answer. Why should the defendant's consent be required? It is because the defendant is represented and in rare circumstances is advised, after proper legal assistance and advice, that a report will not be needed. That was a commonplace, for example, when a probation order was being considered as an alternative. The judge would ask the defending advocate: "Do you want such-and-such a report or such-and-such other report?". We are dealing with an extremely draconian system which the judges will be obliged loyally to put into effect. The amendment offers them the tools to do the job which the Government seek to impose upon them.
I am on the side of the judges and believe that they ought to have every opportunity to sentence justly. I shall not press the amendment, but the point remains. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) Where a court has made a statement under subsection (3), Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall apply to the sentence which has been imposed by the court.").
The noble Lord said: I am becoming recidivist. In speaking to Amendment No. 8, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 21, 29 and 32.
The amendments are based on the necessity and desire that the public should be properly protected against over-lenient sentences. There are gaps in the ability the present Attorney-General has to maintain and launch appeals to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) because of over-lenient sentences. I give one example. It was not very long ago that a fraudster on an enormous scale (many millions of pounds),

405
Roger Levitt, was sentenced by Mr. Justice Laws for gross defalcations running into many millions of pounds to the condign sentence—to use a phrase that I have heard before this evening—of 100 hours community service. There was not a single member of the public who did not regard that as preposterous. We raised in your Lordships' House the question of whether the Attorney intended to appeal to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The answer came back, "No, he has no present power in law to do so." We believe that to be a significant gap.
There may be occasions in the new regime—I stress again, if the Bill ever becomes law—when a judge has come to a conclusion which the Attorney, on sensible reflection, after representations from the Crown Prosecution Service, will conclude has been unduly lenient. Therefore the scheme which is variously described in Amendments Nos. 8, 21, 29 and 32 gives power to the Attorney to launch appeals against over-lenient sentences. Therefore, Amendment No. 8:
"Where a court has made a statement under subsection (3), Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall apply to the sentence".
The relevant section in Part IV of the earlier Act is Section 36, which states that, if the Attorney comes to the conclusion
"that the sentencing of a person in a proceeding in the Crown Court has been unduly lenient … he may, with the leave of the Court of Appeal, refer the case to them … to reviewing the sentencing".
Therefore, Amendment No. 8 is a protection from the public against over-lenient sentencing specifically in the context of this Bill.
I turn quite shortly to Amendment No. 21, which is in the same category:
"Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988"—
to which I referred—
"shall apply to any sentence which is imposed by the court … whether or not it is the prescribed minimum sentence".
Again, that is a protection for the public. The same is true for Amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 32 concerns a wider point to deal with rogues and criminals such as Mr. Levitt, I believe last seen photographed drinking champagne—I dare say it was a toast to absent friends; namely, those with whom he might reasonably have expected to share a cell, but did not do so. The amendment entitles the Secretary of State to broaden that category of offence which the Attorney may use in circumstances in which sentences have been too lenient.
I cannot see any present rational, sustainable objection to this amendment. Therefore I sit down in the happy and confident belief that the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Having taken part in the debate on Clause 1, which restored the idea of adjusting the power of the court not to impose a mandatory sentence in certain circumstances, in all honesty I must rise to my feet to support the noble Lord's amendment on this occasion. Many Members of the Committee have argued that the right way to approach over-lenient sentences is not to impose mandatory sentences in all
406
circumstances but to give a widened power to the Attorney General to appeal against over-lenient sentences. I understand that to be the purpose of the first three of these amendments.
The Attorney General himself was recently reported in an article in, I believe, The Times as saying what a success the power had been, how it had been used effectively and that in 89 per cent. of the cases that he had taken to the Court of Appeal the sentence had been increased. I have no doubt that it will help in raising the level of sentences, of which the Minister has complained, to a level which she believes the public would consider more acceptable, if the Attorney General had the power to appeal against over-lenient sentences in cases such as burglaries. That would give the Court of Appeal the opportunity to lay down an appropriate sentencing policy and a guideline case.
I hope that the Minister will realise that this is intended to be a constructive amendment, to meet in part the damage which she believes some of us have done—I do not accept that—to the earlier part of the Bill. It is a constructive attempt to deal with over-lenient sentences. I certainly hope that she will take away the amendment and look at it in the context of the amendment on which the Government was defeated earlier this evening.
Lord Monson: As a layman, I am afraid that I did not understand Amendment No. 8 and the consequential amendments to it until the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, explained them. Now that he has done so, they seem to me to be quite admirable, not least in that they balance the amendment that was rightly carried earlier this afternoon.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree that these are constructive amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, wins some and loses some, but I must also explain why we do not need the first three of these amendments.
The amendments are intended to ensure that the Attorney General may refer to the Court of Appeal any case for which sentence is imposed under Clauses 1, 2 or 3 of the Bill if he thinks that the sentence is unduly lenient or if the mandatory penalty has not been imposed. I entirely agree that the Attorney General should be able to refer such cases to the Court of Appeal. In fact, the Bill provides for that. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain why and how.
The Attorney General's powers to refer cases to the Court of Appeal are set out in Sections 35 and 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Section 35(3) of the 1988 Act specifies that the Attorney's power applies to any case in which sentence is passed on a person for an offence triable only on indictment. All offences covered by Clause 1 of the Bill are triable only on indictment. Although not all offences covered by Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill would normally be tried only on indictment, we have expressly provided that this should be so when the offence is to be dealt with under those clauses. Clauses 2(4) and 3(4) specify that an offence dealt with under Clauses 2 or 3 shall be triable only on indictment. The effect of Section 35(3) of the 1988 Act is, therefore,

407
to include all cases dealt with under Clauses 1, 2 or 3 within the scope of the Attorney General's power to refer, whether the sentence imposed is the mandatory minimum sentence or a sentence greater than that.
To make absolutely certain that any case dealt with under these clauses can be referred, we have also amended Section 36(2) of the 1988 Act. That provides that the Attorney may also refer a case if it appears to him that the judge erred in law as to his powers of sentencing. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 4 of the Bill amends this provision to make clear that the Attorney may also refer a case which is dealt with under Clauses 1, 2 or 3 of the Bill and in which the court has used its discretion not to impose the mandatory minimum sentence required by those clauses. So, if, for example, a third time burglar is given a sentence of two years rather than three years, because the court considers that there are exceptional circumstances, the Attorney General may, if he takes a different view, refer the case to the Court of Appeal.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Williams, would achieve the same outcome as that I have described. I hope therefore that, in the light of my explanation, they feel reassured on those points.
Turning to the proposed new clause, Amendment No. 32, which has also been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, this would require the Secretary of State to extend, by order, the Attorney General's powers of reference to include all triable either-way offences. As Members of the Committee will be aware, at present these powers are limited to sentences passed in respect of indictable-only offences, together with certain triable either-way offences which have been specified by order.
The Government welcome the current enthusiasm of the Opposition for this power of reference, which was introduced in 1988, despite their opposition at the time. The provision was introduced on the basis that, while sentencing is a matter for the courts and not the prosecutor, we wished to provide a remedy in those serious cases where the sentencing judge erred on the side of leniency to such an extent as to undermine confidence in the administration of justice.
Since the introduction of this measure, we have taken measured steps to extend it. In 1994 it was extended to include sentences passed for offences of indecent assault, threats to kill and cruelty to a child, together with attempts to commit or incite the commission of those offences. These powers of reference were extended again in 1995 to include sentences passed in serious fraud cases, which helps the noble Lord in his reference to the Levitt case.
The comments from all sides on this issue illustrate that the present system works well. That is a tribute to the present Attorney-General and Solicitor General and their predecessors. But while I note the noble Lord's concerns to ensure consistency in sentencing, I am afraid that it would just not be practical to widen the Attorney-General's powers in the way proposed by the new clause. In fact, I would go further and say that it would be impossible.
408
Both the Attorney-General and the Solicitor General personally have to consider every case. They have to see the papers, read them, consider them and execute a decision if they wish to take the case to the Appeal Court. To extend the powers of referral to include all triable either-way offences would vastly increase the pool of cases subject to those powers.
Each year the Crown Court sentences in the order of 80,000 offenders. It would therefore not be practical for Law Officers to continue their personal scrutiny of such cases if the powers of reference were to be widened to the extent proposed by the noble Lord. The new clause does not provide for the removal of the Attorney-General's personal role and it is questionable whether that would be wise.
In addition, such an extension of the powers of reference would impact on both the prosecution and the Court of Appeal, leading to delays generally in appeals against both conviction and sentence. Thus the practical effect of the amendment would be to make the present highly effective scheme unworkable. As I said at the outset, we have no difficulty with the principle of the system. We introduced the principle; it is working well and has been responsible for remedying some of the decisions of the courts. But for the practical reasons I have given and also for the inevitable consequence that would arise from accepting the amendment that something would have to be done to remove the personal involvement of the Attorney-General, I hope the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with, as she rightly said, amendments that fall into two categories: Amendments Nos 8, 21 and 29 fall into one category and Amendment No. 32 falls into another. The Minister has now done what we wished to establish; namely, clarified absolutely that the Attorney-General's power in respect of over-lenient sentences in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 will stand.
As the Minister rightly observed, Amendment No. 32 is different. I find it difficult to accept arguments of bureaucratic convenience when one is dealing with the protection of the public. There are undoubtedly some sentences which are over-lenient and which fall into the category of offences triable either way. One looks at the practicalities. I concur with what the Minister says—that the Attorney's or Solicitor's personal involvement is essential. However, everyone knows that in practice a relatively small body of cases are presented to the Attorney and the Solicitor. They are always pre-filtered by the Crown Prosecution Service at a fairly senior level. It is not simply a press campaign of the moment that causes the CPS to put the cases forward to the Attorney.
I am disappointed and saddened that when one is considering matters of public protection and public security, the Government will not agree with a moderate amendment which will allow the Attorney to appeal in cases where sentences are undoubtedly too lenient. But that is the Government's position and the Minister stands firm. We stand firm on the basis of public protection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1. line 23, at end insert—
("(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence which falls within subsection (1) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify it not imposing a life sentence.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 9 is an important amendment and I am grateful therefore to other Members of the Committee who have been kind enough to add their names to it and support me in moving it. The amendment is coupled to Amendments Nos. 22 and 30 and also to consequential amendments in the schedules, Amendments Nos. 111 to 113. However, I intend to direct my comments to Amendment No. 9. I will wait to hear what my noble friend the Minister says when answering—I am happy for my noble friend to reply to all the amendments—before considering whether to move the other amendments.
I said that this is an important amendment because it has been an important feature—I use the word "feature"; I should perhaps use a stronger word; it has been an important principle—of English law and English penal law that when persons have an identifiable psychiatric illness they are not punished; they are treated. That has been a principle of English law for many years. That is what is being attacked—I do not say that in any pejorative sense—by the provisions in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill relating to mandatory sentences.
Perhaps I may explain to the Committee—subject to correction from Members opposite who have more day-to-day experience on these matters than I any longer do—how the Act works at the moment. When I was called to the Bar in 1963 I would deal with the Mental Health Act 1959 and Section 60 offences. The law is now to be found in the Mental Health Act 1983.
What happens is that if on the evidence of two doctors a court decides that a prisoner who has been convicted of an offence has an identifiable psychiatric illness, which is in turn identified in the statute, the court, instead of passing a sentence of imprisonment, can give a hospital order. Furthermore, the court has power, if there is reason to think that the public is in danger from the offender, to place a restriction order on him. The practical effect of that is that a prisoner, instead of going off to gaol, goes to a special hospital. If he is also under a restriction order, it is a hospital that has security to keep its patients within the hospital and its grounds.
Thereafter the sentence is an indeterminate sentence. It is left to well-established procedures that are set out in the Act and subject also to statutory instruments under which the offender remains in the hospital as long as he needs to be treated. The Secretary of State then has power to discharge the hospital and restriction orders. He has different powers when he concludes, on advice, that the patient no longer needs hospital treatment or a restriction order. He can discharge both orders altogether or keep them in being to allow the patient to be released from the hospital. There is also a legal system that can be brought into being, if there are
410
grounds for thinking that it is not safe for the public or not in the patient's best interests for him to remain in the open streets, to return him to hospital.
If I summarise the situation correctly, that is the law as it exists at the moment. The difficulty is that the provisions of this Bill attack those principles. They attack them most significantly and most seriously in the application of Clause 1 and the mandatory sentences. The effect is that the court will have no option other than to impose a prison sentence on the accused. At the same time, it can superimpose what is a new order—a hospital direction—under which the accused will be ordered to go to hospital. The assumption is that he will go to a similar hospital as that to which he would have gone under the Mental Health Act.
As well as the difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about doctors now being involved in penal questions—namely, whether the accused should remain in prison or go back to prison—there is a further and serious difficulty that once the hospital order is discharged and the patient is no longer treatable he goes back to prison. He goes back to prison in circumstances in which he still could be suffering from the psychiatric illness which caused him in the first place to be sent to prison.
There is certain relief in Clause 43, which adds new Sections 45A and 45B to the Mental Health Act 1983, and the provision of a hospital direction. However, the basic difficulty is that the courts can no longer from the very outset identify those offenders who have a psychiatric illness and make a hospital order so that they are treated and not punished for their illness. But they are now being coupled into the penal system. There is a good deal of evidence that that would be highly damaging.
When I made a speech during the debate on Amendment No. 1 several noble Lords came up to me and said—I do not know whether it was a compliment—that I had made a rather passionate speech about government policy and had argued—and I am still willing to argue—that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, and I were being loyal to the well-established policies of the Government on penal matters. I am happy also to present that argument in moving this amendment. A paper was issued in 1995 by the Home Office and the Department of Health entitled Mentally Disordered Offenders Inter Agency Working Party. In that paper a clear statement was made of government policy:
"It is government policy that those suffering from mental disorder who require specialist medical treatment or social support should receive it from the health and social services".
The paper went on to say:
"Detention in prison is likely to be damaging to a mentally disordered person and the prison service is not equipped to provide treatment equivalent to that available in hospital".
I find myself in a troubled position on the Government Back Benches in wishing to support the Government but wishing also that the Government would have consistency in their penal policy. That is why I am moving the amendment. Though I consider it to be a very important amendment, whether it is a matter

411
for a Division will have to wait upon the debate. This is an important matter. I ask the Committee to consider it as such. I beg to move.
Lord Alderdice: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for moving the amendment and I am happy to stand in support of what he says. In referring to Amendment No. 9, I shall also make general comments about the other amendments in the group.
Despite being happy to support the noble Lord, I feel a little depressed as a psychiatrist to find myself having to address your Lordships when a Bill comes to this stage in the legislative process with little apparent realisation of the different position of those who suffer mental disorders. Much was made at an earlier stage in the debate of the Secretary of State's famous coach and horses. Even at the time when a coach and horses was the mode of transport in general, people took a different view as to how to treat those who were mentally disordered and had offended. Often it is thought in the public mind that those who are mentally disordered are more likely to commit crimes. But that is not so, and it is particularly not so in respect of those who commit crimes against the person. Most of those who are mentally ill are very vulnerable people. They are often very timid people, more keen to stay away from others than to get involved in any fashion, particularly in a violent or disruptive one. But sometimes, through fear or the force of circumstances, they find themselves breaching the law.
There may be those suffering from mental disorder who knowingly break the law and should suffer appropriate consequences. But there are also those who—we now describe them as suffering from learning disability but they are more generally still described as the mentally handicapped—could hardly be held to have the same level of judgment as others who might commit crimes. There are those, too, who are disordered in their personalities, but very particularly there are those suffering from severe mental illnesses—schizophrenic disorders or manic depressive psychosis—who sometimes are completely misled by their disturbed thinking. It is that which has led to them committing a crime.
When we are thinking of a crime, we think of the behaviour that brings the person to the court. But we are also always aware of the thoughts, of the wishes, of the motivation and of the feelings that have generated the behaviour that is now before the court. There is always an appreciation, and always has been, that thoughts, motivation and wishes are important in these matters even in the normal course of events; and even more particularly in those whose thinking is disturbed, whose volition or motivation is damaged and whose behaviour is often born out of feelings that bear little relation to external reality and more to disturbed fantasies in their own minds. Yet we find a Bill coming forward which seems to have little to say to those matters except almost in a pejorative sense.
I find that disturbing because for such a long time there has been an appreciation of these matters in the public mind, particularly when the public reflect more
412
thoughtfully on them. Sometimes the public have thrust upon professionals responsibility for dealing with these matters. Sometimes the public are keen for doctors, nurses and others to take away these problems and deal with them, not in a penal but a caring fashion. They know that these are difficult matters to judge.
This is not a world of coaches and horses. It is a world of high technology. Computers are now able to be increasingly flexible in their response. We expect computers to be able to respond increasingly flexibly to what is going on. Yet in this Bill we expect humankind to behave less flexibly than we would expect computers to behave. That is extraordinary, particularly when one element of the machine is missing—humanity. There are not only the elements of education, intellect, skills, professionalism and experience that have already been mentioned but the element of humanity in our approach to those who find themselves in these circumstances. There should not only be humanity for the victims but also for those who are mentally disordered. They are themselves victims.
I think it extremely important that the Government think sensitively about all the implications involved. Let us think of some examples. Let us take the case of a young man who is below the age of 16 and is, in the old terminology, mentally handicapped. He lives with a young sister. Sexual exploration leads to the commission of what is clearly a crime. Some years later he finds himself as the butt of abuse, whether in public or elsewhere. He lifts whatever comes to hand and hits someone and injures that person seriously. Yet we are to believe that there is to be no understanding about that person that he would be treated with sympathy alongside the terrorist coming to his second conviction. We may have someone whose mind is completely disordered, who is hearing voices telling him to do this, that or the other. There may be someone who is frequently well, but who sometimes falls victim to a psychotic episode. Unfortunately, these are not exceptional matters. We are talking about 1 per cent. of the population as a whole who at some point suffer from schizophrenic disorder. Many others will suffer from some other psychosis which is either passing or more chronic.
Even for a psychiatrist, it would be a very depressing matter that a Bill should pass from the other place to this Chamber and—worse still—for it to pass from this Chamber to the other place, without recognition that professionalism, experience, understanding and, most importantly, humanity, demand that we understand that those who are mentally disordered in many circumstances require to be considered otherwise than those who have their full faculties. I firmly trust that the Minister will give consideration to these matters.
9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My noble friend Lord Hacking has done a valuable service in putting this matter forward. Perhaps I may make just one comment on the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. In view of what he said towards the end of it he should realise that the courts have become familiar with the difficulties of dealing with people who suffer from mental disorder.

413
They take medical evidence and they have clear instructions as to what to do from the 1983 Act, which, by the way, is to be added to by the long new Clause 43.
Perhaps I may next refer to the amendment itself because that follows from what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, was saying. The amendment begins,
"Where a person is convicted of an offence".
One cannot convict a person of an offence unless there has been criminal intent, which is mens rea. In many of these cases it will be found that the person is not fit to plead—in other words, he is not fit to stand trial—or in the course of the trial it will be found that he could not have had the intent because of his mental condition.
The amendment very wisely gives a definition of one of the matters included in the expression "exceptional circumstances". That is quite a useful precaution. I believe that technically my noble friends on the Front Bench will say, "If we start by giving one example of exceptional circumstances, where are we going to stop?". So I have that doubt about the best way of handling the matter.
The alternative way is to leave it to the courts when applying this Bill, after it becomes an Act, to decide whether in any particular case exceptional circumstances arise or whether we should write into the Bill what must be regarded as exceptional circumstances. At the moment I have an open mind about the issue. It is a little dangerous because for the first time the provision creates a specific example of exceptional circumstances.
I wish to add something which is not universally understood even by lawyers. There is a difference between what is defined in the 1983 Act as one kind of mental disorder, described as,
"mental impairment or severe mental impairment",
which, under the name "mental handicap", is most inaccurately described as "suffering from learning disabilities". We all have learning disabilities. I cannot play the piano with more than one finger and I find that a very severe handicap. That must be distinguished from the next kind of mental disorder mentioned, which is mental illness. That includes, incidentally, a psychopathic disorder. Mental illness is very often curable. However, mental handicap is completely incurable. I need not go into the medical reasons for that because the situation is so plain once it is understood.
However, I believe that the wording will have a bearing on this amendment. The courts would be bound to consider that, if a person has mental handicap and simply cannot understand that it was wrong to do what he had done, it would be very difficult to allow the jury to convict. However, people suffering from mental illness may sometimes be people with brilliant minds. Although they may be suffering severely from mental illness they know the difference between right and wrong and they may very well be guilty. That is a another factor that we have to bear in mind. We should be grateful to my noble friend, and I look forward to
414
hearing what my noble friend Lady Blatch has to say in answer to this very important matter.
Lord Burnham: Before my noble friend sits down, is it not the case that this Bill in no way changes the conditions of the 1983 Act by which courts can always say that someone appearing before them needs hospital treatment rather than sentencing?
Lord Renton: That is so. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents that. It is something which I hope and believe my noble friend Lady Blatch will confirm.
Lord Swinfen: I was delighted to put my name to this amendment and I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Hacking has moved it. When my noble friend the Minister comes to answer the debate, I hope that she will say that she will take the matter away and give it further consideration before Report stage.
I understand that mental disorder could not automatically be interpreted as amounting to an exceptional circumstance. Although to do so would be a humane interpretation of "exceptional circumstances", it would, I am advised, be a legally dubious interpretation given that mental disorder among serious offenders is neither uncommon nor exceptional.
I also understand that for someone who is mentally disabled or mentally ill, hospital is much the best place for them rather than prison. They are liable to get worse in prison. There is little in the way of treatment when they need it because the prison service is already over-stretched. If a court orders detention in a hospital, because it is indeterminate it is usually for a longer period than a spell in gaol. At the same time those in hospital are being treated and when they leave they will not be a danger to themselves or to the public generally. If they are incarcerated in gaol their condition is likely to get worse and, when they leave, they will be potentially a greater danger to the public and possibly to themselves.
Therefore, it would be much better if powers were introduced to enable such people to be detained in hospital where they can be properly treated, thus making certain that when they come out they are no danger to anyone. In the long run, that would probably be a great deal cheaper for the country as a whole as well as a great deal fairer into the bargain.
Lord Mottistone: I was not intending to speak until we reached Clause 43. However, I thought that some noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, were somewhat unfair to the Government and to my noble friend in suggesting that they had not taken enormous care to try to deal with the problem within the terms of the Bill. Clause 43 is included in the Bill for just that purpose.
Before we tackled this matter, my noble friend the Minister wrote me a long letter of some four pages which I was able to share with the psychiatrists advising the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, which advises me. Although they were still unhappy in some respects, they said that they were very impressed that the Minister

415
and the Home Office had responded to the discussions that had taken place before the Bill was prepared and that they had gone quite a way towards solving the problem.
I do not propose to say any more now because I am sure that when she replies my noble friend the Minister will be able to explain what has been done and why. I should like to return to the matter when I speak to my amendment to Clause 43 in two or three sittings' time.
Lord Dubs: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on moving the amendment and on the way he developed the argument. Before making one or two brief comments, I should declare an interest. I am a non-executive director of a mental health trust in south-west London called Pathfinder. We have a secure unit as part of the facilities on the hospital site.
I am aware that this group of amendments will apply to only a small proportion of mentally disordered offenders. It is widely accepted that our prisons unfortunately contain too many mentally disordered offenders. One of the difficulties facing our criminal justice and prison systems is how to deal with mentally disordered persons who commit criminal offences. It is not easy. In these amendments we are attempting to find a somewhat better answer than the Government have achieved in the Bill. I accept, of course, that Clause 43 provides us with another opportunity to discuss these issues although the focus is somewhat different.
It is difficult for the prison system to cope with some of the mentally disordered persons within it. If one talks to any prison governor or prison officer, one realises that it is extremely hard for them to provide the right environment for offenders when there are mentally disordered people among them.
When a mentally disordered person has completed his or her sentence, we then have to look to the safety of the public. I believe that there are two challenges in this area. The first is by what means we can best protect the public who surely have that right. Secondly, can we do so by also being fair to mentally disordered persons—or some of them at any rate—in that they too are entitled to an element of justice in the way they are treated, albeit that they have offended?
The amendments are a step in the right direction. They provide protection for the public combined with fairness. If an individual who is mentally disordered has served a period of time in prison and is not fully well, it is much more difficult to provide continuity of treatment and supervision following prison than is the case for someone who has been in hospital for some time and is discharged from that hospital or secure unit only when they have recovered to the point when they are not a danger to themselves or to the community. We can manage it better that way, and I believe that these amendments are a move in that direction.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Subject to anything that my noble friend on the Front Bench may say, I should like to add my support to these amendments. As your
416
Lordships will be aware, I am the father of a mentally handicapped child. Recently I have received a brief from the Law Society which sees in this Bill the danger that mentally handicapped people will be improperly confined to prison. Thanks to the Government's unfortunate community care policy, many of the long-stay hospitals are still being closed. Therefore, one is dealing with a situation in which more and not fewer mentally handicapped people are being improperly discharged into the community. Another unfortunate policy that is espoused by the Department of Health is that when these people are discharged into the community they should lose contact with the hospitals and the friends that they may have made there. I am president of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care. That body is losing touch with a number of these people. I do not know who will speak for them if eventually they commit crimes under this Bill. I am also aware that last year the mentally ill, who also perhaps should not be in the community at large, as opposed to the mentally handicapped committed about 100 murders.
This is a very serious situation. I do not want to delay the Committee. I shall listen with great interest to what my noble friend has to say. Like other noble Lords, I will consider Clause 43 with considerable interest.
Lord Renton: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may add one rather important point that I omitted and do not believe has been mentioned. I am indebted to MIND for drawing attention to this matter. The experience of MIND is that people can wait in prison for a long time before they are transferred to hospitals.
Baroness Blatch: This is an issue that we take very seriously indeed. It is an extremely important subject. It is right that while we discuss this Bill we should also discuss this issue. Therefore, these amendments give us a valuable opportunity to do that. The amendments would have the effect of upsetting the balance that the Bill provides between the need to ensure that the public are protected from repeat offending and the need to enable effective medical treatment to be given to mentally disordered offenders.
Amendment No. 9 to Clause 1 and the two associated amendments to Schedule 4 would enable the courts to regard evidence of mental disorder as a reason itself for not applying the automatic life sentence provided by Clause 1. The life sentence is needed to protect the public from further repetition of the most serious sexual and violent offences and to ensure that people who have a history of committing such offences repeatedly, for whatever reason, receive supervision for life. A disposal under the mental health legislation cannot achieve that. It would frustrate the purpose of the mandatory sentence in protecting the public if evidence of mental disorder could be regarded in itself as an exceptional circumstance enabling the life sentence to be avoided.
My noble friend may be concerned to ensure that mentally disordered offenders who are sentenced under this provision can receive treatment for their disorder. That can be achieved by way of the hospital direction

417
power under Clause 43. Initially, that will be available only for psychopathically disordered people, but there is provision to extend its scope to all categories. Until that happens these people can be transferred to hospital by the Home Secretary if doctors recommend it.
I have noted the point that my noble friend Lord Renton has made. I will investigate it and come back to him.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 30 to Clauses 2 and 3 are similarly intended to enable the courts to regard evidence of mental disorder as a reason for not applying the mandatory penalties provided for in these clauses. However, when sentencing under Clauses 2 and 3, the Bill already provides for a court to retain the power to make a hospital order as an alternative to the mandatory sentence, so there is no need for a mental disorder to be regarded as an exceptional circumstance in those cases if a hospital disposal appears to the court to be the most appropriate sentence.
The effect of my noble friend's final amendment to Schedule 4 would be to enable the courts to substitute a guardianship order under the Mental Health Act 1983 for the mandatory sentences provided by Clauses 1 to 3. A guardianship order is a provision that is intended to ensure that vulnerable people receive care and support. It is in no way a custodial disposal, nor one that provides any sanction whatever for repeated criminal behaviour. A guardianship order would be entirely inadequate to provide the public with the protection from further repetition of serious and distressing crimes by a person who may continue to present a risk with which mandatory sentences are intended to deal.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, felt aggrieved that there has not been sufficient discussion about the matter. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who knows that there has been a great deal of activity on these matters within my department, the Department of Health and outside bodies. As long ago as our preparations for the White Paper, Protecting the Public, and within the White Paper, we flagged up the issue of mentally disordered offenders. That was followed up by yet another document which went out for special consultation entitled, Mentally Disordered Offenders: Sentencing and Discharge Arrangements.
We carefully considered the comments made by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and others. The proposals included in the Bill relating to the sentencing of mentally disordered offenders have been the subject of lengthy debate during the past year and longer.
The automatic sentence in Clause 1 does not prevent a mentally disordered offender from receiving treatment in hospital. The court may impose a hospital direction order under Clause 43 if the offender is psychopathically disordered. As I said, we have plans to extend that provision. The court may also recommend that the Secretary of State transfers the offender to hospital under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act.
It might be helpful if I set out the flexibility that is available under Clauses 1, 2 and 3, because it is important to point out that, as a result of the added
418
flexibility, courts will no longer have to make the choice between prison or hospital; a hybrid order is available to them.
Under Clause 1, if the offence is a second serious sexual and/or violent offence, the court must pass a life sentence. It may add a hospital direction order under Clause 43, but initially only if the defendant is psychopathically disordered. The court may also recommend that the Home Secretary transfers the offender to hospital under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Only if the court has accepted other exceptional circumstances for not passing a life sentence can it make a hospital order under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
If a conviction is arrived at by the court, some degree of culpability has been established in court. It is important to point out that, if an offender was found to have been insane at the time of the offence, that can be dealt with under the insanity legislation and irrespective of Clauses 1 to 3.
Under Clauses 2 and 3, the court may make a hospital order under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Again, that does not rely on there having to be an exceptional circumstance. It is provided for by Schedule 4, paragraph 12(2). The court may also pass the mandatory sentence and add a hospital direction order under Clause 43. The court may also pass the mandatory sentence and recommend that the Home Secretary makes a transfer to hospital order under Section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The courts may also simply pass a prison sentence.
My noble friend Lord Renton rightly brought to the Committee's attention the vast range of mental disorders. The possibilities can range from someone who has committed an offence for which he was wholly responsible and who understood the criminal intent of his actions to someone who was not culpable because of his state of mind at the time. There is everything in between—
Lord Alderdice: I did not refer to Clause 43, but the Minister has done so. I trust that I did not give the impression that she and her colleagues had not considered the question of the mentally ill but had not, in my view, given due recognition to the problems thereof.
Perhaps I may deal with Clause 43. It suggests that, if someone is mentally ill and that mental illness has had a part to play in the commission of the offence, he might go to a hospital for treatment. The psychiatrist would then be in a position of having to judge when his patient is well enough to go to prison. How is that likely to help the relationship between the psychiatrist and the patient? The psychiatrist is supposed to decide, "Now I think you are well enough, you can go to prison". Of course, there is then a positive incentive for the patient, if he becomes mentally well enough to know what is going on, to continue to be as poorly as possible in order to continue in that situation. Thus, he will block a bed, continue to be unwell and ensure that the psychiatrist is not in a position to take in someone who is languishing in prison because there are no beds

419
available. With due respect to the noble Lord who spoke on those matters, those concerns are causing profound unhappiness to the Royal College of Psychiatrists and to others who are dealing with them.
I refer to Clause 43 because the Minister has raised the matter. The way of dealing with this issue has intruded into the care of the mentally ill. In the past, it was felt that when folk were that disturbed, that was punishment enough indeed in the situation and the best thing to do was get them well, because the safety of society was more likely to be achieved if they were well when returning to society than if they went to prison, where they would not be so well looked after, and then came out into the community.
Baroness Blotch: I do not wish to detract from the seriousness of the points made by the noble Lord because they are very important. But there are two distinct issues here. The first is that offences have been committed, arrests have been made and somebody has been brought before the courts. On the one hand, we are talking about the powers of the court to deal with a difficult situation where mental health may be a contributory factor or a condition which would either mitigate against the type of sentence passed by the court or may be a mitigating circumstance in terms of how the case was considered in the first place.
Then there is the other side of the coin, which is not a matter for this Bill but is certainly a matter for the Government to consider and to deal with other departments and agencies; that is, the management of mentally ill people in that process from the point of committing the crime. It is important that when the court hears the case it is made aware of all the circumstances surrounding the case, including the mental condition of the defendant who is before the court.
What we have done, and why Clause 43 is relevant as regards the range of options made available to the court, is moved away from the court having to make either/or decisions as to prison or hospital. We have given the courts flexibility to choose a hybrid provision which recognises some degree of culpability for the crime but which either sets it aside completely in the case of Clauses 2 and 3 in order to make a hospital order or passes a prison sentence with a direction to a hospital. I do not wish to confuse the two issues. It is very important for the courts to have that flexibility.
Reference was made to the degree to which someone is kept waiting to be moved as a result of a direction and the degree to which the prison service look after people when they have been released from the hospital. In our prison system, if somebody is still a risk to the community but all medical efforts which can be made have been made and the hospitals say, "We can do no more", or "We have completed the treatment", then people are released who are known to be a risk to the community. One of the reasons for the provision in Clause 1 is to make sure that that person is not released into the community without a proper assessment of risk. Now there will be a risk assessment. If they pass that risk assessment, they move into the community. If they do not, provision must be made for them. That provision
420
may be in the form of a hospital or a prison cell. We are giving that flexibility to the courts. That is what we are talking about here rather than the very important issues of managing people with mental disorder through that process and beyond.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: I listened with great care to the points raised and am most grateful to all Members of the Committee who participated in the debate. Although I should have preferred my noble friend the Minister to have little more of an open mind on the issues raised, it does not seem to be appropriate at this stage in our deliberations to attempt to divide the Committee. Therefore, I do not propose to do so.
I believe that this matter needs further consideration. It goes to the heart of some very fundamental issues. At the end of the day, or perhaps I should say in the final analysis, the way that the Bill will impact upon the Mental Health Act 1983 means that mentally disordered persons will find themselves fully culpable legally and responsible for their actions by the imposition of life sentences upon them. That is a very serious matter. While there are certain reliefs to be found in the somewhat complicated further sections which are to be added to the Mental Health Act 1983 under Clause 43, it seems to me that that basic difficulty exists.
I did not address the Committee on my other two amendments. However, as my noble friend the Minister kindly commented upon them, I should like to point out that the effect of Clauses 2 and 3 and their relationship with the Mental Health Act is that the courts will not have the same freedom to deal with those who, in one form or another, are mentally ill. I should stress that I encompass in that expression those who may be mentally handicapped or who suffer from mental disorders. I say that because it will not be possible to use the guardianship orders nor, indeed, to use the psychiatric probation orders.
For all those reasons, and also because of the importance of the issue, I should be most grateful if my noble friend the Minister would agree further to consider the matter. During the course of the debate, my noble friend Lord Mottistone very kindly gave me a very long letter which my noble friend had written to him and which I have not had time to study. I, for my part, will certainly read most carefully what my noble friend the Minister has said and I shall also read with great care the detailed letter given to me by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. I shall consider all the issues, as I am sure will other Members of the Committee.
We shall certainly remember the points made by my noble friend Lord Renton. It would be indeed a day of accolades were I to move an amendment with which my noble friend Lord Renton did not find technical deficiencies. I am very happy to take on board the criticisms that he made. However, the noble Lord talked about convictions. I should point out to him that my amendment would be activated only on conviction, which is exactly how Section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 works. Therefore, my amendment was at least consistent in that respect. Nevertheless, it does not mean

421
to say that it passes the order of perfection of my noble friend. I am always very grateful for his detailed observations.
For all those reasons I shall not press the amendment. But, at the same time, for all those reasons I ask my noble friend the Minister and all Members of the Committee who participated in the debate to give this very important matter further consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, leave out line 3.
The noble Lord said: In view of the lateness of the hour I do not propose to move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): I should point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 14 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 15.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon)The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon) moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 17, leave out from ("if") to end of line 19 and insert ("the conviction for it was obtained on indictment in the High Court of Justiciary and it is any of the following, namely—

(a) an offence falling within paragraph (a), (e), (g) or (h) of subsection (5) above;

(b) culpable homicide;

(c) clandestine injury to women or an attempt to cause such injury;

(d) sodomy, or an attempt to commit sodomy, where one of the parties does not consent;

(e) assault where the assault—

(i) is aggravated because it was carried out to the victim's severe injury or the danger of the victim's life; or

(ii) was carried out with an intention to rape or to ravish the victim;

(f) lewd, libidinous or indecent behaviour or practices; and

(g) an offence under section 5(1) of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995 (unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13).").

The noble and learned Lord said: The above amendment seeks, if I may so put it, to rearrange the tartan fringe to the Bill. With the leave of the Committee, I shall mention also Amendment No. 15, for reasons that I shall explain. The purpose of Amendment No. 14 is to clarify the way in which the automatic life sentence provisions in Clause 1 will operate in respect of offenders whose first conviction is in the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland.
Clause 1 provides that a person, aged 18 or over, is eligible for an automatic life sentence if he or she is convicted of a serious offence and had been convicted previously in any part of the United Kingdom of another serious offence. The Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill, which had its Second Reading in this Chamber earlier this week, contains similar provisions which are
422
to be included in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It is our intention that a conviction that qualifies an offender for an automatic life sentence in Scotland should also qualify an offender for an automatic life sentence in England and Wales. The reverse is also proposed.
As presently drafted, Clause 1 of the Bill does not fully meet the Government's intention. In particular, it does not make clear that only convictions for relevant offences on indictment in the Scottish High Court of Justiciary are qualifying convictions for the automatic life sentence. This is inconsistent with the automatic life sentence provisions in the Scottish Bill. The Government are most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for drawing attention to this during the Second Reading debate of this Bill. This amendment seeks to correct this inconsistency and also lists on the face of the Bill the relevant Scottish offences to make sure that the Scottish element is fully understood by all those who may have to work with this Bill in England.
This amendment has been discussed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. He has authorised us to say that this fully meets the point he sought to raise at Second Reading. He also authorised us to say that had he been present he would not have insisted on his own amendment. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I am fully aware that I am on dangerous ground. But, having read what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said in his Second Reading speech on this Crime (Sentences) Bill for England and on the Scottish equivalent Bill, I should like to suggest that a new schedule is inserted into this Bill giving in two columns a comparison of the qualifying offences on both sides of the Border. My idea is designed to give judges a comparison between the different meanings and expressions used in the English and Scottish courts.
The Scottish Bill introduces in Clause 1 a new Schedule 5A into the 1995 Scottish Act. However, there is not a comparative schedule in this English Bill.
If there are differences in what is a qualifying offence in Wales or Northern Ireland, then there would need to be a third or fourth column in the comparative schedule that I put forward, such as is mentioned in subsection (7)(c) which brings in S.I. 1981/155(N.1.2), which is not mentioned in the Scottish Bill. I refer to the margin note on page 2 of the Bill.
On Amendment No. 15, as I understand the position, the procurator fiscal decides whether a case goes to the High Court or the sheriff court. I do not think there is an equivalent officer in English law. Again I fully realise I am on dangerous ground. However, I felt there is such a difference that there should be a comparison put into the English and Scots legislation to cover the points I have raised; otherwise, I am all for supporting the Government's amendment as it stands.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to give consideration to the point raised by my noble friend as to whether this would assist. It clearly does not form

423
part of the amendment. Having given that undertaking, I hope that it will be possible for the amendment to be agreed to.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ackner: A few days ago I received out of the blue a most courteous apology from Mr. Tam Dalyell. In an admirable obituary concerning Lord Bancroft, he referred in passing to the support given in recent debates by myself and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He made the no doubt Freudian error of referring to us both as "war Lords". Such is the price of diffidence.
I concede that at an early stage, although not before the Home Secretary's proposals had been roundly condemned by the then Lord Chief Justice, my noble and leaned friend Lord Taylor of Gosforth, I criticised mandatory life sentences perhaps not in the timid and deferential terms that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit would have wished. I was, however, in good company since the Government's own White Paper of 1990 made it clear that courts would continue to have the wide discretion they needed,
"to deal justly with the great variety of crimes which come before them".
I emphasise the word "justly" because it is my respectful submission that one thing this Bill will prevent is just sentencing. In the White Paper the Government rejected in terms a rigid statutory framework on the lines of that introduced in the United States or a system of mandatory or minimum sentences for certain offences.
The White Paper gave as its reasons for such rejection that it would make it more difficult to sentence justly in the exceptional cases. Hence the proposition which I ventured to put before the Committee a few seconds ago about justice is supported by the Government. The White Paper went on to say:
"Of course it could also result in more acquittals by juries with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result".
Again, there is reference to justice, or the lack of it.
However, my other submission is that not only will the Bill do injustices; it will detract rather than promote the safety of the public. Why should mandatory minimum sentences, or mandatory life sentences, make more guilty men and women go free as a result? Members of the Committee have already been told the reasons. I mention them as briefly as I can. There will be more pleas of not guilty when there should be guilty pleas. The heavy onus which lies on the prosecution will inevitably result in some cases which should have been the subject matter of a conviction being acquittals and thus a guilty man or woman would go free.
Secondly, there will be a positive reluctance by juries to convict when they know what will be the consequences of conviction. It is not difficult for an accused person, through his counsel, to make sure that the jury know what will be the consequences of their
424
conviction. One can hear counsel say: "Would my client, conscious that a life sentence could result from his acting as is alleged, take that risk?". Then there is the refusal or failure of witnesses to come up to proof because they know the consequences, particularly where the witnesses are close relatives or otherwise closely connected with the victim.
I shall not take these matters further. It is late, and the Committee has heard references to them. References have been made to plea bargains, to unrealistic pleas being accepted in order to achieve at least a conviction. We have heard how that will move the discretion of the judges to the prosecution or the defence and the bargains that they will make.
Noble Lords will no doubt recall the strength of the condemnation by the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, in a debate that he instituted on 23rd May on the Government's 1996 White Paper which forms the basis of this Bill.
The noble and learned Lord said:
"Turning to the White Paper, I venture to suggest that never in the history of our criminal law have such far-reaching proposals been put forward on the strength of such flimsy and dubious evidence. The shallow and untested figures in the White Paper do not describe fairly the problems the Government seek to address. Still less do they justify the radical solutions it proposes".—[Official Report, 23/5/96; col. 1025.]
As recently as 27th January, at Second Reading, my noble and learned friend Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the Lord Chief Justice, in a devastating attack, said that each of the proposals—that is, the mandatory life sentences, the minimum sentences and the abolition of parole—had to be tested by asking four questions:
"Will it be just? Will it serve to reduce levels of crime or increase the protection of society? Will it be cost effective? Will it work in practice?".
He continued:
"I feel bound to tell your Lordships that in my judgment these measures conspicuously fail to pass all four of those tests".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; col. 984.]
At the outset of his speech, my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf said:
"If this Bill is implemented, it is my fear that it will prove to be an extremely expensive way of making the criminal justice system worse".—[Official Report, 27/1/97; cols. 996–997.]
It would be difficult to find legislation that has been so consistently referred to as bad in principle and bad in practice. I accept that there is no question but that the White Paper and the Bill have identified a problem in the inadequacy of the existing law to deal with potentially dangerous offenders who currently must be released at the end of their determinate sentences irrespective of whether or not they still pose a danger to society. That has been accepted right from the start. However, my submission is that the proposed solution is wholly unsound.
As Dr. David Thomas QC, a lecturer at Cambridge and the editor of the essential encyclopaedia, so to speak, on sentencing, in an article in Current Sentencing Practice News on 9th May pointed out:

425
"Much better ideas have been put forward and in some cases enacted. The Butler Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders identified the same problem twenty years ago. Its solution—a review of sentences—has been ignored by successive Home Secretaries".
He accepted that it would need some re-thinking to take account of developments in the intervening period, but it would provide a better starting point than these proposals.
As I pointed out, the Canadian criminal code contains dangerous offenders provisions which are far more sophisticated than the crude device which the Government propose. Legislation of a similar kind enacted in Victoria in 1993 could prove a starting point. I accept that none of the schemes is perfect. But, as Dr. Thomas said, they begin by addressing the problem of the dangerous offender in an intelligent manner, avoiding the mistake of making the availability of the sentence depend on conviction of one of a narrow range of offences and including provisions designed to avoid the application of the sentence in cases where the offender is not dangerous.
There has been reference to the extent to which the prison population will be increased well beyond the estimates given by the Home Secretary. I think those estimates are highly suspect. His belief that the legislation will act as a deterrent and enable him to discount an increase by some 20 per cent. has no sound basis.
One point has probably not featured as firmly as it might—the reaction of the judges. I indicated my belief that the judges have grown sick and tired of being first of all the subject of complaint that they have sentenced excessively. That was the impact of the complaints in 1990, with strong media criticism. As a result, their discretionary powers were removed, despite it being pointed out that that would be disastrous and that they would have to be restored, as they were, not many months later. Now the complaint is that they are too soft, that they do not sentence with enough vigour. That is all in the space of a few years when imprisonment has increased by 50 per cent. from approximately 40,000 prisoners to 60,000. Accordingly, this rag-bag of suggestions has been provided.
The judges are expected to reduce the sentences which they would now impose by some two-thirds. The sentences that they impose now are sentences in every sense of the word. Half the sentence—up to four years—is served in prison. The other half is served at liberty but one quarter of it in circumstances of strict supervision and strict conditions, with the liability to recall, and the remaining quarter at risk of having to return if there are subsequent offences. That is all designed not out of softness but to try to achieve the end of criminal behaviour.
What the Bill does is to ensure that the available expenditure is directed to more and more prisoners. The ability to do something constructive in prison, the hope of training and fitting the prisoner for a sound subsequent existence cannot be provided to the extent it should.
I return to the judges and their reactions. It is said that they are expected to give two thirds of the sentence that they would have imposed. There is not a
426
specifically right sentence for a given offence—four, five or six years. Heaven knows what will happen to sentencing guidelines if this legislation goes through, but what there is at the moment is a bracket. For a given offence, say rape—an ordinary rape without circumstances which direct a considerable increase in the usual tariff—the bracket may be six years to eight years.
I believe that the judges, in order to ensure that they are not castigated for being soft on crime (albeit at the instance of the Government and the legislation, which will provide in fact no such protection) will provide for the two thirds at the top of the bracket. Providing the two thirds at the top of the bracket will mean that instead of the rape sentence being brought down, as the Government would like, to four years, it will be six years, the top of the bracket having taken off the two thirds. Accordingly, the population in prison will go up and up. The expenditure on prisons will mean that the expenditure on means to keep people out of prison or keep them from returning to prison will be heavily curtailed. As a result, the so-called "protection of the public", which the Bill is so ill designed to achieve, will be wholly frustrated.
A little over a year ago, in the debate on the Address on 20th November 1995, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed the view that, if the Home Secretary's proposals came before this Chamber, they would not be accepted. He said:
"Even if a whipped majority in another place insisted on them, I do not believe that they would survive the considered view of your Lordships".—[Official Report, 20/11/95; col. 215.]
I trust that the noble Lord will not be disappointed.
This is a bad Bill and has been repeatedly so described in your Lordships' House. So far as this clause is concerned, I ask the Committee to say that it will have none of it. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I realise the lateness of the hour and apologise to the Committee for rising at this time. I appreciate in particular that my noble friend the Minister has been in this Chamber since three o'clock. However, I do not feel it possible to allow Clause 1 to go past without saying a few words about my concern with regard to some of its proposals. I shall attempt not to repeat what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, other than to say that I hope the Minister will take great thought about what he said at the end of his speech about the likely effects on the size of the prison population caused in particular by Part II of the Bill, which we shall debate next week.
I feel that there is a genuine problem in Clause 1, which the Home Office has recognised and faced; but it has taken an unnecessarily complicated way to try to deal with it. Clearly one must accept that there is a concern, which the Minister has expressed on many occasions, that people serving determinate sentences are released back into society when it is still felt that they are a danger. That is an anxiety we can all understand and share. But is the method of dealing with that problem enormously to increase the number of

427
determinate life sentences which should be passed, in many cases where the criteria of risk cannot possibly apply?
As I understand it, in all these cases the court will be asked to pass a sentence of life imprisonment on the second conviction: not a second conviction for rape or anything of that nature, but a second conviction for one of the offences that fall within this group. The court must then state the tariff. I will be grateful if the Minister will give thought to this point. The tariff is not a sentence. Presumably, therefore, if the judge says, "You will go to prison for life; I recommend that you stay there for three years", that three years is the minimum period the defendant has to serve.
Since the tariff is not a sentence, various clauses that deal with obtaining remission for good behaviour do not apply to that minimum period. That being so, what incentive is there for that individual to behave while in prison? What thought has been given by the Home Office to a substantial increase of potentially dangerous people in prison when, no matter how they behave, their sentences cannot be reduced?
The other matter about which I should like to ask the Minister is this. If it be right that of the 207 cases identified in 1994 to which this clause would apply, only 10 received life sentences, what is the logic which says that we should require the rest to receive life sentences in future? That is particularly illogical when the White Paper itself does not criticise the length of sentence passed in those cases. I suggest that we are posing a real problem for the prison service; we are posing problems for the courts—the release of those with determinate sentences who still remain a danger and who could be dealt with more effectively, for instance, by reference to the Butler Report.
Finally—because of the lateness of the hour I will limit my remarks to this—has the Minister seen the research being carried out by Dr. Roger Hood? If so, what is the attitude of the Home Office towards it? That research shows that this Bill, if passed, would affect only 10 per cent. of those about whom the Government claim to be concerned; namely, those who may be being released at the end of their sentences while still posing a danger to society. As I understand it, that figure was worked out on the basis of those who had been refused parole.
If it be right that 90 per cent. of those who are at risk of committing further offences do not come within the ambit of Clause 1—either because they are first-time rapists or because they have been convicted of offences against children which do not amount to rape and do not come within the ambit of this Bill—would it not be sensible to find some method such as that recommended by Lord Butler for dealing with cases in general which fall within that criterion, rather than taking a sledgehammer approach which will lead to many people receiving life sentences where in normal circumstances that would not be justified?
I apologise for raising these matters at this hour of the evening. But this clause has not been fully thought through. It is fraught with problems for the future. I urge
428
the Minister to consider whether it is possible to find an agreed solution for what is, I am sure, a recognised problem.
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may preface my remarks by saying that this is one of strangest Committee stages I have ever attended. Here we are discussing a major Bill which will have profound effects upon our criminal justice system and which, justifiably or unjustifiably, will have a major effect upon our civil liberties, and yet for the past two hours there have been no more than 20 or 25 noble Lords in the Committee; and it is not actually particularly late. There is no need for the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, to apologise for speaking at this late hour, because it is not by historical standards a particularly late hour. This must have something to do with the impending general election and the consequent end of term feeling. But it is very worrying all the same.
As a layman, it seems to me that Clause 1 is the most important clause in the Bill, providing, as it does, for life imprisonment for a second but quite possibly totally unrelated so called serious offence. I say "so called" because, although many of the offences are indeed serious, some are not, by any normal standards. And not all, of course, are intended.
I give, as an example, manslaughter. Let us suppose that a respectable train driver, married with two children, having worked for whatever company succeeds British Rail for 25 years and who committed as a teenager an offence involving violence, foolishly one day takes his eyes off the track, goes through a red signal, crashes into the back of another train and kills a passenger. He will quite possibly be tried and convicted of manslaughter. Is it really necessary to sentence him to life imprisonment? Does he really pose a danger to the public?
What about rape? We all know that there are degrees of rape that vary enormously in their heinousness and effect upon the victim. On the one hand there is the terrible incident of the three men who broke into the vicar's house and raped and did other terrible things to his daughter. In my opinion, the sentences passed in that case were totally inadequate. They should have been at least double what they were, if not longer. On the other hand, there is the kind of case which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, knows all about, where a very young university student was invited into bed by a young woman who then changed her mind literally at the eleventh hour. In the event, he was acquitted, but he might very well not have been acquitted, and he too might be subject to being sentenced to life imprisonment for a second offence of any kind or description.
We note also that attempted rape is included. There are enormously varying degrees of attempted rape. Some are extremely serious and involve great physical assault and terror on the part of the victim. On the other hand, at the farcical extreme there is the case of Mr. Angus Diggle, where no physical harm was caused and, as both parties were totally drunk, there was hardly any mental distress either. Yet the same law will apply to this great range—in terms of heinousness—of cases.

429
Even if life only means 18 months or two years, what effect will it have in practice? How will a person sentenced to life imprisonment but released after 18 months be able to get a decent job and hold it down? Will he be able to get a mortgage? Will he be able to get a passport? Some countries will not allow people in with that kind of thing hanging over them. Some people say that it is tough luck and that it does not matter. I think it does matter. If we want people to reform and go steady, we have to give them a chance to have a decent job. With life imprisonment being there in the background—undeservedly in some cases (but not all: in some cases it will be fully merited)—I do not see how it can be justified.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Whether it is late at night or not, perhaps I may invite the Minister's attention to one situation which, although hypothetical, is one that I think is by no means unrealistic. It is directly related to Clause 1 of the Bill. Let us suppose that a defendant is convicted of a second qualifying Clause 1 offence and is therefore, on the face of it, liable to an automatic life sentence. Two psychiatric consultants of unimpeachable reputation, approved by the Secretary of State, examine the defendant in depth and go into the witness box and express the opinion that in their judgment the defendant does not present a continuing danger to the public, although of course he should be punished for his second offence. The Crown calls no evidence to challenge that opinion and indeed accepts it.
Does the Minister suggest that in that situation the judge should be required to pass a life sentence? If so, does she suggest that that result would be just and that it would serve any public interest to sentence such a defendant to life imprisonment? If her answer is that a judge would not have to impose a life sentence in such a situation, what does the clause achieve, because in appropriate cases a life sentence can be imposed now and, if it is not when it should be, the Attorney-General can come to the court and ask for the substitution of such a sentence?
I described this case as hypothetical, but I also venture to suggest that it is realistic because, as Dr. Hood's evidence shows, most of those who would become subject in theory to the automatic life sentence provided by Clause 1 would not present a continuing danger to the public. Therefore, they would be in a position to call evidence of this kind, which is the very sort of evidence that the Parole Board relies on when it makes its judgment that a prisoner can be safely released. I am sorry to burden the Minister with a question of that kind, whether late in the evening or not, but it is an important question and it goes to the root of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My name has been cited by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quite legitimately for what I said in the debate on the gracious Speech 1995. I hope that I have already dealt with the issue as I see it between that time and now in moving Amendment No. 1, because my view is that now, as then, the proposition put forward by the Home Secretary
430
in his Conservative Party Conference speech in 1995 to which I was referring was wholly unacceptable in the sense that there was no judicial discretion of any kind proposed. As I have said, the White Paper moved, the Bill moved and now this Chamber in Committee today has moved still further—more perhaps, I acknowledge, on Clauses 2 and 3 than on Clause 1, but nevertheless it has moved.
I have proclaimed, and I believe, that the amendments which I moved and which the noble and learned Lord and other Members of the Committee were good enough to put their names to were constructive rather than wrecking amendments. To seek to take Clause 1 out of the Bill would be a wrecking amendment. For that reason I could not support it and I could not advise my noble friends to support such a move. I believe, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, that the right way forward now is for the Home Secretary to calm down from what he was saying on radio this morning and what he said to Jack Straw in a letter yesterday and to recognise that 180 Members of this Chamber take a different view from the Government about the application of this part of the Bill and agree to talk to us about it. That would be a more constructive way forward than seeking to take Clause 1 out of the Bill.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in introducing this Motion, reminded me of how baffled the whole legal profession was in 1991 by the legislation passed at that time which directed a judge no longer to take into account the record of the offender before him, to ignore any further offences which would otherwise be taken into consideration and simply to sentence on the basis of the conviction for the particular offence that was before the court. Nobody could understand why suddenly, contrary to the whole history of the criminal justice system in this country, a person's past record was to be ignored. At sentencing conferences we were informed that that was because there were not enough prison places and that it was our duty, according to the Home Office, to reduce the prison population, to which, as I said at Second Reading, a very senior judge replied, "Now listen boys, if you want to send them to prison, if you think that that is what should be done, you send them to prison". That was quite contrary to the advice that was given to us by the Home Office at that time.
The next thing that happened was the virtual ending of the suspended sentence of imprisonment because sentences of imprisonment could be suspended only in special circumstances. Again, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who reminded me of the last time I was involved in a case with a suspended sentence. It was a case involving a weighbridge clerk who was in charge of the crossing gates on a railway level crossing. He negligently forgot to shut the gates before a train came through, with the result that a lorry went through the gates and was struck by the train on the level crossing. The clerk was charged with manslaughter. After a lengthy trial, he was convicted of a lesser offence under the Railways Act. Then it came to sentencing. Here was a person who had had a

431
momentary lapse of concentration. The systems employed by the company employing him were not particularly good and, as a result, that terrible accident occurred. There was the greatest difficulty in persuading the judge not to send the man to prison as a result of the lesser offence of which he had been convicted.
Therefore, when in this Bill we see "exceptional circumstances" being referred to again and when we hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, saying that a proportion of less than 1 per cent. would come within the definition of "exceptional circumstances", one realises just what draconian legislation is being proposed in this clause.
My charge against the Government is that they have come brazenly in this Bill to say to your Lordships that justice is expendable. In the interests, so they say, of the protection of the public and for the safety of the public, judges can be instructed to pass sentences which they believe to be unjust. That is a completely false antithesis. It is not necessary to pass unjust sentences to protect the public. The public can be protected in entirely different ways.
One way was developed earlier today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who referred to the reviewable sentence. I would prefer to call it a "public safety sentence". If we are to have honesty in sentencing, why do we have to call an indeterminate sentence a life sentence? That is not what the Government intend by Clause 1. Everybody knows that. They do not even pretend that it is so. Why do they not call it a "public safety sentence" which gives the public some idea of what it is all about? It would be a sentence to protect the public which would be indeterminate in length. However, that sentence would not be passed automatically or mandatorily, but only where positive evidence is presented to the court within a fixed framework which informs the judge that he is dealing with a person who is a potential danger to the public.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said a moment ago, where a mandatory life sentence was proposed a psychiatrist might say that, based on what he had done, his background or his personality, the person was not a danger to the public. If within the armoury of the judiciary there were a public safety sentence based on evidence before the judge everyone would understand it. Its limitations and extension would be understood. It would be understood that at some future date a person would have to satisfy an executive body that he was no longer a danger to the public and he would remain in prison until that could be established. That is a sensible approach to the kind of problems envisaged in the Bill, not to say that the protection of the public involves judges passing unjust sentences.
The use of the expression "life sentence" suggests to me that the proposal is made by the Government to get the headlines, "We are being tough", "We are passing life sentences" or "We are being honest in sentencing." It is nothing of the sort. I said earlier today, and I repeat it now: this Bill smacks of an election gimmick. It is most unfortunate that the Labour Party, at least initially, fell for it. Mr. Jack Straw adopted the same position as
432
his opposite number Mr. Howard. It was only because of the pressure of much more sensible people in your Lordships' House that Mr. Straw changed his mind. He has allowed some concessions to be made by noble Lords who sit on the Labour Benches—although there are not many of them left this evening. He has not gone the whole way because, in squaring up for a fight in the election, he cannot be seen to be back-tracking in the face of Mr. Howard or of your Lordships. It is, however, sad that at the end of 18 years of Conservative government when crime has escalated for all kinds of reasons—I concede that it is not simply because of the Conservative Government—we enter an election period with a completely unwarranted attack on the judiciary. Before they were too hard; now they are too soft, as government policy has shifted.
At the end of the day, it is all about how best one protects the victims of crime. As a first priority the way to protect victims of crime is to try to stop it happening. One has a government that is about to commit £1 or £2 billion on the building of prisons for containment as opposed to spending the money in a constructive way on rehabilitation schemes, probation schemes, investment in a better police force, more policemen on the beat and better equipment. There are many other ways in which that money can be better spent than simply building prisons in which people are left to rot. I fully support the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is no longer in his place. This afternoon he covered himself in glory. I hope that tonight, or perhaps early next morning, he will sleep the sleep of the just. Nevertheless, I was rather sorry to hear him speak about wrecking amendments. It sounded as if he were already in office. He should recollect that the voters might send him to the political equivalent of Coventry; they might send him to Sheffield! Unfortunately, the precedents are against him. The most far-reaching amendment I have ever known tabled in this House was on the football membership Bill in 1990. That Bill consisted of a large and controversial Part I and a very small and totally uncontroversial Part II. An amendment was tabled to leave out Part I. It stood in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. That ought to make the Government think twice before they talk about wrecking amendments. It is possible that in another Parliament the noble Baroness the Minister may be eager to eat some of her words about wrecking amendments.
The Bill has rested throughout on an argument for longer sentences; but we do not need this Bill to get longer sentences. Since the present Home Secretary came into office we have had a rapid lengthening of sentences in response to the perceived political will of the executive, just as the shorter sentences, of which the Home Secretary complains, were the result of judicial responsiveness to the wishes of previous Conservative Home Secretaries. That record does not suggest that the judiciary has the least desire for a conflict with the executive; therefore we do not need the Bill in order to get longer sentences.

433
Earlier today my noble friend Lord Meston murmured in my ear, "It's treating them all alike that is inconsistent." That is our case in a nutshell. One offence is not like another of the same name. Even with attempted murder, which is the worst in this list, the arguments which have already convinced the House about murder must also apply. I have heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, ask how the Government's treatment of the case of Private Lee Clegg squares with their doctrine on the mandatory sentence for murder. That would have been equally true if the person shot by Private Clegg had survived and the case had been one of attempted murder. Some murders—for instance, the deliberate shooting of a night watchman in order to get the swag—may deserve very severe sentences indeed. But when one compares the actual case of a woman whose husband made a habit of ironing her with a hot iron and finally, at a moment when his back was turned, her patience snapped, it does not make sense to treat those cases on all fours. The point of the remark made by my noble friend Lord Meston was that treating them all alike is inconsistent.
The same applies even more clearly in respect of manslaughter. In the classic case, someone is punched on the jaw, falls over, hits his head on the fireguard and at that moment suffers a heart attack. It can be very difficult indeed to be certain what exactly is the precise cause of death. Treating such cases alike is surely absurd.
I agree in general with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about rape, but I must assure him that I was not discussing an actual case and would never presume to have done so. The only comment I would make about the actual case is that no one who had read only the press report and had not read the transcript knew the first thing about it. That is a matter we should bear in mind when we talk about the force of public opinion. What is clear is that the noble Lord is right in saying that one rape is not the same as another.
When we look at what judges are being asked to do, it is understating the case to say that they are being asked to pass sentences which they believe are unjust. They are being asked to do the wrong job. They are being asked to apply a formula, so they are being denied the basic skill of their office, which is to match the sentence to the offender and to the offence. If you cannot do that as a judge, you are pretty well redundant.
I remember being taught as a boy, very much to my surprise, that a clock which is stopped is right more often than one which is five minutes slow. If a mandatory sentence happens to be the correct sentence, it will be correct only in the same way as the clock which has stopped: purely by coincidence.
These issues have been discussed in literature as well as in law. It is the basic principle of "Measure for Measure", and that is a play about the attempt to impose a mandatory life sentence; in that case, the death penalty for being an unmarried father. In that case, there were innumerable circumstances why it would have been unjust to impose that penalty. The argument was put to Angelo that the Lord Angelo, like the Home Secretary,
434
is precise. He redeemed his reputation for consistency, in the end, by refusing to ask for mercy for himself. I can see the Home Secretary doing just the same thing.
We are given a great case in terms of public opinion, but in terms of public opinion one must take account of the fact that information must be taken into account. The public does not know the circumstances of every individual case. If you read everything that appears in the newspapers about a case, you do not know anything about it. And that I do say from experience.
The point about the judge is that he has heard the whole of the evidence and, great though my respect is for public opinion, I do not think that an opinion formed in ignorance should carry as much weight as an opinion formed in knowledge. Also, public opinion is a great deal more fickle than one might think. The public is a sentimental animal and when it is shown a real injustice arising from a mandatory sentence, the Home Secretary may live to find that the Sun is as fickle as its heavenly namesake.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: I shall intervene briefly, as I did on the last occasion on which I spoke to the Committee about Clause 1.
I have a very clear memory of March 1964 in the Aylesbury Assize Court. As I recall, the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was also in that court on that day, and it was the end of the trial of the Great Train Robbery. There were too many defendants to be brought up together into the dock of that rather small Crown Court, as it now is, so the first of the offenders who was found guilty of participating in the Great Train Robbery, Mr. Wilson, I remember his name, was brought into court.
At that time, there were a number of options open to Mr. Justice Edmund Davies, the trial judge, one of which was to impose a life sentence. I remember the pause in the court, the quietness and stillness in the court as the judge came to pronounce the sentence itself. When the judge pronounced a sentence of imprisonment of 30 years, there was a tremble, not only from the offender himself, but from everybody else in the court room. He was a judge responding to the need, as he perceived it, not pushed by public opinion and only pushed—if he were pushed—by his own judgment, to impose a very severe sentence for a very serious crime.
Those of us who are opposed to mandatory sentences—I speak for myself—are not opposed on the right occasion to a very severe sentence. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said, there are many occasions on which, in any event, if you are operating Clause 1, a very severe sentence, including a life sentence, should be imposed. That is not the issue. The issue is whether the sentence should be mandatory, irrespective of the circumstances. When I intervened earlier during discussions on Clause 1, the Committee was fuller and there was a kind of burble going on around me of disapproval. Therefore I was not able to develop the point properly. I shall only identify it now rather than develop it.

435
It seems to me that Members of the Committee have heard, not only in the debates on this Bill but also in the earlier debate of 23rd May of last year, many voices from very experienced judges who have given us their advice. I should point out that the other place did not have the advantage of hearing such advice. When we are given such advice, it seems to me that the only conclusion that we should rightly draw is that we should not have mandatory sentences. I wish only, therefore, to quote the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, as spoken in the debate that he initiated on 23rd May last. Although the noble and learned Lord was able to join us today he is, alas, no longer present in the Chamber. However, he stayed with us for a long time, as indeed he did on the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that Members of the Committee will allow me to remind them of a small passage of the noble and learned Lord's speech made on 23rd May. He said:
"Quite simply, minimum sentences must involve a denial of justice. It cannot be right for sentences to be passed without regard to gravity, frequency, consequences or other circumstances of the offending. To sentence a burglar automatically to a minimum of three years' imprisonment on a third conviction is to take no account of whether he is before the court for only three offences or for 30, no account of how long has passed between those offences, whether they involved sophisticated planning, drunken opportunism, and a host of other factors".—[Official Report, 23/5/96; col. 1026.]
We are not talking about wrecking amendments; as I said earlier, I am more concerned about wrecking the established penal policy of my Government. We are talking about justice. That is why I attached my name to the Question, Whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, has got it right. Although many noble Lords are not prepared to say so in the Committee, many of them say outside that the policy of mandatory sentences is not right. Indeed, I have not heard any developed argument from the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Williams, about the virtues and benefits of mandatory sentences.
We are grateful to both noble Lords. Although the noble Lords will not acknowledge this—indeed, it is not perhaps appropriate for them to do so within their own party—we are grateful to them for the fact that they have influenced the Opposition. We know that as a result of their representations on the issue we had Amendment No. 1 not only tabled but also supported by the Committee. As I said, we are grateful to them for that. Nonetheless, the right position is to reject mandatory sentencing. That is why I support the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend will not be surprised to hear me say how depressed I was that, somehow or other, it is assumed that noble Lords who are against the Government on the matter possess intellectual validity for their arguments but that those of us who wholeheartedly support the Bill have not produced an intellectual argument to support their case. However, I leave it there.
We have spent a great deal of time on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. I should tell the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that, from
436
where I stand, the description of him as a "war Lord" is not too far off the mark. Indeed, I feel that I am on the receiving end of a war of attrition by those who do not support the Bill's provisions.
There is a high degree of public anxiety about such crimes. There is considerable public support for these provisions as set out in the Bill, including a healthy majority of 200 from another place at a time when the Government enjoy no overall majority at all. Therefore it is right that the government of the day should reflect the anxiety of the public, put before Parliament possible remedies, and allow Parliament—as it has the sovereign power to do—to determine which way it will respond to that issue.
Clause 1 requires the court to impose a life sentence on anyone aged 18 or over who is convicted for the second time of a serious sexual or violent offence unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify not doing so. In that event it must state in open court what the exceptional circumstances are. Serious offences for the purposes of Clause 1 include rape, attempted rape, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, attempted murder, manslaughter, serious woundings and certain firearms offences. Life imprisonment is, of course, already the maximum penalty for all these serious offences but the courts rarely impose discretionary life sentences in such cases, even if the offender in question has previous convictions for similar offences.
In 1994—I make no apology for repeating the statistic—217 offenders were convicted of a serious violent or sexual offence having previously been convicted of it at least once before. Only 10 of them were sentenced to life imprisonment. The courts can and indeed do impose long determinate sentences on those convicted of serious, violent or sexual offences. But when the offender has served his sentence he has to be released even if there is reason to believe that he will commit further serious offences and, regrettably, that is exactly what happens in a significant proportion of cases.
This does not give the public the protection they need from violent and dangerous offenders. The mandatory life sentence will ensure in future that such offenders are released if and only if it is safe to do so. Those who are released will remain on licence and subject to recall. The procedures for setting tariff and determining release will follow those which currently apply to discretionary life sentences; in other words, the trial judge will set the tariff to be served for retribution and deterrence and at the end of that period, following an assessment of risk, the Parole Board will determine whether it is safe to release the offender. The Home Secretary of the day will play no part whatever in that process.
The court will have discretion to set aside the automatic life sentence in exceptional circumstances. There has been a good deal of debate in this Chamber and another place about exactly what that means. Without wanting to go over the ground in detail, in my view the exceptional circumstances formula strikes the right balance between maintaining the integrity of the policy and allowing the courts sufficient flexibility to

437
exercise discretion in those occasional cases where the mandatory penalty would be manifestly unnecessary or inappropriate.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, served only to confirm one thing to me; namely, that the misunderstanding of this Bill is profound on the part of some Members of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, who is not now present, whispered into the ear of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the thing he does not like about this clause is that it treats all offenders alike. That could not be more wrong. When offenders come before the court they are not all treated alike. A case is heard, guilt or innocence is determined by the court and, according to Section 1, 2 or 3 of what will be the new Act, the minimum sentences apply; in other words, their sentences should not be fewer than three years in the case of burglary, or fewer than seven years in the case of persistent drug dealing. In the case of sexual and violent offences there will be an automatic life sentence with a variable tariff which can be lenient or long to reflect the seriousness of the crime. I hope the noble Earl will not intervene because it is important that we continue with what is left of this debate.
It is not true to say that there is a single sentence for all people. They are not treated the same. There is a variety of ways of treating them. No formula is applied. I do not know where the noble Earl, Lord Russell, got that from. It is an automatic sentence with a tariff which can he at the discretion of the judge. That is not a formula.
I do not know where the formula is in Clauses 2 and 3. Perhaps the noble Earl will write to me and point it out. As I said, it is a sentence not less than the prescribed minimum.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to the Roger Hood research. I am aware of the Roger Hood research and have looked at it. The research clearly illustrates that the present system is not perfect. All those prisoners about which the Parole Board expressed concern would have been released at the two-thirds point of sentence. They would have been supervised for a period equivalent to only 8 per cent. of the sentence. Under the Bill's proposals, 10 per cent. of them would be subject to the automatic life sentence; others who were sex offenders could be subject to up to 10 years' supervision on release; and the others would be subject to a period of supervision equal to 25 per cent. of the sentence. The public will be better protected, not worse, under the Bill's provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, referred to indeterminate reviewable sentences. An automatic life sentence as provided under Clause 1 of the Bill provides a guarantee of lifetime supervision on release. An indeterminate reviewable sentence is very little different from a life sentence but it does not provide a guarantee of lifetime supervision. To that extent it offers less than the automatic life sentence.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, posed a particular case and asked me to comment on it. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, the court would impose a life sentence under Clause 1. That caveat is
438
important. In the absence of exceptional circumstances, it would impose a life sentence under Clause 1. It would set the tariff according to the seriousness of the offence. Thereafter the question of release would depend upon the risk to society then posed by the offender. If the psychiatric assessment were correct, the offender might expect to be released on tariff expiry. But the offender would have committed two serious sexual or violent offences; and the question of risk would need to be considered carefully at the proper time before release. However, under our proposals, if the medical evidence to the judge hearing the case were sufficient to allow the judge to consider that it constituted exceptional circumstances, that would be a matter for the judge.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Would it be an exceptional circumstance that there was clear and incontrovertible evidence that the defendant presented no serious continuing risk to the public?
Baroness Blatch: No, not on that particular fine point because the person has committed two serious sexual and/or violent offences. He is guilty of those violent offences. The question of no risk and other factors taken together may constitute exceptional circumstances. But the judgment about exceptional circumstances—it is the reason we left it as we did in the Bill—is for the judge to make. It would be subject to possible appeal by the Attorney-General. But if the judge felt that the circumstances, the wilfulness and the offences committed were sufficient to bring about a conviction, he would invoke the life sentence unless he deemed that there were exceptional circumstances.
Perhaps I may pose a question to the noble and learned Lord. I listened carefully, as I always do, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham. I feel that the contributions by the noble and learned Lord must be taken seriously not only because I believe that he is an eminent and very respected Member of this House but because of the position that he holds. He spoke strongly in support of the amendment which affected Clause 1 earlier today. I assume that the noble and learned Lord was satisfied that the amendment would not require judges to act unjustly. If the noble and learned Lord says that is not true, then it poses another question.
Even if psychiatrists say at the trial that they are satisfied that there is no risk to the public, what is the evil that arises in having that issue looked at again when the fixed period is served? I remind the noble and learned Lord that I referred specifically to subsection (2) of the new clause before Clause 1, which states:
"Under section 1 below, when determining whether it would be appropriate not to impose a life sentence the court shall have regard to the circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender".
My noble friend Lord Carlisle referred to earned early release. My noble friend was right in his assumption that it would not apply for lifers. Earned early release arrangements do not apply to those who receive an automatic life sentence under Clause 1. They do not apply to any life sentence prisoners. There is no difference from the present arrangements. The present

439
early release provisions, as set out in the 1991 Act, do not apply to life sentence prisoners; and the incentive for good behaviour is parole, once the period of the tariff is served. That is the case now, and remains so under the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, accused the Government of a mere election gimmick. There is an arrogance about his remark. Again, it links to a point I made about my noble friend Lord Hacking. The idea is that those who are against the Bill are in some way virtuous and those of us who believe—I use the word because I am a believer in the Bill—that the Bill addresses a serious public protection issue are only playing politics.
I came to this House in 1987. The one thing that deeply impressed me about it, and which I thought was a characteristic of this place, is that we respected each other's genuinely held views. That has always guided me. It is part of the civility of this House that can be carried on through very serious debates. But continually, throughout the day, there has been a suggestion that, somehow or other, those of us who believe in the Bill are playing politics, being superficial and playing to a gallery out there. But some of us genuinely believe that there is an anxiety among the public at large that needs to be addressed. We believe the Bill is a genuine attempt to address that anxiety.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that 180 people in this Chamber did not take the same view as the Government. I have to concede that; it happened earlier today and we all witnessed it. But 172 people did take the same view as the Government, so the opposition was not quite so overwhelming as the noble Lord suggested. To return to a point I made earlier, the Bill came to this House from another place, under a Government who do not enjoy an overall majority, with a majority of 200. We cannot ignore that.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, also referred to justifying his own change of heart on these matters. As long ago as the initial introduction of the White Paper, reference was made to "exceptional circumstances" being considered to be part of the Bill. Some of the noble Lord's remarks have been made since that publication.
People who repeat sexual and violent offences are causing great grief in our community. Clause 1 is a proper response to that. The key rationale for Clause 1 is that people who represent a risk to the public are not released back into the community without a risk assessment; and when they are, if at any time after release they begin to pose a further risk to the public, they can be recalled. I believe that this is a genuine attempt to address a very real problem in the community. I hope that the clause will remain part of the Bill.
Earl Russell: As we are in Committee I will say that we accept that we all disagree with each other's arguments, but when someone chooses in a speech to attack the arguments of someone else, especially if that attack is based on a misunderstanding, it is a lapse from the normal standards of courtesy of this House not to allow a reply.
440
The noble Baroness thought that I entirely misunderstood the matter in saying that there was not a formula. If the mandatory sentence is not a formula, I do not know what is. Of course I understand the difference between the mandatory sentence and the tariff. I was reluctant to attribute to the noble Baroness the view light-heartedly suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, at Second Reading, "I sentence you to life. By the way, you can expect to serve 18 months." But if that really is her view, I cannot see how it is compatible with the principle of honesty in sentencing.
Lord Ackner: I shall spend but one minute in my reply. At 11 o'clock in the evening, it would be irresponsible to divide the House. But I am bound to say that, on the strength of the observations made, it has been a great temptation.
When the Home Secretary reads, as I hope he will, what has been said in the past hour, I hope that his belief that the Bill will increase confidence in the criminal justice system will be changed. If he maintains that belief then he is deluded.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Minimum of seven years for third class A drug trafficking offence]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 38, after ("offences") insert ("other than offences in respect of which the offender is a rehabilitated person for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974").
The noble Lord said: I rise in hesitation. In some ways, this was a fallback position if the first amendment was not accepted. I would be minded to carry the matter no further at this hour were it not that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, indicated his wish to speak on this amendment when it was reached. He said that we would have a debate on the matter. I have not attempted to move the amendment and have not decided whether to do so. Perhaps I could have an indication as to whether the noble Lord's position remains as it was or whether, in view of his success earlier, he is willing to see what the Government's reaction is before deciding whether the amendments should be proceeded with. I should be happy, since he has not attempted to indicate otherwise, not to move my amendments at this stage but to keep them in reserve for another time.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 42, leave out from ("years") to end of line 43 and insert ("except where the court is of the opinion that there are specific circumstances which—

(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and

(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 45, leave out ("exceptional") and insert ("specific").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 1. 1 beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 6, at end insert—
("(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence which falls within subsection (1) above, and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify it not imposing a custodial sentence for a term of at least seven years.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is coupled with Amendment No. 30. I did not address the issue when I moved my first amendment, Amendment No. 9. However, noble Lords have had an opportunity to comment on it and I was able, at the end of our debate on Amendment No. 9, to refer to the issues that would arise on Amendments Nos. 22 and 30 and the consequential amendments.
I wish to ask my noble friend, who has so far not responded on the question, whether she will give further consideration to the serious issues relating to mental illness and the application of Clauses 1, 2 and 3.
The other point I wish to make is that although I passionately disagree with the Bill and identify it as a serious deviation from the established penal policy of the Government, at no time has the word "election" slipped from my mouth and at no time have I suggested that either political party is in any way motivated by the oncoming election on the political position that they take on the Bill. Nor have I ever attacked the integrity of those who disagree with me. I have never attempted to be sanctimonious in this Chamber. I am not being sanctimonious now. I am not intellectually critical or otherwise critical of my noble friend who so patiently is at the Dispatch Box on this Bill. That is not my position.
I fundamentally disagree with the Bill, not only Clauses 1, 2 and 3 but many other parts of it, including the treatment of the parole system and all kinds of other matters. I believe that the Bill is deeply mistaken. I do not join in any intellectual or other criticism of my noble friend, except that I must say that I think she is wrong. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I rise only because my noble friend asked me a question. But I must also say that the Government have been accused of politicking and, as I am a member of that Government, I respond to that point. I respond to my noble friend's point because in the contribution that he made before this last one he said that he had not heard one single argument to defend the measures in the Bill.
Perhaps I may say that throughout Second Reading and in the course of responding to the amendments today I have done my best. I can only say that my noble friend dismisses the validity of my arguments. But I can give
442
him an absolute assurance that I shall follow what I have done throughout any Bill on which I have worked, which is to continue to look at all the issues. I do regard very seriously the issue of how we treat mentally disordered offenders. I want to read all that has been said, including the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in particular. Of course I can give my noble friend that assurance.
Lord Hacking: I am very grateful for that assurance. Inviting my noble friend to speak has justified me very briefly moving this amendment. Perhaps I may just correct one matter. Of course I have heard arguments in favour of the Bill, which has been presented very ably by my noble friend. It was just that I was having a little tease, if I may say so, with the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Williams. I have not heard in our debates any passionate enthusiasm or indeed any very strong positive arguments in favour of mandatory sentencing. I hope I may be forgiven for that tease and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Minimum of three years for third domestic burglary]:
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 31, leave out from ("years") to end of line 32 and insert ("except where the court is of the opinion that there are specific circumstances which—

(a) relate to any of the offences or to the offender; and

(b) would make the prescribed custodial sentence unjust in all the circumstances.").

The noble Lord said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 3, line 34, leave out ("exceptional") and insert ("specific").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
11.4 p.m.
Lord Monson: I do not feel that we can allow this very important clause to go through without a brief comment. I do not have quite the same objection to Clause 3 as I did to Clause 1, perhaps because like many noble Lords—most noble Lords, I suspect—I have been the victim of burglary on more than one occasion. So I declare an emotional interest as well as a partial financial interest in that insurers often impose a hefty excess.

443
Is not there another possible avenue apart from that of imposing a mandatory three-year minimum sentence for persistent burglars? It is a fallacy that most burglaries are committed by teenage amateurs, as a number of Members of the Committee have said this afternoon and others have suggested elsewhere. It may be the case that teenage amateurs are mainly involved where housing estates are concerned and in some other urban areas, but it is certainly not the case in rural Britain.
We are plagued by highly professional individuals in their 20s, 30s and 40s. They carefully spy out the ground beforehand with binoculars or telescopes; they are equipped with advanced electronic equipment; they drive expensive Volvo estate cars or sometimes Peugeots or Mercedes, but more often than not nowadays, powerful four-wheel drive, off-the-road vehicles so that they can make their approach and getaway across fields.
Far too little use has been made of the power to confiscate the tools of their trade. I urge the Government to remind the judiciary of those powers and to make fuller use of them. Unlike prison, that costs the taxpayer nothing and may ultimately even benefit the taxpayer as well as making life much more difficult for the criminal.
Baroness Blatch: There is nothing in Clause 3 that prevents the courts from dealing very severely with people who indulge in sophisticated and organised crime. Indeed, we have done a great deal about sophisticated and organised crime and have constantly tried to strengthen the measures in that regard. We have also done a great deal in relation to giving the power to courts to confiscate the ill-gotten gains of crime.
However, the courts are not using maximum sentences for burglary when it is at their disposal. One of the reasons this Bill is before the Committee is to at least impose a floor on the sentences that are passed; that no sentence shall be less than three years. We hope that more use will be made of the maximum sentences where the crimes are as serious as the noble Lord describes.
Clause 3 as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
GUIDANCE ON SENTENCING
(".—(1) Without prejudice to any other power in that regard, the Court of Appeal shall consider and review sentencing practice and policy and from time to time issue guidance in respect thereof, including guidance on progression in sentencing.
(2) Without prejudice to any rule of law, a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guidance issued under subsection (1) above.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment to deal with a greater use by the Court of Appeal Criminal Division of its guideline powers. Sentencing of offenders ought to be consistent, reasoned, open and predictable.
The former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, set down guidelines for serious offences like rape, incest, drug trafficking and social security fraud; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, following, issued guideline judgments on
444
aggravated vehicle taking, causing death by careless driving and so forth. But there are large areas of sentencing, mainly relating to the lower levels of Crown Court work—which are very important, as the Minister said (and I agree); burglary, theft, deception and handling—and in particular the vast bulk of criminal work (95 per cent. plus) done in the magistrates' courts, where no guidelines exist.
The purpose of the amendment is to introduce into the Bill a specific encouragement in statutory form that,
"the Court of Appeal shall consider and review sentencing practice and policy and from time to time issue guidance in respect thereof",
with the consequence, in subsection (2), that,
"a court in passing sentence shall have regard to any relevant guidance".
I shall be grateful for the Minister's views on this. It is our testing amendment to see whether or not the Government's view is that the Court of Appeal should intervene over a greater area in terms of guidance. I beg to move.
Lord Hacking: I want briefly to support this amendment. It seems to me that this is the right way forward. The problems have arisen during certain periods over the past 20 years where courts have not had sufficient guidance on sentencing. There have been occasions when sentences have been very topsy-turvy: sometimes sentences have been far too harsh and on other occasions it has been the other way round. It seems to me that for the Court of Appeal to play an active part in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is a healthy, practical and sensible way forward.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I wish to support the amendment and would add only this. The Minister must believe in the Bill from the passion and the work that she has put into it. I commend her for it.
Baroness Blatch: I do, I do. I agree that inconsistent sentencing can undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system. It is, of course, important that criminals should receive punishment which is appropriate for the crime and which as far as possible achieves consistency. That is exactly what the Crime (Sentences) Bill is about. In relation to certain carefully targeted categories of serious, dangerous and persistent offenders we believe that the public needs greater protection. That is why we propose the introduction of mandatory sentences. However, that does not mean that a case has been made for restrictive sentencing guidelines across the board.
Of course there is a role for guidance to be available to the courts. The lower courts are already assisted in sentencing by guidance given by the Court of Appeal through its judgments on the appropriate penalty range for particular offences. This is a practice which has been considerably developed in recent years. Court of Appeal guidelines have been particularly useful in some areas in ensuring the courts take a more consistent view of particular offences and reflect levels of public concern in their sentencing practice.
To take an example, the Court of Appeal's 1986 guideline judgment in the case of Billam suggests starting points for sentences for rape. The judgment states that for

445
a rape with no aggravating or mitigating factors, the starting point should be five years' imprisonment. That is for a contested case; it would be a little less where the offender pleads guilty and the victim is spared the trauma of appearing in court to give evidence. These guidelines have had the effect of very significantly increasing sentence lengths for rape, the average sentence length being 76 months in 1995. Another example is the R v. Aramah which indicates the appropriate penalties, whether imprisonment or fine, for offences involving the importation, supply and possession of Class B drugs according to the scale of distribution and quantity of drugs involved. For example, it suggests that 10 years' imprisonment is appropriate for massive supplies of cannabis for those playing anything more than a subordinate role and that a fine is appropriate for possession of small amounts. It is important to remember, however, that Court of Appeal judgments can only be guidance: in each case the court must weigh up all the circumstances and decide.
Currently, any Court of Appeal judgment in an appeal against sentence, whether it allows or dismisses an appeal, gives a clear indication of its opinion on the sentence passed in the lower court. The judgment will explain the reasoning behind the court's decision. Court of Appeal judgments are held as authorities for cases in which the circumstances are similar. The cases I have quoted clearly show that they can be used as guidance as to appropriate sentence lengths for different categories of offences and different levels of seriousness. Furthermore, the Judicial Studies Board plays a valuable and continuing role in disseminating Court of Appeal guidance to the courts and in training the judiciary.
The current system works well in targeting the areas where inappropriate or inconsistent sentencing in the lower courts has highlighted the need for some central guidance. At the lower end of the scale, the Magistrates' Association issues guidelines on sentencing to its members which for specific offences give appropriate sentences for cases of average seriousness and indicate aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
I believe that the roles that the Court of Appeal and Magistrates' Association already play in providing guidance are important and effective in areas of sentencing which cause most difficulty. The clause would require the Court of Appeal to consider sentencing practice generally, even in areas where scrutiny is not required. It would greatly, and unnecessarily, increase the burden on the court. The new clause seeks to give the Court of Appeal a statutory role in sentencing policy. However, sentencing policy is a matter for the Government and Parliament.
We are satisfied that the present system is sufficiently effective in ensuring consistent and appropriate sentencing. Where there have been grounds for concern in particular areas, we have not hesitated to act; for
446
example, the proposals for automatic life and mandatory minimum sentences in this Bill. The clause would unnecessarily introduce statutory duties without adding to the present arrangements.
I ask the noble Lord not to press the amendment for two reasons. First, there are too few noble Lords present to go through the Lobbies. Secondly, it would be helpful to have the views of some of the noble and learned Lords who have taken part in our debates on the extended role that is being suggested in the amendment.
I end with one final point. In determining sentencing policy—that is government and Parliament at the end of the day or, as my noble friend would say, "in the final analysis"—the important thing is that they can look across to the Appeal Court for anything which might influence that policy.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The Minister has asked me not to press matters to a vote and, of course, whenever she asks me not to do something I readily agree. I entirely agree with the Minister's comments about the Judicial Studies Board. It has done tremendous work under Lord Justice Henry and now under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Judge. There are one or two of us here who for some years have been saying that it should be better funded; that the training of judges should be much more consistent and coherent.
But that is not the point that I am making. I did the Minister the courtesy of listening with great care to what she said. She said that sentencing policy was not a matter for the Court of Appeal. But earlier she said, commending the Court of Appeal, that it had rightly set down policy guidelines in respect of rape and drug trafficking on a serious basis. I detect possibly, even at this time of the night, a modest internal inconsistency. If, as the Minister says, guidelines have worked well in rape, incest, drug trafficking and the other cases which I mentioned earlier, why should they not be of reasonable practical utility in the great span of offences not presently covered by guidelines such as burglary, theft, deception and handling? I yield to no one in my respect for the Magistrates' Association, but I simply suggest that the weight of the Court of Appeal might usefully be directed to these areas. Since the Minister asked me so nicely, I shall not put this amendment to the vote.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  NATO Enlargement
  NATO Enlargement
  Riyadh Bombing, November 1995
  Riyadh Bombing, November 1995
  Liberia: Elections
  Liberia: Elections
  Asylum Seekers
  Asylum Seekers
  Blood, Meat and Bone Meal Fertilisers
  Blood, Meat and Bone Meal Fertilisers
  CFE Treaty
  CFE Treaty
  Sea Ferret Missile
  Sea Ferret Missile
  Peaceful Uses of Space: WEU/ESA Collaboration
  Peaceful Uses of Space: WEU/ESA Collaboration
  HELIOS II and Horus Satellites
  HELIOS II and Horus Satellites