Sitting of 18 February 1997

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

    KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Third Reading read.
    To be read the Third time on Tuesday 25 February.

    LEVER PARK BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Tuesday 25 February.

Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    Smoking
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives he plans to take to draw attention to the damage to health caused by smoking [14727]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Press, television and radio advertising are being used in support of a programme aimed at teenagers as well as the more general national smoking education campaign. Detailed arrangements for the final year of the campaign will be finalised shortly. Future activity will be developed in the light of the evaluation of the current campaigns.
    Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that non-smokers have absolutely no choice in public places but to inhale other people's smoke, whether in a railway coach or a restaurant? He might consider the Singapore experience, which has been very successful: little plastic see-through igloos are built in public places and are the sole place where smokers may smoke, and the public can look in and see who is puffing away.
    Mr. Malone: Perhaps I can add to the list my hon. Friend gave of places where passive smoking is a problem the Strangers' Bar in this House, where otherwise politically correct Labour Members often inflict this problem on all of us. We will let that pass, however. The instance that my hon. Friend outlined has not been drawn to my attention before. While we are keen to reduce the incidence of passive smoking, my initial reaction is that I do not think that placing the public in the stocks as he suggests would be the best way forward.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister must be aware that the House would be a good place to introduce some pioneering
    728
    activity in terms of non-smoking areas—sometimes the Palace seems to be suffused with smoke. Surely, both Members and staff could be educated a little better. On the more general point, there has been an interesting and encouraging decline in smoking, but in the last year of record, £69 million was spent on advertising tobacco alone. The advertisers are after young people and teenagers. They want to get them addicted early so that they will have them as slaves for the rest of their lives. When will the Government start to match that sort of advertising money?
    Mr. Malone: If it is not the smokescreens put up by Opposition Members, it is when they are conflated with hot air that we occasionally have our greatest problems, and that is what the hon. Gentleman has done. The countries in the European Union that have been most successful in reducing smoking among their adult populations are the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where there is no ban on tobacco advertising—but we are supported by a voluntary arrangement. Other EU countries, where there is a ban, have not been nearly as successful as this country. Our principle of voluntary restraint is working, should be supported and should continue.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my hon. Friend aware that while most smokers are knowledgeable about the dangers that they face from lung cancer and other cancers, few are aware of the severe danger that they face when they have to have anaesthetics for an operation, which can happen to any of us at any time? When he is considering publicity on the matter, will he also stress that point?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend will know that, as research into such matters progresses, and as we develop both the voluntary code of conduct and the warnings that appear on cigarette packets and other forms of advertising, any lessons that can be learnt will be borne in mind. I shall take on board what she says. She underlines another point about not having a ban on advertising: it is important to draw warnings to the attention of the public in a consistent but evolving way, to fit the prevailing circumstances, and that can be done under a voluntary code of regulation through the advertising campaigns that are run in this country.
    Mr. Barron: The Minister must know that the Government have failed to reach their "Health of the Nation" target and that teenage smoking has increased by 50 per cent. Why does he not take the obvious initiative and ban tobacco advertising? Will we have at the next general election the same situation as we had at the last, when a deal was done with Imperial Tobacco so that Tory posters replaced cigarette advertisements on billboards throughout the country? When the Royal College of Physicians tells us that, every day, 450 children start smoking, is not it time that the Conservatives put the health of the public before the health of their party?
    Mr. Malone: What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap. The hon. Gentleman would do better to base his case on the facts rather than on that sort of argument. The facts are simply that all the research shows that the one sure way to discourage smoking is to increase the price of tobacco, which is what the Government have done through the tax system. Tobacco in this country is more

    729
    expensive than in any of our European partner countries. That is the true way to ensure that there is a reduction in smoking.
    The hon. Gentleman is keen to anticipate failure where none has occurred. There were four "Health of the Nation" targets set out for 2000; we are making sound and solid progress on three, and not as much progress as we would like on the fourth; but that makes us determined to redouble our efforts, rather than resort to the nonsense that the hon. Gentleman was talking about.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the huge amount of tax paid by smokers? As a non-smoker, I am delighted that they pay that tax, because otherwise I and others like me, who have never smoked, would be required to fill the gap in funding. One wonders where Opposition Members expect to find the funds.
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right to say that smokers make an important contribution to revenue, but the Government's policy is underpinned by the fact that, while of course an increase in price raises extra revenue, it also fulfils the basic purpose of reducing tobacco consumption.

    Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a no-fault liability compensation scheme for those victims of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease caused by human-derived growth hormone and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [14728]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): The human growth hormone treatment programme was the subject of legal action, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, and we accepted the judgment that was delivered in July 1996.
    Any future claim for compensation for other people who have contracted CJD, however that may have come about, will be considered within the context of the Government's statutory obligations.
    Mr. Illsley: As the Minister rightly points out, the Government were found negligent in the High Court in respect of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases caused by the prescription of human growth hormone. As he will know, 22 victims have already died and far more are living with the terror that they might contract the disease as a result of the treatment, and that they might have to face the disease without any prospect of compensation.
    Likewise, CJD victims from BSE are not being compensated, yet the Government have conceded an economic case for BSE compensation to the tune of £1 billion for farmers. Surely it is time to stop the endless litigation and bring in a no-fault liability scheme for the victims, who have contracted this terrible disease as a result of Government negligence, and their families.
    Mr. Horam: Like the whole House, I am enormously sympathetic not only to those who have contracted CJD, whatever the cause, and their families, but to those who are worried but well and do not know whether they will be affected by this terrible disease. The problem from our
    730
    point of view is simply that it must be the first and overriding responsibility of the Department of Health to concentrate on preventing ill health and curing it when it occurs, not on compensating those who have contracted that terrible problem. We acknowledge our responsibilities where negligence is clearly proven, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding the terrible tragedy of people contracting Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease through the injection of growth hormone, will the Minister put the issue in perspective by confirming that only 15 people have contracted the disease through the consumption of beef?
    Mr. Horam: So far, the figures suggest that 15 people have contracted the new variant of CJD, although there is no scientific evidence on the connection between BSE and CJD. The numbers are small. As the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) said, we must be concerned with not only those who have contracted the disease but, in cases involving human growth hormone, those who may contract it in future. Some of those people will receive compensation under the judgment that has been delivered. The families concerned are appealing against part of the judgment and, if they are successful, that may extend the scope of compensation.
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the Minister consider the perspective of people such as my constituent, Edward Gray, who have been treated with human growth hormone and face years of stress and worry about whether they will contract this dreadful disease? Would it not be a kindness to introduce a no-fault system for such people as well as for those who have contracted it? That would at least reduce that aspect of the stress and worry associated with the disease.
    Mr. Horam: It is tragic that a treatment that for 25 years appeared to offer people of low stature a chance to reach normal height has developed a terrible side effect. However, the Health Department's first priority must be to cure health problems, not to compensate those who, however sadly, die from or contract this disease. None the less, we will consider cases of negligence most sympathetically. We have followed up the court case quickly. I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to do that.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend resist absolutely the accusation of the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), whom I normally respect, that this problem has come about through Government negligence? The debate yesterday made it clear that that is not the case. People who suggest it are attempting to use politics to bring out the sympathy that we all have for people with the disease. It is not a question of political negligence. The Department of Health will do everything possible to assist those who may be affected by the disease.
    Mr. Horam: Indeed. As my right hon. Friend knows, that is why we have given funds to the CJD support network. We are conducting research, and we have set up—and support—a counselling service that operates from Great Ormond Street hospital. On research and health, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, we are

    731
    committed to giving all the support that we can. However, we do not feel that we can go further and introduce a no-fault compensation scheme, which would be expensive and detract directly from funds for health care.

    Breast Cancer
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on breast cancer mortality rates in (a) Britain and (b) other European Union countries. [14729]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): Breast cancer mortality rates in the United Kingdom fell by 6.5 per cent. between 1986 and 1992. They have been falling at a faster rate than the European Union average. That demonstrates the continuing success of the action that we are taking, which includes the "Health of the Nation" targets, the national breast cancer screening service and the issuing of specific guidance on improving outcomes in breast cancer.
    Ms Church: I thank the Minister for his answer. While we welcome some of the modest improvements that have been made, 35 women a day—13,000 a year—die from breast cancer. Those are not cold statistics; people's lives are being adversely affected, families are being destroyed, and young children are being left without mothers. Does the Minister accept that there are huge regional variations in how people are treated, which means that there is a lottery for treatment? What steps will the Government take to ensure that early detection occurs in all parts of the country and that treatment is successful?
    Mr. Burns: I assure the hon. Lady categorically that the Government take the problem very seriously. That is why we introduced the national breast screening programme. I do not accept that treatment is a lottery. The role of the national health service is to provide the same high-quality care for every patient who suffers from that tragic illness. We shall continue to ensure that that occurs through the screening programme, the guidelines on outcomes and through medical decisions and care.
    Mr. Rowe: The Government deserve considerable congratulations on their successes so far and on their continuing efforts to improve the situation, but will my hon. Friend examine the extraordinary imbalance between the funds made available for the important breast cancer campaign and those made available for prostate cancer, which kills an increasing number of men every year?
    Mr. Burns: As my hon. Friend will know, this year the Government are making £25 million available for cancer research, the pharmaceutical companies are making £114 million available, and the charities are making £100 million available. That is a considerable amount of money devoted to research into all types of cancer. It is crucial that research continues in order to minimise the number of deaths and illnesses caused by that tragic condition.
    Ms Jowell: Last year, the Secretary of State asserted in the House:
    "To talk about a waiting list for cancer surgery is to talk about a waiting list that does not exist".—[Official Report, 3 December 1996; Vol. 286, c. 784.]
    732
    Will the Minister tell the House how he squares that claim with figures provided by his Department that show that more than 10,000 women had to wait more than two weeks for breast cancer surgery in 1994–95?
    Mr. Burns: Notwithstanding the fact that we are in the run-up to a general election, I think that it is unfortunate for any politician to try to score cheap party political points on cancer care.
    Ms Jowell: Answer the question.
    Mr. Burns: I shall answer the question if the hon. Lady will listen. She knows that the Labour party's commitment is bogus because no one waits for cancer treatment unless the doctor makes a clinical decision to that effect. There are times when cancer patients are not medically able to undergo an operation. To talk of a waiting list in the terms that the hon. Lady uses is scaremongering and despicable.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's excellent record on tackling cancer. Will he join me in paying tribute to the Cancer Research Institute and to the Royal Marsden hospital in my constituency, which have contributed considerably to that success? Will he also encourage women to take advantage of breast screening opportunities so that the success may continue?
    Mr. Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for the constructive way in which she asks her question. I pay full tribute to the contribution of all charities and of the pharmaceutical companies, which do much good work in seeking to reduce and minimise the evils of cancer. I pay tribute also to the Royal Marsden hospital and to the fantastic work done by nurses and doctors in an attempt to eliminate that terrible source of suffering.

    Mental Health Services
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Association of Directors of Social Services to discuss services for mentally ill people. [14730]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I last met the Association of Directors of Social Services informally on 4 February. Services for mentally ill people were among the issues discussed at that meeting.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Secretary of State aware that emotional and conduct disorders affect 20 per cent. of adolescents, and that in 1995 a NHS advisory service survey showed that mental health provision for children and adolescents was patchy and inadequate? Why did he not confront that problem in his recent Green Paper and advance proposals for handling the difficulties that children and adolescents face?
    Mr. Dorrell: I have never believed that those who are concerned about mental health problems serve their interests by inflating the number of people who suffer from mental illness. Some people suffer from acute and serious mental illness, and we need to improve the quality of service provision for them. That is why the resources

    733
    committed last year to improving mental health services totalled £90 million, why a further £50 million was allocated in this year's public expenditure survey settlement to expand mental health services in the next financial year, and why we are looking to health and social services departments to expand their provision using the extra money that the Government are providing.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the provision of medium-secure beds from none in 1979 to nearly 1,200 today is evidence of the Government's real commitment of resources to those who suffer from mental illness?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is on to a very important point. Medium-secure bed provision is an important part of the total spectrum of care in mental health services. The need for identifiable medium-secure mental health beds was described by the Glancy committee in 1974; Labour in office did absolutely nothing about it, but this Government have delivered the total number of beds that Glancy—too many years ago—determined was necessary.
    Ms Coffey: In view of the recent reports of problems at Broadmoor, is the Secretary of State satisfied that the commissioning and monitoring arrangements established with the high-security psychiatric commissioning board are adequate to ensure proper inspection of care and control in special hospitals? Will he agree to widen the terms of the inquiry into Ashworth to enable the inquiry team to examine the adequacy of current arrangements for inspections of all three special hospitals and to make recommendations?
    Mr. Dorrell: No. The Fallon inquiry into Ashworth was set up to examine the background to a very precise set of circumstances that need to be properly examined. When I set up the inquiry, I made it very clear that Mr. Fallon would be free to follow up any linkages with the failures that occurred in the personality disorder unit at Ashworth—either linkages to the rest of the hospital or linkages to places outside Ashworth hospital. Clearly, if they lead to Broadmoor, Mr. Fallon is free to follow up such linkages, but at the moment there is no evidence of any such linkage.
    Sir Roger Sims: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a distinction to be drawn between mentally ill people, who are normally the responsibility of health authorities, and people with learning disabilities, the services for whom lie within the ambit both of local authorities and of health authorities? Is not that an area that lends itself to joint commissioning? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the London borough of Bromley, plans are currently under consultation for just such joint commissioning of services? Will he commend that and suggest that others might follow suit?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to say that social services departments and health authorities have a key role to play in the delivery of services to mentally ill people and people suffering from a learning disability. The Green Paper that the Government published two weeks ago is designed precisely to improve the linkage between health and social services
    734
    in the delivery of services to mentally ill people—a weakness that certainly needs to be addressed. Various options for strengthening the linkages between health and social services are canvassed in the Green Paper; one of those options will be followed up, because it provides the key to an important improvement in mental health care.

    Cancelled Operations (Northern and Yorkshire)
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the annual change in the number of patients in the Northern and Yorkshire region who have had operations cancelled on the day they were due to go into hospital or after admission since 1994–95. [14731]
    Mr. Dorrell: Between 1994–95 and 1995–96, cancelled operations in the Northern and Yorkshire region increased by 14.8 per cent. The most recent information for the current year shows a fall in cancelled operations of 25 per cent.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will confirm to the House that, under the patients charter, cancellations of operations on the day of admission should not happen at all, yet he has confirmed an increase of 14 per cent., which means 830 additional cases and brings the total in the past year to more than 6,613 cancellations. How does he explain those figures to the House? In view of the distress that cancellations cause to patients and their relatives, will he take this opportunity to apologise to those patients on behalf of his Department? Will he pledge that there will be no cancellations in the coming financial year?
    Mr. Dorrell: No Health Minister can pledge that there will be no cancellations. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), on the Opposition Front Bench, could not make that commitment and it would be absurd if he tried to do so. The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. He had the opportunity to congratulate the health service in the Northern and Yorkshire region on the 25 per cent. reduction in cancelled operations in the current year.
    I have even better news for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in Leeds. In the current year, the number of operations that were cancelled there fell by more than half. The hon. Gentleman might have taken time off to congratulate those who are responsible for delivering health care to his constituents on the improved service that they are delivering in the current year. I look forward to his having the opportunity to remedy that failure.
    Mr. Sykes: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the claptrap from the Opposition Benches? Will he remind people in the country, and the House, of the distress that was caused by union members and Labour party members who picketed hospitals in 1979?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the Labour party, with its close links with the trade union movement, must bear its responsibility for the failures in health care that typified the winter of 1978–79 and the period before that. It is worth reflecting that, although cancelled operations account for roughly 1 per cent. of people coming off the waiting list, the number of operations that are cancelled because the patient does

    735
    not show up at hospital corresponds to roughly 5 per cent. of the total. It is worth bearing that figure in mind when reflecting on the number of cancelled operations.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State be less aggressive and more apologetic about the figures that are the answer to this question? The answer that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), gave me last month showed that, in the Northern and Yorkshire region, there were 1,200 cancellations on the day of admission or after, and 75 which failed the citizens charter standard. In my area, the corresponding figures were 350 and 75. Nationally, there were 50,000 cancellations and 6,000 cancellations that failed the citizens charter standard for readmission within one month of the original date.
    What will the Secretary of State say to the family of Queenie Harrild, who died in Guy's hospital and whose inquest is this week, when the citizens charter is regularly breached and thousands of patients continue to be admitted to hospital and then sent home, some of whom die before their operation?
    Mr. Dorrell: To an individual patient, if the service fails, of course I express regret. I have never pretended that any human institution can deliver a perfect service. However, when we talk about the cancelled operations record of the national health service, let us start by remembering that when the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) held the job now held by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, she predicted that there would be 300,000 cancelled operations in the national health service last year. The actual figure was not 300,000 but 54,000, and in all but 6,000 of those cases the patient was then operated on within a month.
    That is the record of the national health service—against the background of 5.5 million people being taken off the waiting list every year to receive the care that they need in our health service. The hon. Gentleman might do better to report those figures more often.
    Mr. Batiste: The drop of more than 50 per cent. in operation cancellations in Leeds is extremely good news. Can my right hon. Friend give some idea of why that outstanding performance has been achieved this year? Does it owe something to the improving quality of management, which is always subject to criticism and attack from the Labour party?
    Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is nice that he, at least, can welcome that improvement in the health care delivered to the people of Leeds on behalf of the people of Leeds.
    My hon. Friend asks why the improvement has been brought about. I suggest that there are two reasons. First, the health service is better managed than it used to be; secondly, the Conservative Government are committed to the growth of the national health service—as the Prime Minister said at last year's Conservative party conference, real growth, which has happened every year since 1979, will happen year on year on year on year on year through
    736
    the five years of the next Parliament. I wish the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury well in his negotiations with the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is not the reality that patient after patient in hospital after hospital is having his or her operation cancelled, frequently just before or just after going into hospital? Is not the real position, which the people of this country know, very different from the Government's rosy version of events?
    When hospital trusts talk openly about the judicious elimination of numbers of patients due to go in for operations, does not that show that the Government are fiddling the figures? Is not the truth that no one can trust the Tories with the health service?
    Mr. Dorrell: The answer to every one of the hon. Gentleman's questions is no. His problem is that he has not been able to secure the backing of his Front Bench for a commitment to a growing health service.
    Let me give the hon. Gentleman some other statistics that measure the growth of the health service under the present Government. Because we are committed to extra resources for a growing health service, I was able to announce increases in intensive care provision in the NHS. Over the past five years, the number of places for day surgery has roughly doubled. That is why, under this Government, the number of patients treated has increased by a third in the last six years. That is a record to which the hon. Gentleman cannot begin to measure up, because his hon. Friends will not allow him to make the pledge to a growing health service that the Prime Minister has made.
    Sir Donald Thompson: Is it not a fact that Northern and Yorkshire health authority is one of the best in Europe, and are not the Labour party's politically motivated attacks on the health service now leading directly—it is Labour's responsibility—to difficulties in the recruitment of nurses and other hospital staff?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Along with the rest of the health service, Northern and Yorkshire health authority is treating more patients, and offering a broader range and better quality of care than ever before in its history.
    The original question was asked by the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie). A Leeds Member might have been expected to welcome the fact that in the past 15 years—quite apart from a growing current health service budget in Leeds—we have invested an extra £130 million in improving hospital structures in the city. We are committed to increasing the capital stock of the health service in future through the private finance initiative—which the hon. Gentleman will not back—and to a growth in the number of patients who are treated. We are committed to growth; the Labour party is not.

    Postponed Operations (Wolverhampton)
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many surgical operations were postponed in Wolverhampton during 1996; and if he will make a statement. [14732]
    Mr. Horam: In the nine months to September 1996, 216 operations were cancelled in Wolverhampton on the day of admission or after admission to hospital.
    Mr. Purchase: I thank the Minister for that information. The list of cancelled operations in Wolverhampton has fallen slightly over the last 12 months.
    I am ecstatic for every one of my constituents who is treated properly, and in accordance with the citizens charter; but I am miserable beyond belief for the 350 or so whose operations are cancelled at the last minute. May I put the matter into a regional context, and tell the Minister that there has been an 18 per cent. growth in the number of operations cancelled at the last minute in the west midlands? May I extrapolate, and point out that across the regions of England and Wales that would have meant some 60,000 people waiting, in misery and anxiety, for further appointments after the cancellation of their original appointments? Does the Minister understand the anxiety, misery and worry that is being caused?
    Mr. Horam: I do indeed understand the misery and worry experienced by the hon. Gentleman's constituents—and, indeed, by everyone who must face the prospect of a cancelled operation. That is why I, too, am delighted that, as in Leeds, the figures have fallen over the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with that at some length, and I shall not add any further statistics; but we are all delighted that we are making such progress.

    Organophosphates
    Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the effects of organophosphate toxicity upon humans; and if he will make a statement. [14733]
    Mr. Malone: We have awarded a research contract to the Institute of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh worth £500,000 to examine the possible long-term human effects of organophosphorous sheep dips.
    My officials routinely obtain and evaluate papers in scientific journals that appear relevant to the effects of OPs upon humans. The medical and scientific panel, which is a sub-committee of the veterinary products committee, evaluates research on OPs used in veterinary medicines.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for that answer, but is it not complacent? For at least 15 years, those drugs have been known to be dangerous, but the Government are no further down the line. If the veterinary committee was not shot through with vested interests, perhaps we would get results sooner.
    Mr. Malone: That is an unworthy allegation and, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman would probably wish to
    738
    withdraw it. I do not know how he and the Opposition would wish the Government to proceed, other than on the basis of the best available scientific evidence. I am sorry that he has decided to criticise the committee in that way. The Government have always accepted recommendations to carry out research. We also carefully consider relabelling products, where that is necessary. The hon. Gentleman is marching down the same road as the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who is reported today in the press as saying that Labour has said, despite the evidence, that if it wins the election, it will tell farmers to avoid using the dips on safety grounds. That is a disgraceful failure to recognise the available evidence. The hon. Member for Oldham, West is moving down a track pioneered by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), and we saw what results that brought about.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Has my hon. Friend seen the written answer that I received yesterday on the subject? It states that the veterinary products committee has examined the matter carefully and found no scientific justification, on present evidence, for withdrawing the dips from the market.
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is right, and she will disappoint all those in the House who prefer to proceed not on the basis of the scientific evidence that is made available to Ministers, but on some other, politically motivated basis. My right hon. Friend's answer yesterday was based on the professional and scientific advice that he received. The Government will continue to examine all such advice and, if necessary, we will change our procedures accordingly.

    Frail Elderly People
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of NHS beds for frail elderly people in 2000. [14734]
    Mr. Burns: The Government do not produce forecasts of the number of beds, although the number of geriatric cases treated rose by 19 per cent. between 1990–91 and 1995–96.
    Mr. Canavan: What does the Minister have to say about a health board or health authority with a projected population of more than 40,000 elderly people by the year 2000, which plans to reduce the number of national health service beds for frail elderly people to a mere 160, which means that there will be an NHS bed for less than 0.4 per cent. of the elderly population? Would it not be a gross betrayal of the very generation of people who built our national health service if the Government were to deprive them of an NHS bed at their time of need?
    Mr. Burns: I genuinely do not want to be unhelpful to the hon. Gentleman, but I assume that he is referring to Lochgreen hospital in his constituency. He will appreciate that he should raise the issue with—
    Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.
    Mr. Burns: I will in a minute. The narrow issue behind the hon. Gentleman's question should be raised with the

    739
    Minister of State, Scottish Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). On the wider question of beds for residential and nursing care in England and the United Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman seems to forget that, in the past five years or so, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of beds in such homes.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that various illnesses are associated with aging, and that, with the number of geriatric beds available, there is a difficulty in accommodating such people in the NHS? Is it not necessary to re-examine the number of beds for those with aging illnesses, so that they do not have to be accommodated in private nursing homes?
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, the decision to discharge anyone—elderly or otherwise—from hospital is a clinical decision, with back-up care provided, if needed, after they have left hospital. I am sure that he will welcome the noticeable increase in the number of nursing home beds as well as convalescent homes and halfway house wards for people who may need additional care after they have been treated in a hospital.

    St. Bartholomew's Hospital
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the future of St. Bartholomew's hospital. [14735]
    Mr. Dorrell: The Royal Hospitals NHS trust is carrying out the decisions that my predecessor announced on 4 April 1995.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why close St. Bartholomew's hospital when the people of London want to keep it open? Why close an institution that opened in 1123, which has been open for 874 years, and which survived the reformation, the great fire of London and Hitler's bombing of London? Yet now it is to be closed by the Tory Government.
    Mr. Dorrell: Let us be precisely clear about what this Tory Government will do for health care for the people of the east end of London. We will invest £230 million in building a brand new hospital to deliver 21st-century care to people in the centre of London. The founders of St. Bartholomew's hospital would be proud of us.
    Mr. Brooke: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the accelerated bed closures at Bart's have exacerbated the distress of local people, who are already acknowledged to be disadvantaged by the original decision on Bart's? Does he consider that a more sensitive political decision of a two-site project at Bart's might have greatly facilitated the progress of this particular private finance initiative?
    Mr. Dorrell: My right hon. Friend has always pursued the interests and views of his constituents very honourably and straightforwardly with both me and my predecessor. As I made clear when I took over these responsibilities, I do not believe that the holder of any ministerial office can revisit all the decisions made by his or her predecessor. I am quite clear that the course of action on
    740
    which my predecessor embarked will deliver the improved quality of health care—both primary and hospital-based care—to my right hon. Friend's constituents which both he and I would want to see.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14757]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Whittingdale: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Scots and the Welsh were to be given their own Parliament there would be an overwhelming demand from my constituents in Essex, and elsewhere in England, for English Members of Parliament to be given exclusive control over English affairs? What consequence does he think that that would have for the integrity of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the anomalies that would be thrown up were there to be a Scottish or Welsh Parliament. The shadow Foreign Secretary once said, when he was shadow Health Secretary, that he as a Scot could not be Health Secretary in England were health to be devolved to a Scottish Parliament. Clearly there are much wider applications than just health were such a Parliament to be established. That is just one of many anomalies thrown up by the policy of devolution which I hope that we will be able to examine this week.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister recall the promise that he made on "Panorama" a couple of years ago that the excesses that we saw in the water industry would not be repeated in the rail industry? Is he aware that, in the next few days, the second of the railway rolling stock companies, which was bought on privatisation for £580 million, is to be sold for £900 million? The first rolling stock company, having been bought for just over £500 million, was sold a few months later for more than £800 million. Does he agree that such profits are entirely unjustified?
    The Prime Minister: I seem to recall the right hon. Gentleman saying that he supported the enterprise of the market and the rigour of competition. That seems to apply only in generality and not in the real world when companies are efficient and sold on. The right hon. Gentleman and his party are as opposed to private ownership and privatisation today as they have ever been at any stage. They know that that is so and take every opportunity that they can to try to denigrate the success across the whole range of privatisation.
    Mr. Blair: I certainly support the enterprise of the market. What I do not support is the incompetence of the

    741
    Government. I believe that most people in this country will see the difference between making an honest profit and profiteering.
    Can I point out to the Prime Minister that, in the sale in the next few days, the managing director, who put in £110,000 a year ago, will make £20 million and the finance and engineering directors, who put in £80,000, will make £10 million each, and it is reported that the part-time chairman of the company privatised earlier, who worked for one day a month and put in £25,000, has walked away with £4 million? Does the Prime Minister believe that that is the enterprise of the market? Is it not simple profiteering?
    The Prime Minister: It is hard not to remember that the right hon. Gentleman's private office is funded by the profits of privatisation. If such funds are so wrong, perhaps he will pay them back to those who provided them. It is not all that long ago that he was saying:
    "the pragmatic approach to privatisation is … correct. The key is … sticking to it regardless of the pressures."
    Of course, he said that in South Africa; what he says here is quite different.
    Mr. Blair: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, just for once at one of these Prime Minister's Question Times, he tries answering the question put to him? Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little order in this House. I can hear the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) shouting and bawling.
    Mr. Blair: Is there not the sharpest contrast between the massive windfall gains made on the sale of a public asset that is effectively run through public subsidy, and the misery of thousands of commuters yesterday at Waterloo station, who saw their trains cancelled and their services destroyed because the train company laid off one tenth of its drivers? Is not that the clearest example of a Conservative Government favouring the few at the expense of the many?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman remembers the bad old days of British Rail nationalisation—services were cut with no protection for the passenger. Now, penalties can be imposed and passengers have the right to apply for compensation. Clearly, from what he is saying, he is proposing new capital controls on the market. We look forward to hearing precisely what those are. He cannot deny that privatisation has been a success. Investment is at record levels. [Interruption.] It is interesting to see Labour Members' opposition to private ownership. I shall let them hoot a little longer. New rolling stock is being introduced, extra services are being offered—new services, new investment and higher standards. That is through private ownership across the range of privatised industries. People recall what it was like when Governments tried to run them.
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14758]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dunn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that grammar schools and high schools exist in Dartford and in a further
    742
    60 constituencies across the country as a result of the election and re-election of Conservative Governments since 1979? The only guarantee of their continued existence is the Conservative party, and not the nightmare coalition of Opposition parties.
    The Prime Minister: That must be right. The message to parents is quite clear: Labour in office would wipe out grammar schools. Labour local authority leaders have made that absolutely clear. As the shadow education spokesman said some time ago,
    "Watch my lips.…. With Labour there will be no selection."
    There would be no selection, no choice, no improved standards, no opportunities and, if Labour had had its way, no tests, no information to parents and no improvement in education across the board. The worst 20 education authorities are all long-term Labour education authorities. That is not an accident; it is inevitable, given Labour's policies and instincts.
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14759]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Prime Minister take the same view as I do: that the Daily Mail was right to campaign for the murderers of Stephen Lawrence to be brought to justice, and to name names? All law-abiding citizens are pleased that the murderer of Philip Lawrence, the headmaster who was knifed to death, is in prison—for a long time to come, I hope—but it is a matter of deep and continuing concern that the murderers of the 18-year-old lad who was knifed to death almost four years ago have not been brought to justice. Should not the authorities explore every avenue to ensure that his murderers are brought before the courts?
    The Prime Minister: The whole House is united in offering its sympathy to the parents of Stephen Lawrence, and in condemning this unpunished racist attack. There is total unanimity on that point. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that there is no question of statutory contempt as a result of the activities of the Daily Mail. As the House is aware, it is not through lack of effort that no successful prosecution has yet been brought. I hope that, even at this stage, it will be possible to mount a successful prosecution. If evidence is forthcoming, it will be examined. There is no lack of will to prosecute.
    Mr. Duncan: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, unlike Labour's foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), he is not
    "at home with the European social model"?
    Will he also confirm that if we were to adopt that habit in this country, 23 million households would immediately face a £2,300 tax hike, which they would otherwise not need to pay?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike the shadow Foreign Secretary, who alas is not present, I am self-evidently not at home with the European social model. It is evident why no one should be. The head of European operations at one of Britain's most successful companies was quoted in one of yesterday's newspapers. He referred to one European country, and said:
    "The costs were absurd and everything we wanted to do was blocked by the unions … Whenever we wanted to do anything to improve the business, their first reaction was to call a meeting of the works council."
    The senior executive of Grundig said:
    "No employee or business is safe."
    That is the reality of the way in which these well-meaning ideas work in practice. The second reality is the 4.5 million unemployed in Germany, the 3 million unemployed in France and the 2 million plus unemployed in Italy.
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14760]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Prime Minister agree that we owe a debt to those people who fought in the second world war and who, in their working lives, created the wealth of this nation, and that they should be treated with the greatest respect? Is he aware that in my constituency two elderly people's homes are to be closed? The age of the people in those homes ranges from 70 plus to the 90s. Does that reflect a civilised society, and will the Prime Minister speak to the Minister responsible to ensure that some action is taken to avoid breaking up what is now a family of people in their dotage?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I agree with the general proposition with which the hon. Gentleman started his question. I do not know the details of the case that he raises, but I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to examine it. When he has done so, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14761]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Robathan: In the course of his busy day, has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to study the form
    744
    for the 5 o'clock race at Market Rasen? If so, has he noted a sporting chance at 8/1 called "Pause for Thought"? While welcoming any convert to Conservative principles, does he agree that "Pause for Thought" might be a maxim to the recent converts to privatising the Tote?
    The Prime Minister: The plan to privatise the Tote, apparently floated by the shadow Chancellor, seems to have been shot down very speedily by the shadow Foreign Secretary. One might say that it fell at the first fence.
    Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [14762]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Martin: On the question of a Scottish Parliament, I notice that the Secretary of State for Scotland says one thing and the Secretary of State for Health says another, but it would be petty, mean and spiteful if any future Tory Government tried to dismantle the Parliament that the Scottish people want.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall have the opportunity of a detailed and sensible debate on devolution proposals—
    Mr. Skinner: What? In here?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I had hoped in here on Thursday, and beyond here thereafter, because, despite the passions and convictions felt about this issue by people on both sides of the argument, we can all, I hope, agree that it is an issue of crucial importance to the future of Scotland, of Wales, of the House and of other parts of the United Kingdom. I hope therefore that we can deal with it in detail. There are many questions to be asked and answered. I hope that that is the nature of the debate that we will have in the weeks ahead.

  BILL PRESENTED
    WASTE PREVENTION
    Mr. Gary Waller, supported by Sir Teddy Taylor, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Sir John Hunt. Mrs. Helen Jackson, Sir David Knox, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Barry Sheerman, presented a Bill to enable certain local authorities to make arrangements to reduce, prevent or avoid waste in their area; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 108].

Victims of Crime
3.32 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create a new absolute defence to the crime of common assault upon a person engaged in certain offences; to require the prosecution to obtain the leave of the court before a person is tried with an assault against a person engaged in certain offences; to prevent criminal compensation being awarded in certain circumstances; to require the plaintiff in civil proceedings to obtain the leave of the court before proceeding in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
The purpose—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Mr. Sweeney—just hold on a moment. Would Members leaving please do so quietly? We have business to conduct in the House. Come along. Mr. Sweeney, raise your voice.
Mr. Sweeney: The purpose of the Bill is to make it less likely that a person who purports to act in self-defence or in defence of property against a criminal will himself end up being sued or prosecuted for his actions. My Bill is not designed to give victims licence to attack criminals in any way they choose, and it is not intended to create an American-style gun culture. However, it would help to correct the impression that is sometimes given by the media, that the courts and Parliament care more about the welfare of criminals than about their unfortunate victims.
All hon. Members will be aware of the well-publicised cases in which victims have been taken to court for acts of self-defence, only to be acquitted months later by a jury which, having considered the evidence, has concluded that the behaviour complained of was reasonable in the circumstances. In the meantime, the defendant, who has already had to put up with a crime committed against his person or property, has the added worry of court proceedings against him, and the risk of imprisonment in a serious case.
My Bill would address those problems in three ways. First, a victim who committed a common assault—the most trivial type of assault known to the law—would have an absolute defence if he could show that, at the time of the assault, his victim was engaged in committing a criminal offence. For example, if a woman's handbag was being snatched and she hit her assailant across the face, she could not face charges, provided that she did not injure her assailant, even though her action would amount to a technical assault.
Secondly, in the case of more serious assaults by victims of crime, my Bill would provide that no criminal proceedings could be brought against the victim unless the approval of a judge in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court had first been obtained. Similarly, no civil
746
proceedings could be brought against a victim for compensation without the approval of a judge of the appropriate civil court.
Thirdly, my Bill would provide that a victim of crime, even if found guilty of assaulting his criminal attacker, could not have a criminal injuries compensation award made against him. That would not prevent the injured criminal from mounting a civil claim, subject to the success of a preliminary application to a judge for leave to bring the proceedings.
My Bill would not prevent a victim of crime from being sued or prosecuted for going too far in an act of self-defence. However, it would provide a screening device, making it less likely that victims would be prosecuted or sued. The need for a preliminary application by the prosecution, or the plaintiff in civil proceedings, to a judge would make the Crown Prosecution Service or the plaintiff think twice before proceeding. In considering the applications, judges would have to consider the public interest and take into account the desirability of ensuring that, in a finely balanced case, the law should lean in favour of victims rather than villains.
The Government have done much to help the victims of crime. For example, they have improved facilities so that, in all our modern courts, witnesses can be segregated from defendants. Furthermore, the Government have improved the efficiency of the police, increased the number of police officers, and of course, introduced tougher penalties to deal with villains. Nevertheless, the public still remain concerned, as my postbag demonstrates, that the law is biased in favour of the villain and against the victim. That grievance, which is shared throughout the country, will be redressed by my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Walter Sweeney, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Mr. kin Duncan Smith, Mr. David Evans, Mr. John Greenway, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Edward Leigh, Sir Peter Lloyd, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Redwood, Sir Trevor Skeet and Mr. Michael Stephen.

Victims of Crime
  VICTIMS OF CRIME
  Mr. Walter Sweeney accordingly presented a Bill to create a new absolute defence to the crime of common assault upon a person engaged in certain offences; to require the prosecution to obtain the leave of the court before a person is tried with an assault against a person engaged in certain offences; to prevent criminal compensation being awarded in certain circumstances; to require the plaintiff in civil proceedings to obtain the leave of the court before proceeding in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 109].
Orders of the Day

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)
  3.39 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move,
  That the Order of the House [18th November], as varied by the Order of the House [25th November], be supplemented as follows:

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

    Lords Amendments
    1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting.
    (2) The Lords Amendments shall be taken in the order shown in the following Table and, subject to the provisions of the Order [18th November], each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the Table.

    TABLE

    Lords Amendments

    Time for conclusion of proceedings

    Nos. 8 and 12

    6.15 p.m.

    Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 93

    7.30 p.m.

    No. 40

    8.15 p.m.

    Remaining Amendments

    9.00 p.m.

    2.—(1) For the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of the Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to her to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;

    (ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;

    (iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and

    (iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

    (c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

    (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

    Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
    3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
    (2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
    (3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

    (a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;

    (b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to her to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

    (i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

    (ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and

    (iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords on all the remaining Lords Proposals.

    (4) Proceedings under this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

    Supplemental
    4.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
    (2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
    5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its chairman and on the Report of such Committee.
    (2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
    (3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
    (4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 at any time (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) the bringing to a conclusion of any part of the proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
    The first anniversary of the dreadful tragedy at Dunblane will be in three weeks. In the year that has passed, the Government have established a public inquiry under Lord Cullen, responded to each of his recommendations, and prepared a major Bill which implements the tighter controls that he recommended. Those of his recommendations that can be introduced administratively will also be brought into effect.
    The Bill itself was first published on 1 November 1996. In less than four months, it has passed through both Houses, to reach its final consideration stages this week. Both Houses have given the highest priority to the serious matters in it, and that priority must continue, to ensure that it reaches the statute book without delay. The allocation of time order allows the House five hours in total to consider this order and the amendments to the Bill that were tabled in another place.

    749
    The main amendments, on disassembly and compensation, have already been extensively debated in the House. Five hours have already been spent, either by the House or in Committee, discussing those two subjects. I am therefore confident that this order will enable hon. Members on both sides of the House to make their points today. Within the five-hour period—depending on the length of this debate, for which one hour is allowed, if necessary—the debate on disassembly will continue until 6.15 pm; on compensation until 7.30 pm; on starter shooters until 8.15 pm; and on the other amendments until 9.00 pm.
    We have made that allocation because, if the amendment on disassembly were to be allowed, it would completely change the Bill's focus and undermine the case for licensed pistol clubs, which are the subject of part II of the Bill, and it would also weaken the general prohibition on handguns in part I. It is an important issue.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend also admit that, if disassembly were accepted by the House, it would also save the Government an enormous amount of money?
    Miss Widdecombe: The merits of disassembly are properly to be debated in the first consideration of their Lordships' amendments. I therefore do not think that I should be drawn down the very tempting path offered by my hon. Friend. I understand that he feels strongly on the issue, and I look forward to hearing his comments later.
    As I said, much debate has taken place on compensation, but I still believe that it is right that one hour should be set aside to deal with such an important topic.
    We believe that the motion will permit sufficient opportunity to re-examine the concerns raised in another place, while ensuring that there is no undue delay in the Bill's passage. I therefore commend it to the House.
    3.42 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: The underlying premise of my right hon. Friend's speech was that no delay should be allowed to interfere in the Bill's passage. However, one development since the matter was first mooted is that the public have begun to consider the underlying issues much more seriously than they understandably did in the immediate aftermath of the appalling Dunblane tragedy. I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who has met many people who are undoubtedly responsible in their use of firearms. I wonder whether it would not be a great deal better if the House were to spend rather longer before rushing the Bill on to the statute book.
    3.43 pm
    Mr. Frank Cook: We have been told that great urgency is required to pass this legislation. Apparently such great urgency is required that there has been more than a moderate degree of co-operation between Government and Opposition Front Benchers. Sadly, the observation that I must make on that co-operation—or should I say, collusion—is that, when
    750
    the Government and the Opposition get together as of one mind, they usually make a mess of it, and they are doing so again on this occasion. We are told that we must get this Bill through in the shortest period and with the greatest haste, despite the fact that we are dealing with a complex set of circumstances.
    I want to try to educate the House this afternoon—I do not use that term arrogantly—on aspects of legislation related to firearms that should have been considered, but which, frankly, have been neglected. Some hon. Members present this afternoon will recall that I was the Opposition Whip during debates on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 following Hungerford, and they will realise that some of the remarks I make this afternoon will repeat some of the comments I made then.
    I remind the House that there is not and will not be a central register of licence holders—no matter whether we pass the Bill as it stands today or not. Let me try to explain what I mean. If someone in London applies for a firearms certificate, the police do a number of checks on that individual and his background. They go to the domestic violence unit to see whether he or she has been in the habit of knocking anyone about. They go to the local intelligence officer to see whether that beat officer has any knowledge that might preclude the issue of such a licence. The police check with section SO18, the adult cautions section.
    Madam Speaker: Order. May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we are debating an allocation of time motion? He is going into a great many details that he could possibly reserve for the debates on the amendments. We are at the moment debating only the allocation of time, and I should be glad if he will consider that and come to it when he resumes his speech.
    Mr. Cook: I am deeply grateful for your guidance, Madam Speaker, but I have to point out that the case I am making is that we are talking about a limitation of time, but I am referring to aspects of the legislation which have not been covered and which cannot be covered because the following amendments are specific. These matters cannot be discussed, as anyone doing so would be ruled out of order.
    Sir David Steel: In support of the plea that the hon. Gentleman is making, can I point out that the guillotine motion allows us exactly 45 minutes to discuss the whole question of compensation? The Minister of State has just circulated a 14-page document on compensation, which I have just received. Are we seriously expected to deal with a complicated issue affecting so many people in 45 minutes flat?
    Mr. Cook: The right hon. Gentleman almost makes my case for me, but not in its entirety. I have received the same document, but I have not got around to reading it. Much that I want to refer to is impossible to cover in any way other than during the debate on the allocation of time. My complaint is that the length of time allocated by the Government is totally unreasonable and has nothing to do with democracy, rationality, a logical approach or even technical expertise. Frankly, I am gravely disappointed in the Government. I am even more disappointed in my own party.

    751
    My point is that the kind of cautious approach used in London is important. Adult cautions are checked—in other words, if a person has received a caution, it stays on the record. Strangely enough, we know that Mr. Hamilton had cautions aplenty, but that is another matter. The police in London check the police national computer to find out about convictions, and Infos, the intelligence pool. They check the general registry, a library of all surplus files of unfounded allegations. They do all those checks to find out whether Jack the lad is suitable for the issue of a firearms certificate. So Jack the lad simply needs to move out of London and down to Essex or up to Yorkshire—or even to Teesside. He can then start the process again, and if the local constabulary is not as diligent as the London police, the certificate can be issued. There is no central register to show up such a dangerous practice.
    Section 7 permits allow a person to hold a shotgun or a firearm temporarily—usually if someone has died and the weapon is in their effects. A certain Member of this House died not a right long time ago and a huge German machine gun was found in his cellar, along with more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition. His heirs had to deal with it sensibly.
    Mr. George Robertson: Who was it?
    Mr. Cook: I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend, because he has a practice of disclosing names from the Dispatch Box. I would prefer to keep the name to myself. I shall tell my hon. Friend at a later date.
    Section 7 permits give an inheritor time to get rid of the inheritance. Strangely, the police have no legal powers to make any enforcement on storage or notification of disposal. That is another area that has not been dealt with.
    Different ages apply to different certificates. That is confusing, and the matter could have done with some attention. The House may be surprised to learn that a shotgun certificate can be granted at birth, whereas a firearms certificate cannot be granted before the age of 14. That is not dealt with in the Bill.
    Someone with a firearms certificate can be given a firearm at the age of 14, when they get the certificate. Someone with a shotgun certificate cannot be given a shotgun until the age of 15. That is another strange anomaly that could have been dealt with if any real thought had been given to the Bill.
    Someone without a firearms certificate cannot borrow a firearm, even if they are supervised by a certificate holder, until the age of 17. However, someone without a shotgun certificate can borrow a shotgun, if supervised, from birth. A two-year-old can run around legally with a borrowed shotgun. That is yet another issue that is not covered. I could go on with other examples of negligence.
    There is almost no control over shotgun ammunition. Having purchased ammunition, I could give any hon. Member 1,000 rounds without breaking the law. However, I am not allowed to give anyone even one round of firearms ammunition—not even .22 ammunition. I can insist that firearms ammunition is stored securely, but no one can legally insist that shotgun ammunition is stored securely. That is yet another example of negligence by the Government and the Opposition.
    The police cannot put additional conditions on shotgun certificates, so we cannot insist on where they are stored, whereas we can with firearms. We therefore do not know
    752
    where shotguns will be if we have to look for them. The police cannot limit the number of shotguns on a shotgun certificate, so it is possible for one shotgun certificate holder to buy hundreds of shotguns with no check on where they go. Anyone can set up as a supplier to Jack the lad in the underworld.
    The police have no statutory right to enter and inspect the secure storage facilities of firearms or shotguns. A licence holder can legally refuse to let the police check whether he has a gun safe in which to store his weapons.
    There are further examples of negligence. I am sorry if I am boring the House, but it is important that the catalogue of negligence should be known to the public. People think that we are going to protect them. I am trying to highlight the fact that we are doing anything but that.
    Most of our European neighbours, who suffer much criticism here from time to time for all sorts of reasons, insist on the granting of a hunting licence before setting someone loose with a hunting weapon. To get a licence, people have to undergo a period of training and monitoring. A pistol licence holder must pass a similar six-month probation period at a pistol club here before the police will issue a licence, so we know that an applicant can handle firearms properly.
    If someone applies for a shotgun or rifle licence, the police have no way of checking that the applicant knows which end of the gun is dangerous or even one end from the other, or whether he or she knows which species are protected and which can be exterminated.
    I have mentioned a number of matters, and I could go on, but I know that other hon. Members want to speak on the limitation of time motion. Perhaps most important—I seem to have lost the papers, so I will have to speak from memory—is the fact that—
    Mr. David Winnick: Disassembly.
    Mr. Cook: It is not dissembling, and that is a fact—it could be disassembly.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: I am finding my hon. Friend's contribution fascinating, as I am ignorant on these matters—[Interruption.] I know a great deal about more things than most of those sluggish lads on the Conservative Benches. I am finding my hon. Friend's speech fascinating, and I am prepared to wait until he finds the lost papers.
    Madam Speaker: I am not.
    Mr. Cook: There is no need, Madam Speaker. I said that I would speak from memory, and I will do just that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) for his intervention, in so far as it shows his experience and knowledge of the theatrical and the voice from the wings.
    Mr. Faulds: Never from the wings—centre stage.
    Mr. Cook: I am sure that, in another incarnation, my hon. Friend will acquire safe employment as the prompter.
    I started my observations on negligence by commenting that there was no central register of licence holders—a grave weakness, as I pointed out, because Jack the lad can

    753
    run about. What is probably even worse is the fact that there is no central register of the weapons. We have never had one, and it is not proposed that there should be one. Perhaps the Government's reluctance to accept that principle is born of their doctrinaire attitude towards deregulation.
    We are told that there could be 4 million illegal weapons out there, and that there are perhaps 120,000 certificated weapons. Without a central register, we are making those 120,000 weapons illegal—adding them to the 4 million which are already illegal. We do not have an account of any of them, and we do not propose to have one. We are making a bad situation worse, and we are making it worse in a hurry. We are not allowing anyone to talk about it sensibly. When people try to put a sensible point, they get shakes of the head, as I am getting from my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
    I appeal for common sense. For God's sake, people out there need protection, and it is our duty to give it. We are not doing so at the moment.
    3.58 pm
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: I agree with every word that passed the lips of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). This is a bad Bill, which has been badly considered.
    At least some of my hon. Friends will be concerned about the wider problem of creating an unnecessary confrontation between this House and the House of Lords. We who are anxious to preserve our constitution and its checks and balances should realise what a grave disservice we are doing with this guillotine motion.
    When the House of Lords says that it is not sure that we have got something right, amends our legislation and sends it back to us, it is saying in the politest possible way, "Please think again; we think you might have got this wrong." Sometimes that is said especially insistently, as when the Bill or the amendments we have passed obviously do not have the support of a decision at a general election or of the people.
    When we are in our most populist—and especially our agreed populist—mood, when we are at our worst and most tyrannical, the House of Lords says, "Hang on a moment. Think again, and please discuss the matter more carefully." Surely we as Tories should understand the importance of that request, yet we are giving the matter a cursory debate on a guillotine, after which we plan to have a short, truncated discussion on a few selected items, which, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, will be kept even shorter by the agreed discouragement that will be evinced from the Front Benches against every dissident voice; so 50,000 people will go unrepresented because of the gross tyranny of the House.
    We who most of all represent the checks and balances of the constitution should draw back from an unnecessary confrontation.
    Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the 50,000 people. I wonder what he would say to a couple I met in my constituency, near the hon. Gentleman's: Martyn and Barbara Dunn, who came to a ceremony to commemorate the massacre at Dunblane, in which they lost their five-year-old daughter Charlotte. They are very
    754
    keen on what we intend to do, as are all the other parents who lost children. What would the hon. Gentleman say to those parents, who believe that what the House intends to do is right, and that, although there is no guarantee that such a massacre will never occur again, it is one way of trying to prevent events such as happened at Hungerford and at Dunblane?
    Mr. Budgen: I would try to be as sympathetic as I possibly could, and I would explain to them that I understood entirely their wish to have the use of all guns banned; but I would say that people who engaged in the lawful and honourable activity of target shooting were entitled to continue to do that. I would say at the end of the conversation, as quietly and as carefully as I could, that as a matter of fact I thought that their appalling tragedy probably did not make them better judges of legislation, and that it might indeed make them worse judges. I would say that, fortunately, we have in general a rather good system of considering legislation in a way that is somewhat detached from their raw emotions, and that the most important thing was to consider legislation carefully and not in a mood of deep emotion. I think that, on reflection, they would understand that.
    If the hon. Gentleman says that that is not so, it might be of some interest to him to note that, after the Duke of Edinburgh had made some remarks about the legislation some time just before Christmas, it was obvious that the public as a whole took a more reflective attitude.
    In our constitution, it is not only the newspapers, the royal family and others who have a right to comment; it is the legitimate interest of the other place to ask us to think again. If we pass this guillotine motion, we are palpably not thinking again.
    The other place faces a difficult tactical question about which issues to disagree with us on, but I hope that it will not disagree with us about the Crime (Sentences) Bill, because the proviso in that case—the argument as between exceptional circumstances and circumstances that are unjust—is not a big issue. While great lawyers make great fortunes arguing the difference between such words, it perhaps does not affect many people.
    Perhaps we could say respectfully to the other place that there is some presumption in its proposals for extra compensation. If £500 million of public expenditure is to be made, it should be authorised by this place, not the House of Lords. However, if we reject the Lords amendment on disassembly, I hope that their Lordships will persist with it.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: My hon. Friend suggested that 50,000 people were affected, a point that was picked up by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The figure of 50,000 firearms certificate holders is merely the Home Office figure, not the real number of firearms certificate holders affected, which is more like 100,000. To those one must add the number of people who legitimately shoot with pistols in recognised and registered clubs, who do not need firearms certificates. The matter goes far wider than the 50,000 people my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was trying to put my point as moderately as possible. When I mentioned figures, I wanted to quote the lower end of the scale.

    755
    I hope that their Lordships will recognise that, whether it is 50,000 or 100,000, it is not a fashionable section of the community. I hope that they will consider how they would feel if that many game shooters were being prevented from carrying on their lawful activity.
    I do not want to put this offensively to their Lordships, but it would be sad if the suspicion arose that because, by and large, these are unfashionable people, their Lordships were not prepared to exercise their proper duty to prevent populist legislation, but that, in a future Parliament where hunting or game shooting was threatened, they would come bustling along to exercise their constitutional rights. The 50,000 involved are honourable people, who have been treated in a disgraceful, hurried and populist way. I hope that their Lordships will go very slowly in considering the measure.
    On this point, I am able to join the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who, last Wednesday, in discussing the Police Bill—which had come from the Lords—sensibly asked why a Firearms (Amendment) Bill could not be introduced at the beginning of the next Parliament. I agree entirely. One could be introduced slowly and carefully. If their Lordships suggested that other measures could be brought forward in the interim, I would agree.
    The House knows that the Home Office firearms consultative committee was not invited to give its opinion on the Cullen report. The proposals were rushed out. We could in the interim tighten the rules on the qualities and characters of people who own firearms certificates. There could be some extra surveillance of the membership of gun clubs. All those things have been suggested as sensible administrative measures by the committee.
    I do not want it to be suggested for a moment that I am indifferent to the arguments of those who fear the repetition of a crime by one of the relatively small number of people who hold guns legally. We all know that the generality—96 per cent.—of crimes are committed by people who hold guns illegally.
    There are small measures that could be taken between now and Christmas to introduce some discipline to those who hold guns lawfully. Most importantly, I suggest that Conservative Members should avoid an unnecessary confrontation with their Lordships. If their Lordships are exercising their proper constitutional duty, they will come to the aid of 50,000 people who have been treated very shabbily.
    4.9 pm
    Mr. Peter Brooke: As my right hon. Friend the Minister—it is a great pleasure to address her in that way—will recall, I was not called to speak on the original guillotine motion. I do not complain about that; I was sitting where the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), usually sits, and I understand completely why I was overlooked.
    On that occasion, I would have followed my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) in the debate, and I would have spoken about the effect on people who are following the proceedings on the Bill of the speed with which a series of guillotine motions have obliged us to consider it.
    756
    I remonstrated thereafter with an hon. Friend—whom I shall anonymously call a representative of the business managers—that we had insufficient time in which to debate the matters properly. He said that no one else had made that complaint. Our conversation occurred before Third Reading, when I know for certain that several hon. Members—including me, incidentally—were kept out of the debate.
    More seriously, I recall the debate on compensation. I mentioned the matter on Report, and I do so again now because of the debate that we shall have this evening. About 10 minutes before the end of the debate on Report, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—I do not accuse him of having orchestrated the scenario deliberately—declined to give way to an hon. Friend who sought to intervene, on the ground that he did not have sufficient time. It is ironic that the guillotine motion should have the effect of saving my right hon. and learned Friend from the obligation of replying properly to the debate.
    We shall have the compensation debate this evening. I do not share the advantage of the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) or of the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) in having seen the 14-page document. The good news is that I calculate that we will have an hour and a quarter for the compensation debate rather than 45 minutes, so we shall have slightly more time in which to absorb the details.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the document, which was courteously sent to some hon. Members who participated in the debate, opens Pandora's box.
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that comment, and I anticipate reading the document all the more. I simply repeat that, given the interest that the public have expressed in these matters, it is unfortunate that we should give the impression that we are rushing them through without proper consideration.
    4.12 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: The Minister very courteously sent this letter to me today. It states:
    "I am enclosing for your information a copy of a consultation document which sets out our proposals for the detailed arrangements for the firearms compensation scheme to be introduced under the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The document will be used as a basis for consultation by the Home Office with the police and shooting organisations. I am sending copies to all those who participated when the issue of compensation was debated on the Floor of the House. A copy is also being placed in the Library".
    Why did that letter arrive after lunch on 18 February—the day that we are debating the matter? Even at first glance, there are all sorts of questions to he asked. It would be improper to abuse a debate on the timetable by asking too many detailed questions. However, before we limit ourselves to three quarters of an hour of debating time, I refer to options B and C. Option B is payment based on a price contained in a published list of values and option C is payment based on individual valuation.
    We have received no clear answer—at least I have not heard it—to a question posed by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and many others as to who

    757
    would do that evaluation. There is cheerful talk about evaluation, but precisely who will do it? The idea that it will be agreed easily and automatically is fairyland.
    What about paragraph 14, on ex gratia payments? The letter states:
    "He could either choose to lodge his pistol with the police pending its retrieval for use in an approved club, or he could choose to surrender ownership straight away and seek an ex gratia payment for it at the same time as any claim for compensation in respect of higher calibre guns is made."
    Who will decide that ex gratia payment? We are talking about a great deal of money.
    The list that accompanies the letter purports to give valuations on a range of guns—for example, the Astra 3 in barrel, the Colt new service and the Colt diamond back 6 in. I was told off the cuff today, just after receiving the document, that the figures given for valuation are totally unrealistic. For example, the Cold diamond back 6 in is valued at £235, but I have been told that we are talking about thousands if the owner's perceived valuation is to be gone along with. Owners will challenge the valuations.
    I do not know whether all those matters should be confined to three quarters of an hour. As I make these points, I have a suspicion that someone else might properly be called during that period and most of us will not have time to make such points. Given that she has written to us in that way, I ask the Minister whether it is sensible to limit the highly controversial issue of compensation to three quarters of an hour.
    4.15 pm
    Mr. Roger Gale: I have not spoken in these debates before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I hope that you will allow me a few minutes in which to explain why I am so deeply concerned about the manner in which the debate on an extremely important piece of legislation is about to be truncated, if the House wills it so. Clearly, there will not be time for the consideration of amendments that might mitigate what will become an appalling piece of legislation if it goes through unamended.
    The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) sought an answer to the question, "How would we feel if …?" and then related the experience of two of his constituents and their appalling loss. I am the parent of three children; I have had the pleasure of watching them grow to maturity and I freely concede that I cannot begin to comprehend the anguish of the parents of Dunblane. Most of those who say, "I know how you feel," are, in my view, guilty of uttering an obscene platitude. Thank God, there are few hon. Members who have suffered anything like that sort of experience and can therefore begin to understand how others feel.
    The House must do all it can to pass legislation that seeks to mitigate the possibility of a tragedy like Dunblane happening again, but we all know that in a world of madmen, whatever we do in this House cannot prevent that. Like many other hon. Members, I started out with high hopes that we would achieve something positive with the Bill, but I am concerned that the Bill will do nothing to prevent a similar recurrence and that it will do that nothing at vast expense and at great cost to an enormous number of respectable and responsible people.
    758
    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), during the months that the Bill has been passing through Parliament, I have had time to realise that it is knee-jerk legislation that will go down in the annals of the House of Commons as second only to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in its appalling misconception and haste. As before, we have seen the House at its worst—when it combines to take a cross-party "I care more than you do" approach and rushes a measure through as a sop to an appalling event.
    I am not a shooter—I have only ever handled a gun on military service and on the rare occasions when I have missed clay pigeons for the benefit of charity—so I have no personal vested interest in the subject. However, I have spoken to some of my constituents who are members of Swalecliffe gun club, which is located in Herne Bay in my constituency. Following a meeting with them at the end of October 1996, I wrote to the Home Secretary on 2 November 1996, asking a series of questions related directly to the compensation issues that we are about to timetable.
    The Minister of State replied to me yesterday. Let me make it plain that I am grateful to her, first for the courteous nature of her reply and, secondly, for turning that reply round within about 12 hours of the letter landing on her desk. However, it has taken some months for me to receive these replies.
    I raised the specific issue of what would happen to .22 pistols belonging to members of gun clubs that would go out of existence, and who would therefore have nowhere to go with them, and I asked what compensation those people would receive. I was told—hon. Members who know more about the subject than I do may be aware of this already:
    "As most clubs will be unable to comply with the security requirements, initially, it is intended that the police will retain the .22 pistols in safe storage for those who are seeking a club. The time these will be retained has yet to be set, but we expect it to be a matter of years rather than months in order to give clubs time to adapt to the new requirements."
    However, my right hon. Friend continues:
    "In most cases, this will require the construction of a purpose-built secure range rather than the adaptation of existing ranges. Rather than a number of local ranges and small clubs, it is expected that ranges, and probably clubs, will be organised at a county or regional level. The cost of security arrangements for each club would thus be shared among a more substantial number of shooters. Members of such clubs may have to travel considerable distances to shoot, but in this respect .22 shooting will be similar to ice-skating and other sports where appropriate facilities are rare and concentrated in large towns."
    If amendment No. 27 is passed tonight, the members of Swalecliffe gun club, and no doubt others represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House, will lose their facilities, and the fruits of the hard work that they have put in, without compensation—and because that amendment is one of a group of four, we shall not have more than about 45 minutes in which to raise those issues.
    I was under the impression that acquisition without compensation was something that even the Opposition had eschewed as a form of political combat. Acquisition without compensation is being done in the name of a piece of legislation that will not have the effect that we intended. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) rightly said that this piece of legislation will not establish registers. It will not do what the

    759
    Metropolitan police would like. It will not prevent the circulation of illegal firearms. It will not prevent lunatics from going across the channel, for heaven's sake, buying a gun and bringing it back through the ports in my constituency, or the port in the Home Secretary's constituency, with the greatest possible ease, and making mayhem with it.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I agree with many of the points that my hon. Friend has raised. He may have received correspondence from constituents—as I have from many of mine, especially sporting shooters who compete for the United Kingdom, who shoot not only at Bisley, but elsewhere—who are especially anxious about difficulties that would be caused to them by rejection of the disassembly option. Does my hon. Friend agree that we shall not have time to discuss that issue properly if the motion is passed?
    Mr. Gale: I do; and if the motion is passed, we shall not have the opportunity to discuss further the matter of single-shot guns.
    I shall not detain the House, but I am very worried that, if we choose to truncate our discussion, we shall end up with another Dangerous Dogs Act piece of legislation—an appalling mess, which will achieve absolutely nothing.
    4.23 pm
    Mr. Jack Straw: Since the Conservatives entered government in 1979, 60 Bills have been guillotined. On 59 of them, Conservative Members have remained silent during the debate except in support of the guillotine, and have trooped through the Government Lobby in support of those measures. It speaks volumes for the sense of value of the Conservative party that they remained silent on one measure after another to cut benefits for 16 to 18-year-olds; silent on one measure after another to restrict the rights of innocent seekers of immigration into this country; wholly silent on the Scottish poll tax measure in 1986; and completely silent on the English and Welsh poll tax measure in 1987.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: And the Single European Act.
    Mr. Straw: Indeed, Conservative Members were almost silent—there were one or two honourable exceptions—on the Single European Act. In 1986, the Home Secretary, among others, forced the Act through the House, notwithstanding predictions from Opposition Members—including, in an eloquent winding-up speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Then there was the Maastricht Bill, the Bill that became the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993. All Conservative Members voted for the guillotine motion, thus truncating debate on a critical constitutional measure. [Interruption.] Nearly all of them voted for it.
    The issues in the Bill that we are debating today have, on any relative basis, been subjected to far more discussion than the issues in the Bills that I have just listed. It raises the crucial question of the control of handguns and the safety of the public. And what do we find? We find that suddenly, out of the Lobbies and the Smoking Room creep Conservative Members who want
    760
    to stand up for what they see as a fundamental liberty: the right of Englishmen, and indeed Scotsmen and Welshmen, to hold guns. They did not believe that any fundamental rights were affected by the Maastricht Bill, the Single European Act, the Bills introducing the poll tax in England and Scotland or any of the immigration Bills.
    Mr. John Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman was pointing at me; he obviously wished to give way to me, and I am grateful to him for doing so.
    Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that we are debating the Bill unusually soon after a report? As I said earlier, the Cullen report came out at 3.30 pm, and the legislation was presented to the House at 3.31 on the same afternoon. Might it not have been better if we had had a period in which to consider the report before the legislation was framed? That, of course, is why we are rushing it through now.
    Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman has a quarrel, it is with his own party, but if he thinks about the time scale that is involved, he will see that the argument that the House is rushing the legislation through is nonsense. That appalling tragedy happened on 13 March last year; the Cullen inquiry was then rightly established very quickly, but did not take evidence until the end of May. I understand that it then took evidence until the end of July. Lord Cullen finalised his report in September and delivered it in October, and on 16 October both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland made statements in the House. I think that the Government were quite right to give their response to the report on that occasion: the same would be expected of any Government.
    The legislation was presaged in the Queen's Speech two weeks later, and was introduced two weeks after that. It was debated in Committee on the Floor of the House for a day and a half, and then went into Standing Committee. It was further considered on the Floor of the House, and was then discussed in the other place for four days: that debate fills four full parts of Hansard. Now the Bill has come back to the Floor of the House of Commons. Given its importance, I feel that our proceedings should be concluded in the next week or so, but plenty of other measures of even more breadth and significance have not been given the same consideration during a guillotined set of debates.
    Mr. Frank Cook: If that is true, may I ask my hon. Friend for his reaction to the nine areas of negligence that I identified earlier? Those matters could have been considered properly, and could have formed legislation much more sensible than the Bill that we are considering. Those weaknesses are apparent, although I could dig others out of the legislation if my hon. Friend wished me to. The nine areas have not been covered, and will not be covered. If the coverage of the legislation was as comprehensive as my hon. Friend makes out, why were they not attended to?
    Mr. Straw: I listened to my hon. Friend's speech very carefully, but I did not follow his argument. No legislation with which I have ever been familiar has been perfect, and I am sure that this Bill could be improved. It may well be that my hon. Friend could have tabled amendments to extend control in some areas, but I do not think that that

    761
    is an argument for the extra control that is at the heart of the Bill. If my hon. Friend believes that there ought to be improvements in certification, that is a matter for him, and one that could have been dealt with much earlier.
    The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said, correctly, that we must make a judgment about the views of the other place in coming to decisions on the Commons' consideration of Lords amendments. That is entirely right, but let me reassure him about one matter. His point—I paraphrase, but only slightly—was that the toffs in the other place had not properly represented the common people: they had approved of control of handguns, which are used in general by common people, but they had protected the owners of shotguns, which are used by the more elevated classes in our society.
    The only reason for the amendments coming before the House today is the action of the hereditary peers in pushing the amendments through. Often, amendments passed in the other place against the Government are passed by a majority of life peers and, as happened in the case of the poll tax, it is usually the hereditary peers who are dragooned into the Not Content Lobby in support of the Government. On this Bill, the reverse is the case.
    On the first Division, that to allow the disassembly of .22-calibre firearms, 153 peers voted Content, and 139 voted Not Content, but of those 153, 105 were hereditary peers. If the hereditary peers are stripped out, it is clear that the first amendment on disassembly—to diminish the control in the Bill—was actually defeated by some 90 votes, a reversal of the position if the hereditary peers are included.
    The same applies to the other key amendment that was passed in the other place, on extending compensation for loss of profit and loss of business. It was passed by 121 votes to 110, but 90 of those 121 were hereditary peers; only 31 were life peers. On the life peer measure alone, the vote was 31 to 77.
    Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the advantages of the hereditary peerage is that hereditary peers are not full-time professional politicians, as are, unfortunately, the bulk of the present Members of this House? Hereditary peers probably know a great deal more about the practicalities of using weapons than do any of us, and their view is likely to be helpful to the protection of what the hon. Gentleman calls the common man.
    The important point is that, as these are the last weeks of this Parliament, we cannot exercise our powers under the Parliament Act 1911. If the peers decide to go slow and not to accept our attitude towards their amendments, the legislation will fall.
    Mr. Straw: I do not believe that that will happen.
    The debate has revealed a high degree of anxiety on the part of Conservative Members about what they believe to be the extent of public opinion. I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) that public opinion has shifted. I do believe, however, that the shooting lobby has become more organised and more frenetic in its letter writing.
    762
    I have a letter which, I gather, is to be found on the Internet site of the Sportsmans Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The letter goes into detail about the way in which those reading it should lobby Conservative Members of Parliament. It states that it is important for its members to write to Conservative Members of Parliament, and continues:
    "We can only do that through a massive effort over the next five days. The Conservative Central Office do not believe that we have the numbers or the commitment to vote them out."
    Further on in the letter, these chilling words appear:
    "Be polite but do not leave them"—
    that is, Conservative Members of Parliament—
    "in doubt. Spell out exactly how you will be taking revenge if they"—
    Conservative Members of Parliament—
    "put this Bill on the books."
    Mr. John Carlisle rose—
    Mr. Rowe rose—
    Mr. Straw: I am sorry; I do not have time to give way.
    I do not believe that the use of the word "revenge" against Conservative Members of Parliament is an acceptable tactic. It exposes some of the motives and the hysteria of the shooting lobby.
    Mr. Carlisle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it would help the hon. Gentleman if I informed him that the words "revenge at the polls" were—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That was an attempt to intervene after the hon. Gentleman had refused to give way.
    Mr. Straw: It is good to know that the hon. Gentleman claims part authorship or knowledge of the letter, but what is on the record at the Internet site is not "revenge at the polls", just "revenge". [Interruption.] I gather that it has changed, no doubt because the association realised the error in its drafting.
    In the hysterical reaction from some—not all—members of the shooting lobby, there has been a huge amount of disinformation about the likely position of the Government and the Labour party on the wider issue of the control of guns in our society. The Government must speak for themselves, but I believe that what is in the Bill, with the exception of the control of .22 calibre handguns, is proportionate to the problem.
    The Labour party has never believed that such bans on the use of guns should be extended to shotguns. I make that absolutely clear. We respect the right of those who own shotguns for the control of vermin and for the enjoyment of country sports. We have no proposals to change that regime.
    In three weeks' time, we shall see the first anniversary of the terrible shooting at Dunblane. We owe it to the memory of those who were gunned down there, and to their relatives and the community of Dunblane, to have this measure on the statute book before then. We support the guillotine motion.
    4.36 pm
    Miss Widdecombe: As I have only four minutes left to reply, I regret that it will not be possible for me to address every single point that was raised.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested that there should be further delay because of growing public interest since the Bill was introduced. It has been a year since the tragedy at Dunblane, and it is quite right that the public should expect us to come forward with proposals to try, as far as possible, to avert any similar tragedy in the future, although it must be clear that that could never be absolutely guaranteed.
    I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said about the responsible nature of those who have interests in shooting. I have no doubt at all—nor have the Government—that the vast majority of people who shoot are law-abiding, decent citizens who can be utterly trusted and are utterly responsible. The fact remains that the problems at Dunblane arose through somebody misusing a gun that was lawfully owned and possessed outside a secure club.
    Mr. Frank Cook: That is not so.
    Miss Widdecombe: As the hon. Gentleman interrupts from a sedentary position, perhaps I can now come to his speech.
    The hon. Gentleman recited a long list of matters that he said that we had neglected, but in today's debate, in Lords amendment No. 71, we shall address the issue of a central register. If he reads the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, he will see that we covered the issue of age limits. It is not true that a long list of matters have been ignored in the debate. Therefore, I reject his proposition that we need more time to discuss them, as many of them have already been discussed in some detail in Committee.
    My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) raised a point about the transitional period for the holding of .22s by the police. The current schedule 1 to the Bill sets out a transitional period of a year for the holding of .22s, although that could be varied by order of the Secretary of State if necessary. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
    Several hon. Members said that they wished to have longer to discuss compensation. That issue has been thoroughly rehearsed.
    Two hon. Members mentioned the consultation document that we issued today. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) lamented the fact that there was not time to debate the document or to absorb it in any detail in time for today's debate. The document is, of course, intended for a much wider audience. It is not about what we are to implement or what the law should say, but is about how the implementation is to take place—
    It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [18 November].
    Question agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Lords amendments considered.
Firearms (Amendment) Bill
  Clause 6

    HAVING SMALL-CALIBRE PISTOL OUTSIDE PREMISES OF LICENSED PISTOL CLUB
    Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 3, line 6, at end insert
    ("unless the pistol complies with subsection (2A) below.")
    4.39 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): In accordance with the allocation of time order just agreed by the House, Lords amendment No. 8 will be grouped with Lords amendment No. 12. We shall also discuss the Government motions to disagree with those amendments.
    Mr. Howard: The question of disassembly of handguns has been thoroughly discussed during the passage of the Bill both in this House and in another place. The Government's position has been and remains that small-calibre pistols in their complete form should be stored in secure licensed clubs. Allowing members of licensed small-calibre pistol clubs to keep the main body of the pistol at home and remove only a small part for retention at their club cannot in our view provide sufficient safeguards for the protection of the public.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: Has my right hon. and learned Friend addressed the opposite proposition that the body of the pistol should be kept at the club and a small part only retained at home?
    Mr. Howard: Yes. Indeed, it was canvassed as early as on Second Reading, when the point was put to me by—I think—the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). It is not the specific proposal contained in the amendment and I am rather doubtful about what purpose it would achieve. It would attract many of the disadvantages that the proposal specifically identified in the amendment would attract.
    The Government entirely accept that members of pistol clubs licensed under the Bill would be overwhelmingly decent, law-abiding people, just as the members of pistol clubs that are allowed under the current law are overwhelmingly decent, law-abiding people. We have all, however, seen the appalling consequences that can ensue when a pistol owner is determined to perpetrate serious crime with his lawfully held gun.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The gun was certainly lawfully held, but the process by which Hamilton obtained the certificate was ludicrously slack. Had that man's record been considered by the police in granting the certificate, he would never have had the licence.
    Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's feelings. That was of course considered by the police, and Lord Cullen went into that aspect of the matter very carefully

    765
    in his report. It is of course right that those matters should be addressed as well, but I do not believe that they would provide a complete answer to the problems with which we have to deal.
    Mr. Rupert Allason: Is not anybody who lies on an application form for a firearms certificate committing an offence? If a certificate is granted thereafter, is not that certificate, by definition, invalid? Was that not so with Hamilton? Is that not what Lord Cullen found? What did Lord Cullen recommend with regard to disassembly?
    Mr. Howard: I do not know quite what conclusion my hon. Friend sought to reach on the basis of the first part of his question. The certificate held by Thomas Hamilton was not declared invalid and was therefore quite valid until it had been revoked. I shall come to Lord Cullen's recommendations on the question of disassembly.
    In considering their response to Lord Cullen's very thorough inquiry into what happened in Dunblane, the Government took the view that it was right if at all possible to allow the sport of pistol shooting to continue in some form, and the Bill allows for small-calibre pistol clubs, operating under a very high degree of security, to be licensed by the Secretary of State. The question is what should be done with the small calibre .22 handguns that are used at such clubs.
    The Government propose that such guns should be kept at secure club premises. Amendments to the Bill in another place would allow club members to keep their handgun at home as long as some part of it was always removed and kept at the club. Under the amendments, that part would be the slide of pistols, the cylinders of revolvers or some other part to be specified by the Secretary of State.
    As has been said so many times in discussion of this issue, it would be possible for handguns to be kept in a disassembled form. It is said that most owners of most handguns would be capable in practice of removing the vital part to leave at the club and fitting it again when they returned. The Government do not dispute that, but that is not the real question. The question is whether such a procedure would give the public a sufficient assurance against misuse of a handgun by a club member. The Government's view is that it would not.
    For example, some people will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol or possess components that will allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by the simple substitution of components. It would be impossible to be certain that a person could not still possess a complete weapon at home by keeping such an illicit spare. Indeed, the frames of some pistols are specially made so that the owner can purchase a comprehensive range of barrels of different lengths and cartridge chamberings, which can be simply substituted and fitted at the will of the user. That could again lead to a person being in possession of a complete firearm, although appearing to comply with club regulations.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory rose—
    Sir Jerry Wiggin rose—
    Mr. Howard: I will give way first to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory).
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a shooter keeping illicit spares would be breaching the conditions of the firearms certificate? If someone is prepared to do that, they may easily do the same for an entire pistol. I am not entirely clear that my right hon. and learned Friend's objection to the disassembly option on those grounds is in fact valid.
    Mr. Howard: I understand my right hon. Friend's point, which is serious and substantial. He is right that those who would be engaging in the kind of conduct that I am describing would be in breach of the law. I see the force of the argument that those who are prepared to break the law can obtain access to illegal guns. At the end of the day, my right hon. Friend—and no doubt some other of my hon. Friends—and I may simply have to disagree on the matter. The proposal would place a temptation before those who would be tempted to take advantage of what would rapidly become a loophole in the law. As I shall go on to explain, the difficulties of policing the proposed arrangement would be extreme. I believe that on those grounds we must reject my right hon. Friend's argument, although I see its force, and adhere to the proposals that the Government originally made.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Howard: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to make some more progress and finish the point.
    Furthermore, under a scheme of the kind contemplated under the amendments, it would be the responsibility of the club to ensure that the detached component parts were lodged safely and securely and that they were always handed in when the member left the club after shooting. The club would also have to check each time that what was handed in was the component part that was supposed to be handed in and not a duplicate of some kind.
    Right hon. and hon. Members will recognise that the items that we are talking about are relatively small and easily concealable pieces of metal. Clubs would of course be under a legal responsibility, set out in the terms of their licences, to ensure that booking in and out was done properly. A club that did not meet that very important responsibility would be at risk of losing its licence. If a club were not meeting the necessary standards in that respect, it would however be difficult in practice for the police to detect it. In practice, it would be a matter of what happened at the club day after day and not just on the days when a police officer was there and able to see what was going on.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I am seriously trying very hard to follow the logic and make it stand up to scrutiny. The Home Secretary objects to keeping a component at home and the barrel or the chassis of the

    767
    gun in a club. What is to stop a person who really wants to break the law having a legal gun at the club and an illegal one at home? The whole proposition is totally nonsensical.
    Mr. Howard: I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, as I did with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, who put the same point. Some people may not want to procure an illegal gun, but may be tempted by the possibility of having an illegally held part.
    Mr. John Carlisle: How many?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend asks how many. The difficulty with that argument is that takes only one to engage in such activity, to procure a gun and to use it in the way in which it was used at Dunblane.
    Mr. Carlisle: I confess that I can hardly believe what I am hearing from my right hon. and learned Friend. We have surely gone past the argument about legislating on the basis of whether people may be tempted to take a gun in one form or another. Either my right hon. and learned Friend believes in this legislation or he does not. I suspect that the force of argument from the Conservative Benches is beginning to get to him. Will he be tempted to think again about disassembly, and possibly to accept the Lords amendment?
    Mr. Howard: I am sorry to have to disabuse my hon. Friend. I do not follow his argument that we should not legislate on the basis of temptations that may be put in people's way. We legislate on the basis of the view that we take of human behaviour: that is what all legislation is about. My hon. Friend and I may disagree about the precise aspect of human behaviour with which we are dealing, but such a judgment is the basis on which all legislation is passed in the House.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: The Home Secretary is right to detect an attempt to weaken his legislation. I am bound to say that, if he had decided to ban all handguns, he would not be in this difficulty. If it was the other way round, and disassembly involved the bulk of the gun being in the club and the component being outside the club, would that strengthen instead of weaken the legislation? I realise that that is not in the amendment, but has he considered that point?
    Mr. Howard: I have considered that point, and I dealt with it a few moments ago when it was put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. When the hon. Gentleman got to his feet, I expected him to say that the legislation did not go far enough, and that we should have a total ban, and he duly fulfilled my expectation.
    The difficulty is that however well the club carries out its responsibilities, there will be scope for an owner who has a mind to do so illicitly to take out the pistol slide, a revolver cylinder or some other small component. He may attempt to substitute it with something else, and he could do that in a variety of ways. There is no point endlessly speculating about how that could be done, but one possibility—it is only one possibility—has already been mentioned in a discussion of this issue. It could be substituted with the same component taken from a deactivated version of the same gun. The differences in
    768
    appearance between a working and a deactivated component part are not necessarily large. Indeed, it is said to be one of the advantages of a deactivated gun, to those who like to possess them, that they look as much as possible like the real thing.
    An owner determined upon mischief could disguise the deactivated component so that it looked on superficial inspection like the real one. It would not have to work like the real component, just look like it.
    Dame Jill Knight: I must place on record the fact that I hardly ever disagree with my right hon. and learned Friend, but I simply cannot follow the force of his argument that we cannot proceed with legislation if some people may contravene it. That is what he is saying. We all know that it is possible for people to get hold of guns even if they have no right to have them. That will happen whatever my right hon. and learned Friend does in the Bill. I cannot follow the argument that, because some people may break the law, what my right hon. and hon. Friends have said is not reasonable. Whatever happens, some people will break the law.
    Mr. Howard: I suspect that it pains me to disagree with my hon. Friend even more than it may pain her. Her point is not valid, because we have to make judgments about the effect of the laws that we pass on the behaviour of those with whom we are attempting to deal. If it is a consequence of one law rather than another that temptation is likely to be increased, and therefore likely to be succumbed to, and that that is likely to lead to more guns coming into the hands of people who might abuse them, we must take that into account. It is a matter of judgment, and my hon. Friend may legitimately arrive at a different judgment and disagree with me. It is a valid consideration, and it should be taken into account in framing the precise terms of the legislation.
    Mr. Michael Stern: The force of my right hon. and learned Friend's argument is that it is more important to remove temptation from people who he and the Minister of State have said on many occasions are the least likely people to succumb to that temptation. A large group of people will be tempted: my right hon. and learned Friend has already admitted that such people regard the legislation as totally irrelevant. They will use illegal guns. Why is he aiming at the small group of people who are the least likely to succumb to temptation?
    Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that we are ignoring the enormous problems that undoubtedly exist as a consequence of the use of illegal guns. We recognise the dimension of that serious problem, and the police do their utmost to deal with it every working day of the year. The fact that they are not totally successful, for reasons which we all understand, does not relieve the House of the responsibility of dealing with another aspect of the problem, which is the

    769
    circumstances under which firearms should be made lawfully available. It is not either/or: we have to deal with both problems as effectively as we can.
    Mr. Barnes: What about the temptation of raiding a gun club? If a gun club that holds complete guns is raided, that is far more dangerous than taking away bits and pieces.
    Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman knows, stringent security will be put in place to deal with that problem. I am not sure that the temptation to raid a gun club for whole guns would be that much greater than the temptation to raid a gun club for the main body of the gun, which is what my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells suggested. But the hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion.
    Sir Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
    Mr. Howard: I shall give way, but we are on a timetable motion. Many hon. Members want to speak, and I do not want to take up their time.
    Sir Terence Higgins: It is not our fault that there is a timetable motion: it is my right hon. and learned Friend's fault. We had the ludicrous position just now of the Minister of State saying that she could not give an answer because she was about to be cut off by the guillotine motion. The whole thing is farcical.
    If people have a criminal intent, why should they bother to raid a gun club for a .22 when they could perfectly well buy a .38 or a .44 illegally?
    Mr. Howard: I have sought to answer that point. It is the same point as was put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells. I do not think that the world is divided quite as neatly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) suggests, into those who are prepared to engage in illegal conduct and who would undoubtedly take advantage of the fact that illegal guns are available, and those who behave lawfully and would not stray from the law at all. Others who do not fit neatly into that category would be tempted by the circumstances that I have sought to explain. I think that that justifies our approach.
    There has been a good deal of discussion of the advice that the Government have received on this issue from the Forensic Science Service. It believes that it would be an extremely difficult task to police these procedures fully and effectively at club level. The procedures would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined individual.
    The Government have also taken advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales. It concludes that
    "disassembly is incapable of being policed."
    It too has concerns about a club policing this policy and there would be little to stop a person having two slides, one at a club and one at home. The smallness of these parts makes them easily concealable. The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland has similar concerns
    770
    about disassembly providing insufficient safeguards for the public. Thomas Hamilton and Michael Ryan both held their guns lawfully. Either could have been capable of obtaining or concealing component parts had the disassembly approach been enforced.
    It has been argued that the Government have gone further than Lord Cullen proposed. In one sense, that is true: Lord Cullen would have permitted single-shot handguns to be kept in the home. In relation to multi-shot handguns, he said:
    "in stating my own conclusions I should confine myself to what I recommend should be considered … I recommend that consideration should be given to restricting the availability of self-loading pistols and revolvers of any calibre … Preferably this should be done by their disablement while they are not in use … If for any reason that course is not to be followed, I see no alternative to considering the more draconian alternative of a ban on multi-shot handguns … directed to the possession of such handguns by individual owners."
    The Government have not gone as far as the alternative course that Cullen has envisaged. The Bill will permit the continued possession by individuals of .22 calibre handguns, provided that they are kept at licensed pistol clubs.
    The Government have taken the view that the protection of the public should be the priority. The safest position must be to ensure that the entire gun is stored in secure licensed pistol clubs.
    5 pm
    Mr. Doug Henderson: The debate is about a judgment that the House must make between what exact form of legislation is likely to be the most effective and the rights of the shooting community, balanced against the protection of the public. It is true that the Government and Opposition Front Benchers take a similar approach with the amendment, as will be the case in relation to the next group of amendments. That does not in any way mean that the Government and the Opposition are at one in dealing with the legislation. We both recognise that legislation is necessary because of public demand for action, but there is a difference between our position, which is that there should be a complete ban on handguns, and the Government's position, which is that there should be a ban on guns above .22 calibre. However, we have accepted that the need for legislation on other aspects in the Bill takes priority over our particular position at this time, although we have made commitments in relation to the future. That is why we believe that it is necessary for the Bill to be given passage through Parliament so that it becomes law before the general election.
    The Lords amendment would undermine the whole premise of the Bill. It takes the Bill in a different direction. The argument between the Government and the Opposition is on which guns should be banned and which should not. The amendment essentially bans no guns and suggests a different way in which to deal with the problem.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if the amendment on disassembly had been accepted in the first place, we would have had what the Opposition wanted: a total ban on all whole working guns outside gun clubs? It is the simplest, most

    771
    straightforward way of achieving that. In failing to achieve the amendment, we have lost the main part of the argument, which is to ban all guns outside gun clubs.
    Mr. Henderson: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I do not accept the logic of his argument. There would have been no guarantee that the Government would have accepted that position, even if Opposition Front Benchers had accepted some of the views that were expressed by Labour Members and indeed by Conservative Members, but, in any case, as the Home Secretary showed, such an amendment would not have led to the protection of the public from the use of assembled guns.
    Whether we like it or not, vested interests have come into the debate at all stages. We all know that we are dealing with the amendment because of the vote of hereditary peers in another place. If the matter had been left to life peers and others who hold office ex officio there, the result would have been different, so the point that was made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) that the peers would have taken a different attitude if this had been about toff shooting rather than the common man shooting does not hold up to examination because, in that instance, the peers have tried to defend a vested interest against the rightful demands of the public.
    The argument against disassembling is that it is too easy to obtain a working gun from the parts. It is too easy for someone who has a will to find parts that are interchangeable with the other parts to which they have access.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the demands of the public, where does he stand on capital punishment, as it is clear that the demands of the public would bring that back?
    Mr. Henderson: I am not sure that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. If a full debate took place on that matter, the result would be different, but the point at debate here is that Parliament is focusing on the maximum agreement that can possibly be achieved to meet a public demand and to protect the public. What we are arguing about is the extent to which a judgment has to be passed by Parliament on different aspects—the rights of the shooters against the demands of the public and their right to be protected.
    The great danger is that, if we do not get this right, the maniac or the person who is unstable and has access to the parts of a gun can assemble a gun and take the same action as we know was taken by the Dunblane murderer.
    Mr. Frank Cook: The irresponsible maniac my hon. Friend refers to surely would not have a firearms certificate to start with and would not be allowed membership of a club, so the justification that is being advanced applies not to gun club members but to illegal people who act outside the law. My hon. Friend is trying to justify one thing by quoting something that does not apply to it.
    Mr. Henderson: I do not accept my hon. Friend's argument. The point about the maniac is that it is not
    772
    obvious that someone is a maniac until he takes some mad action that causes great harm and injury to other members of the public. It is a matter of having regulations and rules that protect the public in between the point where a maniac or a mentally unstable person thinks of taking some action and actually takes that action.
    Sir Anthony Grant: The really determined maniac will not bother about assembling a gun. He will go to any pub in the east end and illegally buy a gun that has been imported from behind the iron curtain. Thousands are available illegally.
    Mr. Henderson: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and we need to take action to toughen up on the illegal holding of guns, but that matter is outside the scope of the debate.
    Conservative Members made a point on the question of temptation. In his defence of the Government's position, the Home Secretary said that, where the main barrel was separated from the trigger mechanism, there would be a temptation for someone to break the law. Conservative Members said that it was not a sufficient position for the Home Secretary to defend and that that would not prevent temptation.
    I think that the Home Secretary missed the real point, which is made in a submission by the Government's forensic scientist. In a letter to the Home Office dated 18 November 1996, which was made available by the Minister of State in a previous debate, he says:
    "This procedure would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of the pistol by a determined and motivated individual … Some individuals will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol, or possess components which allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by the simple substitution of components."
    It also says, and this is the key point:
    "unless a club employs a qualified armourer to confirm the bona fide of items at the time of transfer for storage who is also fully aware of the extent of ownership of such accessories by their membership a person could still possess a complete weapon at home even after apparently complying with the regulations."
    If the system suggested in Lords amendment No. 8 is introduced, there will be complete confusion in gun clubs about who owns what and which part relates to which gun. Those involved will know about the confusion and that could tempt the person on the verge of taking action such as that in Dunblane into breaking the law. That is why we resisted the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in previous debates, and it is the key argument against the Lords amendment.
    Dame Jill Knight: The key argument, for those of us in favour of the Lords amendment, is that if whole guns are kept in one place, that place would be a magnet for the IRA and other gangs. If only a part of a gun is stored at a gun club, the criminals will not know where the other part is, because they will not know the members or who owns which gun. Would it not be more difficult to obtain guns from a gun club if they were split up? That is the crux of the argument.
    Mr. Henderson: I accept the point that the hon. Lady is trying to establish, but she is wrong. The legislation is geared towards preventing the mentally unstable, the

    773
    maniacs and freaks from abusing legally held guns. I accept that there is some risk that gun clubs will be a focus for criminals if whole guns are kept there, but I hope that the legislation will be tight enough to ensure that gun clubs have sufficient security to make them difficult to penetrate. The hon. Lady's point about the IRA is not relevant, because it can obtain guns, in this country and elsewhere, more easily than by raiding premises that are registered with the police and are heavily alarmed. Such a raid would be a high-profile exercise and dangerous for such an organisation. The hon. Lady's argument cannot be sustained.
    Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
    Mr. Robert Banks rose—
    Mr. Frank Cook rose—
    Mr. Henderson: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and then I shall proceed.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman mentioned public safety. Would not those who live near gun clubs feel that their safety was jeopardised by the closeness of all those weapons, which were capable of being fired and which could fall into the hands of criminals?
    5.15 pm
    Mr. Henderson: As all hon. Members know, people are concerned when anything changes in their community, but the hon. Gentleman's argument is not valid. The chances that a maniac or unstable person could breach the security of a gun club and then use the gun in the immediate locale are low. The location of gun clubs is not significant.
    Mr. Frank Cook: My hon. Friend made the point that there are many easier ways for the IRA to obtain firearms than by raiding a gun club. If that is so, can he tell me why the IRA saw fit to raid the armoury of the Parachute Regiment and loot it so effectively?
    Mr. Henderson: That is a different situation. I cannot recall the detail of that event, but the judgment of the IRA must have been that the armoury was a relatively easy target, presumably because nobody expected that it would take such a risk. I do not believe that the IRA or similar organisations have a great need for .22 handguns. If they did want such weapons, there would be easier ways to obtain them.
    I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, but I wish to emphasise that temptation would be caused by the chaos that would be created by a badly policed, bureaucratic system. People who wanted access to guns would know that the system did not work. That point was made by the British Shooting Sports Council in its evidence to the Cullen inquiry, and Lord Kimball, who was the chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee from 1989 to 1994, said on Second Reading in another place:
    "I can no longer support disassembly as a method of secure storage in the home."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 December 1996; Vol. 576, c. 1317]
    774
    In evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee, a representative of the Association of Chief Police Officers also said that it did not believe that disassembly would be a safe way to protect the public.
    The public demand to feel safe. When public concern is recognised by the House, we have a duty to take action and do our best, having weighed up the arguments, to provide legislation before the general election that will give the public some confidence that the likelihood of a repetition of the tragic events in Dunblane last year will be minimised. I hope that the House will approve the Bill tonight and that another place will accept our decision that action should be taken quickly.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary presented one of the worst cases for an amendment that I have heard in the House, but the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) made an even worse case. As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said earlier, when those who sit on the Front Benches get together, let the citizens beware. That has never been more true than on this occasion.
    The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North mentioned public opinion. Public opinion had not been measured much until the Duke of Edinburgh made a statement about the Bill just before Christmas, after which three polls were carried out. One had 2,780 callers, of whom 68 per cent. agreed with the Duke of Edinburgh. The GMTV poll had 10,000 callers, of whom 75 per cent. agreed with him, and the Sky news poll had 7,000 callers, with 72 per cent. agreeing with him. That is a convincing statement of public opinion. My postbag, which I accept is probably prejudiced, contains many letters that strongly criticise the Bill, and I am not dissatisfied that public opinion is strongly against the legislation.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in a response to those polls on the "Today" programme, it was pointed out that shooting lobby members were using the Internet to ask people to phone in repeatedly by pushing a button? Given that many hon. Members discounted the results of a phone-in television poll on the monarchy—which received more responses and was a much wider survey of opinion in Scotland—and the manipulation to which polls can be subject, is he seriously telling us that such polls are a reliable indicator of public opinion?
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I suppose that, remarkably, the Snowdrop poll was in no way organised. The truth is that the moment a poll is not agreed with, everyone rushes to a conclusion on why there should be some inaccuracy in it. On the hon. Gentleman's point about the "Today" programme, the e-mail message had been placed on the Internet a quarter of an hour after the poll closed. He may believe that shooters are so well organised that they can persuade 20,000 people to respond to a poll, but I must say—as fond as I am of them all—that they are not in that category.
    Mr. George Robertson: My hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary read out some information

    775
    that was available yesterday on the web site of the Sportsmans Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which threats were made to Conservative Members that revenge would be taken if they do not vote in a certain way. The message on that web site requests and expects that, in the next week, 80,000 letters will be sent on behalf of the shooting lobby. If the hon. Gentleman's postbag is anything like mine, he will know that a disproportionate number of letters can be generated by a very small number of self-interested people.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am beginning to wonder if some of my colleagues in the debate have been in the House for only five minutes. Have hon. Members never received letters threatening not to vote for us? I should imagine that almost every day I receive a letter saying that someone will not vote for me for one reason or another. That has been going on for a good few years, and they still send such letters. Nevertheless, people threaten. I find nothing wrong in attempting to motivate a lobby—any more than the Snowdrop people deliberately went round and motivated their lobby.
    The point that I was trying to make is that I remain satisfied that the vast majority of public opinion—nigh on two thirds or more—firmly believes that the Bill will not satisfy the first requirement: to stop the occurrence of another Dunblane. We should put our minds to that requirement and to that alone.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has quoted Cullen's recommendation. The fact is that Cullen was perfectly content with dismantlement if such action was practical. In the debate on the Bill's Second Reading, the Home Secretary said:
    "The Government took advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of disabling multi-shot handguns. It concluded that the way forward was unworkable."—[Official Report, 12 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 175.]
    That conclusion rather surprised those who hold our view. We undertook some work on the matter, and we persuaded the Government. Lady Blatch said:
    "We do not deny that many pistols can be disassembled by removing some essential component such as the slide assembly or cylinder."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 1997; Vol. 576, c. 337.]
    So the practicality argument went down the sink.
    The new objection was that the disassembly approach
    "has the fundamental flaw that, to put it mildly, it would not be difficult for a gun owner to keep an illicit spare at home.—[Official Report, 18 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 784.]
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made that argument again today. What he means is that it is somehow easier to break the law with a part than with a whole gun. However, buying a spare slide assembly or cylinder requires the consent of the local chief officer of police, as he has to grant a variation of the original certificate. There is absolutely no difference between buying another gun and buying a replacement slide or cylinder, as both are strictly controlled by the law.
    The Home Secretary's statement also misses the point that the number of illegal guns in the United Kingdom exceeds the number of legal ones. It is easier for a criminal to buy an illegal whole pistol than to buy a legal slide assembly or cylinder.
    The Government raised three objections on policing a disassembly system for clubs. The first was that a qualified armourer would have to check the bona fides of
    776
    a component part. However, there is no great difficulty in identifying a bona fide component part. The extent of ownership will also be known because it will be declared on a firearms certificate.
    The second objection was that an owner could deceive a club official by depositing a deactivated component. However, that is based on the highly contentious idea that deactivated weapons are not easily identified. Deactivated weapons undergo a stringent process to render them incapable of firing a missile. All component parts are deactivated by such means as cutting away two thirds of the slide rail, and all require a distinctive proof mark issued by the Birmingham proof house or the London proof house. Anyone accustomed to handling guns would easily be able to spot the difference.
    The third objection was that there would be considerable bureaucracy in managing the system in clubs. I do not know why a disassembly system should entail any more bureaucracy than the system envisaged in the Bill; I think that the contrary is true. Depositing component parts would work in exactly the same way as depositing whole guns.
    The argument has already been made, but I will make it again, that a cache—whether it is in a strong room, concrete container or steel box—is surely a greater target for a robber than a box with a few spare parts. If any hon. Member disagrees with that, they should examine the quarry industry and investigate the difficulties that it has had in keeping its explosive stores secure—particularly in remote places, where it has had great difficulty in stopping those with nefarious intent breaking into its stores.
    Mr. Marlow: I should tell my hon. Friend that, when I was at Sandhurst—which I presume was a rather more secure place than many gun clubs would be—we were required to keep the working parts of guns in a completely different place from the weapons themselves, to stop robbers from getting at them.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: As the hon. Member for Stockton, North said, if the amendment were to be accepted, the weapon would never be whole except in a licensed rifle club.
    Among the various bits and pieces that have been sent to me, I received a copy of a cutting from the News of the World. It claimed—perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend will tell me whether it is true—that 12 full-bore pistols had been taken from police in Luton, Bedfordshire, but that the matter had been hushed up and was under investigation. That may or may not be true although, as it came from the News of the World, I am perfectly prepared to accept that it is not.
    It is quite clear that all the Government's objections to dismantlement simply do not stand up to scrutiny. I believe that dismantling has some benefits.
    Mr. Nicholas Budgen: One of the great advantages of disassembly is that it would considerably reduce the compensation bill. If, at some later stage, we finish up discovering that the European Court of Human Rights—particularly once the convention is incorporated into our domestic law, perhaps under a Labour Government—requires us to pay

    777
    £500 million, which is eight times the cost of Britannia, for this little ill-considered measure, we shall all feel that this is a pretty bad evening's work.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: I hate to pick holes in my hon. Friend's argument, but we are talking only about .22s. Disassembly would indeed be cheaper for the taxpayer, because more shooters would be able to continue their sport and more clubs would remain open. Clubs will still require a good measure of security, but not the fortress approach that will be required to store arsenals of fully assembled working guns. He is right, but perhaps not on the figures that he mentioned.
    I believe that disassembly would be safer for the public, and I have already mentioned the two alternatives on security. The shooting fraternity would also be able to practise its sport much more easily. Given that the Government have removed the .32 from legal possession, which will exclude us from many international competitions, we shall be very restricted in the competitions that we can enter. We owe it to our shooters—who have done very well in winning gold medals and other awards in all types of shooting—to help them as much as possible.
    What really hurts and comes through in all the letters that I have received is that, fundamentally, the Bill expresses distrust in the honest, law-abiding shooter. The amendment expresses further distrust. It seems ridiculous, because we know in our heart of hearts that it was not the gun that was responsible but the man. This extension, this quibble and this argument seem quite unnecessary. I believe that we should accept Lords amendment No. 8, and be grateful for it.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Salmond: In a parliamentary first earlier, I found myself in favour of a guillotine motion—something I have never experienced in my entire parliamentary career. I am now going to commit another first by saying that the Home Secretary said something rather important towards the end of his speech—something I am sure I have never said in my parliamentary career.
    The Home Secretary identified a fallacy that has gained some currency, particularly among the ranks of Conservative Members. It is that Lord Cullen unambiguously recommended the disablement of handguns. Lord Cullen did no such thing. The Home Secretary referred to the recommendation in the Cullen report that multi-shot handguns should be dealt with
    "preferably by their disablement … or, if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns by individual owners".
    The Home Secretary often claimed that Government were going further than Lord Cullen, but—as he accurately said today—they are not.
    The Home Secretary is in some difficulty, because there are some aspects of logic that are difficult to defend in his proposals. His central difficulty is that he has made a distinction between weapons over .22 calibre and .22 weapons, despite the fact that many .22 weapons can be multi-shot and just as dangerous under certain circumstances as weapons of a higher calibre.
    778
    The intellectual difficulty that the Home Secretary is experiencing is identified by that dubious distinction. It would have been more sensible to bite the bullet and to grasp the logic of Lord Cullen's recommendation. Once the Home Secretary properly decided not to go for the disablement option, because of its weaknesses, the Government should have followed Lord Cullen's recommendation for all multi-shot weapons, and should not have allowed .22 weapons to continue to be used in licensed gun premises.
    A recurrent argument in the debate has been the question of licensed premises becoming arsenals and attractive to terrorists or criminals. If that is a genuine concern on the part of some Conservative Members—let us assume that it is—the amendment that should have come from another place is not the one before us this evening. The amendment proposes to remove the exempt categories of weapons and to go for the disablement option.
    If the genuine fear was that gun clubs would become arsenals and subject to raids by terrorists and other factions, the amendment that should have been tabled would have proposed the disablement of .22 multi-shot weapons and would not have allowed any weapons to be kept at home. In other words, we should have gone further than the Government's proposal.
    Mr. Frank Cook: It may be that I am referring to a different set of documents, but I thought that that was exactly what we were discussing.
    Mr. Salmond: The recommendation from the Lords is to remove the categories of banned weapons and to identify the disablement option, which would allow the bulk of the gun to be kept at home and the firing mechanism to be stored in a gun club.
    Mr. Cook: That is for .22 weapons.
    Mr. Salmond: I am trying to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, for .22 weapons, if the major part of the gun was in a gun club and the firing mechanism was elsewhere, it could be considered a strengthening of the legislation. I am subject to correction by the Home Secretary, but the amendment proposes to allow the bulk of the gun to be retained at home, while the firing mechanism or other part is retained in a gun club. I am suggesting that if the amendment were the other way round—so that the bulk of the gun would be retained in the gun club while the mechanism was elsewhere—a valid argument could be made that that would strengthen rather than weaken the legislation.
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: Such an amendment was tabled on Report.
    Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to discuss the amendment before us, as opposed to previous amendments tabled on Report. My proposition, as he well knows, is to ban all .22 weapons and all other calibres of handgun. I have identified that as the right way forward, and it is a proposition that I continue to defend. I was trying first to examine the Home Secretary's position, and then the position of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). He has

    779
    come to my aid and agreed with me during many fishing debates, but unfortunately we are bound to disagree on this subject.
    If there was a genuine concern not to weaken the legislation and not to emerge with further loopholes, the amendment before us would have been the other way round. It is possible to argue that such an amendment would have strengthened the legislation, but—as the Home Secretary rightly said—the amendment undoubtedly weakens it. Therefore, I will be happy to commit another parliamentary first by joining the Home Secretary in the Lobby this evening.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: It seems to me that the amendment imparts a little clarity into the most muddled piece of legislation that this House has had to consider for many a long year. I would like to make some brief points.
    No one for a moment doubts the sincerity of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) but, quite honestly, his was a very confused speech. When I intervened to ask him whether he would support the return of the death penalty if public opinion demanded it, he skated around the subject. The fact is that the House sometimes has to stand out against public opinion. It is the job of the House to legislate fairly and decently, and in the interests of our constituents. We can then answer to them at the subsequent general election. To try to follow public opinion—determining what it is by all sorts of inexact science—is not the function of a mature Parliament or of responsible parliamentarians.
    Who are we seeking to catch with this legislation? We are seeking to make it more difficult for criminals—or to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, "maniacs and lunatics"—to run amok with weapons. It has been said in this and other debates here and in another place that criminals will find ways of purchasing weapons, and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) referred to east end pubs and elsewhere. They will continue to commit diabolical crimes, and it is important that we have a police system that can seek to anticipate those criminal actions, and a criminal justice system that can seek to deal with those who perpetrate crimes when they have been caught. No one could dissent from either of these propositions.
    What of the maniac or the lunatic? There is no legislation that we or any other assembly can devise that can deal adequately with the maniac. What if a maniac runs amok with a shotgun, rather than a handgun? An interesting article by Matthew Parris in The Times the other day suggested that, within a few years, the hidden agenda would become all too apparent and we would be banning shotguns. During a previous debate, I intervened on my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—I am sorry he is not here now—and asked him what his attitude would have been had the crime been committed with a shotgun. I asked whether he would be looking to ban them. Honestly, immediately and instinctively, he replied that perhaps he would.
    The House cannot go down that road, yet we are. In doing so, we are punishing for the sins and crimes of an individual a group of the most law-abiding and responsible people in this country. It is disgraceful that we should even contemplate doing that.
    780
    Of course one has to react to a crime as horrible and terrible as that at Dunblane, and of course one has to look at what should be done to make it more and more difficult for the Thomas Hamiltons of this world to possess weapons. However, the blame lies not with the law, but with the careless action of those who did not listen when they were warned that the man was a trifle odd, to put it mildly, and allowed him to have his certificate and his weapons. Our reaction does a grave injustice to many law-abiding people who have been following a legitimate sport, in some cases for many years.
    It is too late to go back over the debates that we had before Christmas. We should concentrate on making the Bill a little tidier, a little clearer and a little less unfair. The Lords amendments would do that. We should approve the amendments that impart tidiness and we should endorse those that bring in a little fairness. In so doing, we would redress a balance that we are guilty of getting grossly wrong.
    Mr. Frank Cook: If we accepted all the amendments this evening, we would not make good law; we would just make a law less bad than it was. The case for dismantling is plain. I have made it before in the Chamber. I do not want to repeat everything that I have said on the subject. The consequence of not accepting dismantling will be fewer and fewer gun clubs. Clubs will be more widely dispersed and they will have arsenals in them. That must be so if the Bill goes through as it stands.
    It is iniquitous that people with an interest in target shooting should be penalised. I have every sympathy with the residents of Dunblane and residents of Hungerford. Nobody has a monopoly on that distress. Sometimes, people talk as though they have—they have not.
    The Home Secretary has responsibility throughout the United Kingdom for the efficiency and expertise of the police. I care about target shooters. Theirs is a bona fide, international sport. Our sportsmen and women have brought credit to this country.
    What about the men and women on the beat who are entrusted with a firearms responsibility? They have to practise that expertise and hone it to proficiency standard. What time do they get, and where can they go? They cannot practise on official ranges, they cannot use official weapons and they cannot do it in official time. None of that is permitted. Of their own dedication, they acquire weapons, join a club and practise in their own time to maintain their skills.
    What is the Home Secretary going to do about that? There will be fewer clubs to go to, and those people will not be able to hold legally the weapons that they are required to be able to use proficiently. Defeating the Lords amendment on dismantling will mean that there will be fewer clubs. The Home Secretary has a direct responsibility. I hope that he is taking it seriously.
    5.45 pm
    Mr. Graham Riddick: I very much regret being at odds with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. I shall vote for the Lords amendment on disassembly because it would implement Lord Cullen's original recommendations. I am rather shocked and dismayed that the Government ignored the original recommendation.

    781
    As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) has pointed out, no one has a monopoly on sympathy for those who have suffered so appallingly as a result of the actions of Thomas Hamilton. Like everybody else, I was deeply shocked and appalled at what happened. However, I must ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks it sensible to be at odds with so many of his Back Benchers—his supporters in his party.
    I do not appreciate the fact that my party was bounced into the Bill by a few members of the Cabinet. We had no opportunity to consider the Cullen report and our response to its recommendations. I have never voted for the Bill. One reason for that is that the shooting community has been betrayed. While Cullen was conducting his inquiry, members of that community were told not to rock the boat. They demonstrated a great deal of self-restraint. They were told that they would have an opportunity to put their case to the politicians. They did not have that opportunity, because we were all bounced into the Bill. The House of Lords has merely injected some balance into it.
    We have heard from hon. Members on both sides that the refusal to follow Cullen's recommendations on disassembly is a response to public opinion. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) referred to the three polls, conducted after the Duke of Edinburgh's comments, that showed that public opinion was not as polarised as has been suggested. People recognise that the shooting community is being discriminated against. I am sorry that the Government have not taken that into consideration. The Government's preferred option will put most gun clubs out of business, because of the massive cost of implementing the security measures.
    The Bill already stops many shooters carrying out their legitimate pastimes. The amendment is a moderate attempt to inject some fairness. It would be much safer for unusable parts of a gun to be stored in separate places, rather than arsenals of working guns being held in clubs. That point has been made several times; surely the House should take note of it.
    The taxpayer could also be saved considerable sums, because the compensation bills would not be as high. We have not heard many people talking on behalf of the shooters. If the Lords amendment is accepted, more people will be able to continue their sport, because more clubs will be able to remain open.
    This morning, I received a letter from the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), in response to a letter that I wrote to her in October. I am grateful for her response. She replied to several points that I had raised. She said:
    "A determined or motivated individual could find it easy to obtain an illicit spare part."
    A determined or motivated individual could find it easy to obtain a handgun. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Cambridgeshire (Sir A. Grant) has said, someone so motivated could go to many pubs in London and buy a handgun.
    782
    The Bill ignores that reality. It discriminates against a group of people who enjoy a legitimate pastime. The House of Commons and the Conservative party will rue the day that the Bill was forced through Parliament.
    Mr. Nick Harvey: I shall keep my remarks short because of the guillotine. In his opening remarks, the Home Secretary was squirming in his efforts to deal with the points raised by Conservative Members and one or two Labour Members. I heard him recognising the logic of the point advanced by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and he failed to deal with the problem raised by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). I could not help but reflect that he would not have found himself in that uncomfortable position, had we found time to discuss the Cullen report before the headlong rush into legislation. If even so trained a legal mind as his is unable to deal with those points now, I cannot help but reflect that we would have done far better to have considered the practical and technical arguments and even tested public opinion on the proposal advanced by Lord Cullen before we embarked on this ill-considered legislation.
    Mr. John Carlisle: If that was the case, why did the Liberal Democrat party jump the gun, if I may use that phrase, by saying that it would ban all handguns, before the Cullen report was even published?
    Mr. Harvey: In all truth, uniquely among the parties in this case, our party took the time to read the Cullen report before arriving at any conclusions. We then advanced on the basis of a free vote. Many such as myself who fundamentally disagree with the principle of the legislation because of the way that it is framed, none the less voted for the option of an all-out ban, because we realised that that was more logical than the muddle that forms the basis of the legislation.
    The amendment under consideration would be a better option than either and I shall continue to consider disassembly, which has been proven in our debate to be the best option available. The so-called experts who initially said that it was impractical have largely been answered. Some of the more recent arguments against the disassembly option also seem largely to have been dealt with.
    We are being asked to consider the suggestion that law-abiding, respectable citizens, who are members of gun clubs, will resort to the most bizarre steps imaginable to conceal various pieces of equipment, pretend that they are other things, substitute one for another and do all sorts of other things. Why on earth would anyone bother to go to the trouble of doing all those things when, as has been said time and again, it would be far easier simply to go to the continent and get hold of a gun, or to go to any of the innumerable establishments in the underworld to procure one? It seems far more likely that someone who was determined to have a weapon would resort to one of those easier and less complex ways, to get one.
    It has been suggested that the arrangement for disassembly would be bureaucratic and hard to administer. I do not see why it would be any more so than the proposed legislation. The bureaucracy, such as it is, would provide useful safeguards, which would enable the police to check properly and would mean that we knew who had got what, where and for what purpose.

    783
    The practical arguments against disassembly simply do not hold water. Disassembled pistols would be far safer than the arsenals of complete guns that we are proposing. If clubs are a target, arsenals would be a much more attractive target than somewhere that had only half the item stored in it. The disassembly option would allow thousands of clubs to continue to operate. would save a sport for thousands of people—both able-bodied people and the many disabled people who find that this is a sport in which they are uniquely able to participate—and would save the taxpayer a huge amount of money. Also, it would meet the central purpose of the Bill, which is to separate the owner of a gun from that gun, except within licensed premises, and to do everything possible to avoid another terrible tragedy along the lines of Dunblane. As drafted, the Bill would practically eliminate the sporting use of pistols and would provide only a negligible increase in public safety.
    Mr. John Carlisle: I apologise to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) if I embarrassed him in some way about the stance that he honourably took against that taken by his colleagues in the Liberal Democrat party. Let it be put on the record that they talked about banning all handguns before the Cullen report was published. As far as embarrassment is concerned, I am with him, on the basis that I have been acutely embarrassed by this legislation and will continue to be so.
    Mr. Howard: Characteristically, my hon. Friend is being far too generous to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), who did not disagree with his party, but voted with his colleagues for a total ban. I understand the views of those of my hon. Friends and of the few Opposition Members who objected to a total ban and are in favour of the amendment, but does my hon. Friend agree that there is no case whatever for the view taken by the hon. Member for North Devon, who voted for a total ban and now seeks to represent all sides of the argument by apparently voting for disassembly?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. However, at a time when we who disagreed with both Front-Bench spokesmen are looking for every friend we can get, a voice in the wilderness that may translate into a vote in the Lobby in a few moments is to be welcomed.
    Sir Anthony Grant: I think that my hon. Friend and, probably, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, will want to be completely fair to the Liberal Democrat party. It should be pointed out that the one member of that party who knows something about this subject—the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel)—actually voted against.
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend has put the matter succinctly—may the Liberal Democrats be keepers of their own conscience.
    This has been an extraordinary debate, particularly the performances from the Front Bench. I am interested in the new thesis of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, that temptation must now be a basis for law. I have often been tempted in my short political career in this place—sadly, about to end—to think that I might sit where he does. Obviously, I know that I have his
    784
    protection and that of the other law makers in this place, should such a wayward thought ever cross my mind. Perhaps that gives him and the Opposition Front-Bench team an idea of the fact that they are totally wrong and unfair to reject the reasonable Lords amendment. After all, it is only a tiny amendment compared to that which many of us would have wished their Lordships to put forward—disassembly of all handguns, including .33s, which would have put a coach and horses through the Bill and made it totally unworkable, in my right hon. and learned Friend's mind.
    The Lords amendment is a modest measure, but it would give enormous comfort to the few supporters we have left who still trust us on this legislation, on the basis that we would at least be giving them some form of succour, in what has been a thoroughly bad, ill-thought-out and ill-prepared Bill.
    Other colleagues have mentioned cost. In my constituency, the leading gun club is in the heart of the town. That is not exactly the leafy suburbs of my constituency—I do not think that there are any trees to have leaves on in that part. It is mainly a council area, where people are struggling to make ends meet. That club will undoubtedly have to close if we do not accept the Lords amendments. It seems logical that, by disassembling the guns in the way proposed, we shall not only put a stop to the arsenal of weapons that exists now, which is necessary, but avoid the enormous costs of the fortresses that will have to be built.
    As the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, gun clubs will necessarily be fewer and fewer. The British Shooting Sports Council has estimated that nearly 67 per cent. of clubs will go out of business if this amendment is not accepted. It must weigh on the conscience of all hon. Members that we are taking from those honest and reasonable constituents, many of whom are our supporters but who are sadly disillusioned by the legislation, that chance to keep their sport.
    To conclude, as I know that time is short, the situation that we now face with disassembly, particularly with the Commonwealth games, is ludicrous. Because of the legislation, competitors from abroad at the Manchester games will be able to bring in a calibre of gun that is far greater than that which we have discussed this evening and which will be illegal, except if special exemption is made. Our own sportsmen and sportswomen, who have enormous prowess in the sport, will not be able to practise with those guns in this country and will have to go abroad; that is totally ludicrous.
    Even at this stage, a special exception could be made for the sportsmen and sportswomen who want to represent their country, as they have done in the past with such dignity and success, and who will now have to jump on an aeroplane or a ship and go abroad to practise so that they can compete in the Commonwealth games. What a farce—and what a farce, frankly, the whole Bill has become.
    My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary must listen to the voices from the Government Benches—and the brave voices from the Opposition—if we are not to face an electoral disaster. I warn him that that could easily happen in many marginal seats if we passed the legislation.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Carlisle: No, I must conclude because others wish to speak.
    I ask my right hon. and learned Friend even at this late stage to consider accepting the amendment.
    6 pm
    Mr. Barnes: It is quite unbelievable that in supporting the amendment I find myself aligned with the hon. Members for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) and for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), the Duke of Edinburgh, hereditary peers and the shooting community. Those are not people whom I would regard as my natural political allies, but I believe that the logic of dismantling is overwhelming.
    I should have preferred the amendment to be the other way round, so that the slide assembly or cylinder were held at home, but it is the best proposal that we have, and it is in line with the general principle that dismantling has always been a sensible provision. That idea was put to us by Cullen, and we should have had a chance to discuss it in the House and to sort out our ideas before legislation was rushed through.
    The Dunblane parents wrote to me, as they probably did to every Member of Parliament. I met them in what was probably my most harrowing experience as a Member of Parliament, having to defend a position that they opposed, when all my sympathy went with them rather than with the individuals whom I mentioned earlier as being associated with me on the matter. In the end, I replied to the letter in considerable detail, explaining my position.
    I believe that dismantling is the best possible solution to the problem that confronts us, given that the Government have insisted on their position about .22 calibre weapons. The logic operated throughout, and is back with us in the amendment. I am pleased that the gun lobby is on board in arguing for dismantling, because I thought that once it had lost the argument on general principle, it might fall back to the position of .22s being placed in gun clubs. There are, however, other arguments, such as that concerning the difficulty of establishing sufficiently secure gun clubs, which affect the interests of the gun lobby.
    I am disappointed with the position being taken by Labour Front Benchers, because they have stood on their head to some extent on the matter of gun clubs. They now tell us that gun clubs are more or less safe, whereas on Second Reading their argument for the total ban on handguns was based on the premise that the Government's proposal of placing .22s in gun clubs was not acceptable and that all sorts of dangers were associated with it. They have decided to agree with the Government, and have not followed through the logic of their original position.
    The argument is solidly established, even for people such as myself, who have never been associated in any way with gun club culture or activity, but have all along considered dismantling to be the answer to an extremely difficult problem. We have a chance to do something about that tonight.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I support the amendment. I believe that we are dealing with an entirely legitimate
    786
    sport, pursued by responsible individuals, which teaches discipline and self-control. Through the legislation, the House is removing or curtailing an activity that has previously been lawful, and removing private property that up to now has been lawfully held. The House should be extremely cautious about doing that.
    I have visited gun clubs in my constituency and I am convinced that the disassembly option is safe and feasible and would save a considerable quantity of public money. After taking a considerable amount of evidence about disassembly, Lord Cullen concluded:
    "I am satisfied that the dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers would in general be practicable."
    In response, the Government produced only one objection. They said:
    "While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of guns, it is not a practical proposition for others."
    I agree with that. The measure would not apply for the 5 or 10 per cent. of pistols for which it is not practicable, but for the other 95 per cent. it is a practicable option, as found by Cullen and as admitted, by implication, in the Government's initial response.
    In an intervention on my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, I pointed out that the argument that a pistol owner could obtain illegally another slide assembly, and therefore a complete pistol, was pretty thin: someone driven to do that would find it much easier to obtain an entire pistol, most likely from the very large reservoir of entirely illegally held weapons, which are unaffected by the legislation. He said, very fairly, that he saw the force in that argument, so I would ask him to follow that through and accept the amendment.
    Surely the House stands up for minorities. Does not liberty, which we defend in the House, entail supporting at times unpopular causes? I think that the legislation is in parts mistaken and that we have an opportunity this evening to go one small step towards meeting the legitimate aspirations of the majority of legitimate sportsmen who use guns, by accepting the disassembly option.
    Mr. Howard: I agree strongly with my right hon. and hon. Friends who have said that those who currently engage in the activity of shooting are overwhelmingly law-abiding, decent people. I entirely understand the concerns that have been expressed at the extent to which they are likely to be affected by the legislation.
    I entirely reject the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) that a majority of those who voted for the amendment in another place, or my hon. Friends, were merely seeking to defend vested interests. That is very far from the case, and the allegation was unworthy.
    I also reject the hon. Gentleman's argument that we should be motivated in placing this or any other legislation on the statute book primarily by a consideration of where the balance of popular opinion lies. That is certainly a factor to be taken into account, but it should not be the only factor. I thought that the intervention on him by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) had much force. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gave my hon. Friend a satisfactory response.
    Mr. Henderson: Perhaps I can give a more satisfactory response now. That was not what I was saying. I argued that the House must do what is right and practical, but that in this instance, public opinion demands that we take action quickly, which is why it is important that we proceed with the Bill now.
    Mr. Howard: As the hon. Gentleman says, we have to do what is right and practical. Therefore, the argument turns on the difference between the point of view expressed in questions put to me by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—on which he expanded in his speech—and by other hon. Members, and my response to them. My right hon. Friend mentioned my response to this point in the debate, I think, on Second Reading, but he did not read on. Had he done so, he would have found that, at that early stage, I dealt with the essential argument that if disassembly were accepted, there would be no satisfactory way of controlling the illicit use of parts of guns to make a whole gun. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) suggested that the Government had introduced that argument at a later stage. That is not the case; it was part of our argument from the very beginning.
    The point is perhaps most explicitly and succinctly expressed by the Association of Chief Police Officers of England and Wales, which stated that
    "disassembly is incapable of being policed."
    Coming from that source, that opinion is not lightly to be set aside. I fully accept that the balance of the argument on the amendments is a difficult judgment. I fully accept that it is possible for others to reach a legitimate judgment on the question that differs from that of the Government, which I commend to the House. However, it would be difficult for someone with the ultimate responsibility for recommending to the House the decision that it should take to put aside the careful judgment of ACPO, reached in such unequivocal terms. I ask hon. Members to take careful note of that judgment and give it proper and full weight when they decide how to vote.
    Mr. Marlow: What do the chief constables mean when they say that disassembly cannot be policed? Does it mean that some people might not abide by the law and would therefore break it? If they broke the law on disassembly, they could break it by holding guns that they were not entitled to have. Where does that take us?
    Mr. Howard: I do not think that my hon. Friend was present for the whole debate. That point was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells and others. As I sought to explain in answer to their interventions, my belief, which is shared by ACPO, is that there are those who will be tempted by the ease of fitting spare parts into another part of a gun who would not necessarily buy illegal guns. That is the judgment on which the amendments turn.
    Mr. Frank Cook rose—
    Mr. Howard: I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells may take a different view on where the balance of judgment lies. I have put before the House the basis on which I have reached mine.
    788
    Before I conclude, I want to reply to the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), who asked a specific question about police training, which was dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place. She said quite unequivocally that both the Ministry of Defence and ACPO agreed with the Government's assessment that training for the requisite standards of proficiency would continue to be provided for police and the personnel of the armed services when they are on duty. That is what happens.
    Mr. Cook: It is insufficient.
    Mr. Howard: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that it is insufficient, nor did ACPO.
    I have attempted to identify the judgment which lies at the heart of the decision that the House must take on the amendment. I invite lion. Members to pay particular attention to the judgment of ACPO, that disassembly is incapable of being policed. I invite hon. Members to disagree with the two amendments that were passed in another place.
    Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
    The House divided: Ayes 394, Noes 115.

    Division No. 78]

    [6.14 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Ainger, Nick

    Brazier, Julian

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

    Alton, David

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    Amess, David

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Burns, Simon

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Burt, Alistair

    Arbuthnot, James

    Butler, Peter

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Butterfill, John

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Callaghan, Jim

    Ashby, David

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Ashton, Joseph

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Campbell-Savours, D N

    Austin-Walker, John

    Canavan, Dennis

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

    Baldry, Tony

    Carttiss, Michael

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Barron, Kevin

    Clapham, Michael

    Bates, Michael

    Clappison, James

    Battle, John

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Bell, Stuart

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clelland, David

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Berry, Roger

    Coe, Sebastian

    Betts, Clive

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Blunkett, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Boateng, Paul

    Congdon, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Connarty, Michael

    Booth, Hartley

    Conway, Derek

    Boswell, Tim

    Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bowis, John

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Bradley, Keith

    Couchman, James

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Cousins, Jim

    789

    Cox, Tom

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Cran, James

    Hardy, Peter

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hawkins, Nick

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

    Heald, Oliver

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

    Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)

    Henderson, Doug

    Hendry, Charles

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Heppell, John

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Darling, Alistair

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Davidson, Ian

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

    Hinchliffe, David

    Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

    Home Robertson, John

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Horam, John

    Day, Stephen

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

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

    Dixon, Rt Hon Don

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Duncan, Alan

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

    Dunn, Bob

    Hutton, John

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Illsley, Eric

    Dykes, Hugh

    Ingram, Adam

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Eastham, Ken

    Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Jamieson, David

    Elletson, Harold

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

    Etherington, Bill

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Evans, John (St Helens N)

    Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

    Evennett, David

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Faber, David

    Keen, Alan

    Fabricant, Michael

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

    Faulds, Andrew

    Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Khabra, Piara S

    Fisher, Mark

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Flynn, Paul

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Forman, Nigel

    Knapman, Roger

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Kynoch, George

    Foulkes, George

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Legg, Barry

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Lewis, Terry

    Fraser, John

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Lidington, David

    French, Douglas

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Litherland, Robert

    Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

    Garnier, Edward

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    George, Bruce

    Lord, Michael

    Gerrard, Neil

    Loyden, Eddie

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Luff, Peter

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    McAllion, John

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Graham, Thomas

    Macdonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McFall, John

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    MacKay, Andrew

    Grocott, Bruce

    McKelvey, William

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Gunnell, John

    McLeish, Henry

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Maclennan, Robert

    Hain, Peter

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    McMaster, Gordon

    790

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    MacShane, Denis

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Madden, Max

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Rowe, Andrew

    Madel, Sir David

    Ruddock, Ms Joan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Sackville, Tom

    Malone, Gerald

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Mandelson, Peter

    Salmond, Alex

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Martlew, Eric

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Mates, Michael

    Simpson, Alan

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Smith, Chris (Islington S)

    Maxton, John

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Meacher, Michael

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Soames, Nicholas

    Merchant, Piers

    Soley, Clive

    Michael, Alun

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Spellar, John

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    Milburn, Alan

    Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Spring, Richard

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Sproat, Iain

    Morley, Elliot

    Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Moss, Malcolm

    Steen, Anthony

    Mudie, George

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Mullin, Chris

    Stephen, Michael

    Murphy, Paul

    Stewart, Allan

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Strang, Dr Gavin

    Nelson, Anthony

    Straw, Jack

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Streeter, Gary

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

    Sykes, John

    Norris, Steve

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    O'Hara, Edward

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Olner, Bill

    Thomason, Roy

    O'Neill, Martin

    Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Page, Richard

    Timms, Stephen

    Paice, James

    Tipping, Paddy

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Touhig, Don

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Tracey, Richard

    Pearson, Ian

    Tredinnick, David

    Pickles, Eric

    Trend, Michael

    Pike, Peter L

    Trickett, Jon

    Pope, Greg

    Trotter, Neville

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Turner, Dennis

    Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

    Vaz, Keith

    Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Walden, George

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Wallace, James

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Ward, John

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Wareing, Robert N

    Purchase, Ken

    Waterson, Nigel

    Quin, Ms Joyce

    Watson, Mike

    Raynsford, Nick

    Watts, John

    Reid, Dr John

    Wells, Bowen

    Rendel, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Robathan, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Wilkinson, John

    791

    Willetts, David

    Worthington, Tony

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Wray, Jimmy

    Wright, Dr Tony

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Winnick, David

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Wolfson, Mark

    Mr. Richard Ottaway and

    Wood, Timothy

    Mr. Matthew Carrington.

    NOES

    Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Key, Robert

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Barnes, Harry

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Batiste, Spencer

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Beggs, Roy

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Bendall, Vivian

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Body, Sir Richard

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Mans, Keith

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Marek, Dr John

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Marland, Paul

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Budgen, Nicholas

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Butcher, John

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Cann, Jamie

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Cash, William

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Churchill, Mr

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Colvin, Michael

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Pawsey, James

    Dalyell, Tam

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Porter, David

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

    Rathbone, Tim

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Richards, Rod

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Riddick, Graham

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Gale, Roger

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Gallie, Phil

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Gapes, Mike

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Gill, Christopher

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Skinner, Dennis

    Gorst, Sir John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Sumberg, David

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hannam, Sir John

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Harris, David

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Harvey, Nick

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Viggers, Peter

    Hayes, Jerry

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Waller, Gary

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Hoey, Kate

    Whittingdale, John

    Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Wilshire, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Jessel, Toby

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Johnson Smith,

    Mr. Tony Marlow and

    Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Mr. Den Dover.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.
    It being after fifteen minutes past Six o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Question to be decided at that hour, pursuant to the Order this day.
    Lords amendment No. 12 disagreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 25, after clause 11, to insert the following new clause—Compensation scheme for firearms dealers—
  ".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were wholly or mainly carrying on business as registered firearms dealers under the 1968 Act, in respect of any loss of business directly caused by the prohibition contained in section 1.
  (2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide for payments to be equivalent to one year of after—tax profits of the business, based on the average after—tax profits from the audited financial statements of the business for the three financial years, or for the total period of trading if less than three years, before the passing of this Act as calculated by a qualified person.
  (3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above—
  "business" means only the business or that part, of the business directly affected by the prohibition contained in section 1; and
  "qualified person" means a person eligible for appointment as a company auditor in accordance with section 25 of the Companies Act 1989.
  (4) A scheme under subsection (1) above may—

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

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

  6.30 pm
  Mr. Howard: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 26, Lords amendments Nos. 27 and 93 and the Government motions to disagree thereto, and Government amendment (a).
  I have to inform the House that all four of these Lords amendments involve questions of privilege.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will it be possible to have separate votes on Lords amendment Nos. 25 and 27?
  Madam Deputy Speaker: If it is so desired, yes.
  Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the last vote, the majority of Conservative Members of Parliament who are not on the payroll either opposed the measure or did not support it. The fact is that only a minority of the Conservative party supported the Government. That fact should be known because the matter now returns to another place, whose Members might like to know that the Conservative party supports what they did last time and would seek to support them if they continue.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: One must not use points of order to make points of policy or opinion.
  Mr. Howard: The Government are committed to paying compensation at a fair market value to people who

  793
  hold firearms certificates for the higher-calibre handguns that the Bill will prohibit. These values would be those that applied immediately prior to my announcement in the House on 16 October last year.
  I should like to remind the House of the arrangements that are planned. To qualify for compensation an owner will have to have held his firearm on a firearms certificate; or have held it by virtue of being a registered firearms dealer; or have been contracted to acquire his or her gun on 16 October; and will have to surrender it to the police. Owners will be able to choose between three compensation options.
  First, there will be a basic flat-rate figure that an owner may claim for each high-calibre handgun he surrenders, whatever its make, age or condition. Secondly, there will be a list of market values—as applied immediately before 16 October 1996—for the most commonly held types of handgun. Those figures may be higher than the basic compensation figure and owners who hand in a gun of one of these types will be able to claim that value.
  Thirdly, there will be owners whose guns do not fit within these arrangements or who want to obtain their own valuation. We intend that those who wish to will be able to submit valuations that they themselves have obtained. In cases of dispute there will be recourse to a second independent valuation of the gun.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Who exactly will do all that valuation? Item 12 of the letter that was circulated today by the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), states:
  "Any discrepancies in the claim—including any relating to the condition of items claimed for under Option C—will either need to be resolved before the claim is accepted by the police."
  For some reason, that paragraph does not make complete sense, but the issue with which it deals is important. Can the Home Secretary explain the background to that provision?
  Mr. Howard: Any arguments about the condition of the gun could be dealt with at the time the gun is surrendered to the police, but questions of valuation will not, of course, be decided by the police. They will be decided in the way that is properly set out in the letter and the accompanying document.
  Owners will also be entitled to compensation on a similar market-value basis for ammunition, including expanding ammunition which the Bill would prevent them from owning and for accessories and other ancillary equipment which they own and which has no use other than in connection with prohibited higher-calibre handguns.
  Mr. Spencer Batiste: Within that list of accessories will there be included a machine for reloading ammunition, which a small business might have so that it could sell reloaded ammunition to others? Does that fall within my right hon. and learned Friend's category?
  Mr. Howard: It is highly likely to do so. I answer in that rather provisional way because the details are not yet fixed. We intend to discuss with the British Shooting Sports Council the question of precisely what these
  794
  accessories will be and what their values will be. Examples that we have in mind include reloading equipment for cartridges, specialised holsters and spare parts.
  There will also be ex gratia payments—separate from the compensation scheme—for shooters who own .22 rim-fire and other small-calibre handguns, which will not become prohibited by the Bill but which the Bill will require to be kept in licensed pistol clubs. Owners who cannot find a club in which to keep their pistol or who choose not to join a club will be able to apply for an ex gratia payment for their gun; but this will, as I said, be separate from the statutory compensation scheme.
  Taking account of the concerns raised earlier in the passage of the Bill about the nature of the compensation scheme, we have decided that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment No. 26 will enable parliamentary oversight of the scheme. I intend to lay the scheme in draft form before this House and another place. The scheme could not be made effective until approved by a resolution of this House and by a resolution in another place.
  Mr. Dalyell: If the Home Secretary was the owner of, for example, a Ruger Blackhawk 6in barrel, which I am told is quite a valuable gun, would he be content to accept 175 quid as compensation? Knowing him as I do, I bet he would not.
  Mr. Howard: I am sorry to say that I can offer no opinion on that question, as I do not own any such gun. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, if any person who does own such a gun is not content with the amount identified in the list attached to the document, it would be open to him to come along with his own valuation and establish that the weapon is worth more than £175. If he makes his case and the valuation is a proper one, he would be compensated on that basis.
  The provision that the scheme should be approved by the House would not alter the principles of the compensation arrangements that I have just set out. Both in this House and in another place very full consideration has been given to this issue and we have explained why the Government have decided that compensation should be paid for weapons, ammunition and other ancillary equipment. The amendment means that the details of the scheme can be fully considered by Parliament before it comes into effect.
  I would now like to say a few words about amendment No. 25, which concerns compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill.
  Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that the valuation is to be set at the date on which he made his announcement to the House and not before the tragedy at Dunblane. He must be aware that, terrible though that event was, it is the purchase blight placed on the value of firearms by the legislation that has affected what he now deems to be the market value. That will undoubtedly be an issue disputed in any appeal.
  Mr. Howard: Indeed, it is because the purchase blight consequent on the legislation is important that I have said that the valuation should be as at the day before any

  795
  announcement was made about the nature of the legislation. That is precisely the point and it is a precise response to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Michael Colvin: It seems to me that purchase blight has already hit the list of valuations that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State handed us all at the beginning of the debate. The Home Secretary may not be the owner of a heavy-calibre pistol but indirectly, through the Palace of Westminster shooting club, hon. Members are the owners of two .38 calibre Smith and Wesson 14 6in barrel revolvers. They are listed in the document as being worth £225 each, but Target Gun magazine—which is currently regarded as one of the most reliable indicators of market value—puts the value of the pistols at £386. It seems that blight has hit the Home Office list, but not the market generally.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an extremely interesting point, and I defer to him with his considerable expertise and knowledge of these issues. I would simply emphasise that the document that we have circulated, including the list of values to which my hon. Friend referred, has been circulated for consultation, so we shall be very interested to listen to arguments, such as that made by my hon. Friend, before we finalise even that list. Then, notwithstanding the definitive list, it will be possible for any individual shooter to say, "My weapon is worth more than the list says; would you please compensate me on that basis?" That would be a perfectly reasonable way to proceed.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: That is fine as far as it goes, but what proof of value will my right hon. and learned Friend require? Will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that a receipt or normal valuation by a qualified valuer, saying that the gun in question is worth £386, would be acceptable as proof?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows that valuation is not a very precise art. If someone wanted to argue that his gun was worth more than the value identified in the list when the list was in its definitive form, we would expect him to produce evidence from an expert in these matters, who would say, "I know about these things: I know the state of the market and I know about this type of gun, and it is my considered opinion that this particular weapon is worth more than the amount identified in the list." We shall expect that type of approach.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: What about the receipt?
  Mr. Howard: The receipt would show what was paid for the gun. That would be one of the factors to be taken into account, but obviously, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, only one.
  Amendment No. 25 concerns compensation for business losses by firearms dealers as a result of the Bill. The Government recognise the strength of feeling in both Houses on that issue, but we cannot accept liability for business losses that might result from the introduction of legislation aimed at improving public safety. As far as
  796
  I am aware, that would be unprecedented, and it would limit considerably the scope for future improvements, not just in firearms legislation but across the board.
  Miss Kate Hoey: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Lady forgive me for a moment?
  In other areas, such as transport, medicines, chemicals and pollution, the Government have not paid compensation for business losses that may have been incurred as a result of legislative changes. Where the effect of Government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, it is broadly the case that the taxpayer provides some recompense for those people in relation to the value of the property. That principle has been a recognised part of English law for many years. It underpins our obligations under the European convention on human rights and is the principle that informed our compensation scheme.
  The Government will pay compensation to firearms dealers on the same basis as home owners in respect of prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment that they owned or were contracted to acquire on or before 16 October 1996. However, our obligations do not extend to include compensation for business losses and other liabilities.
  All businesses operate within a framework of legislation. In the case of the gun industry, the framework is stricter and more specific than that in many other industries. It regulates what types of guns and ammunition can be bought and sold and who may buy and sell them. It is right that there should be a strong framework to control the market in a product which is, potentially, extremely dangerous. Moreover, that framework of regulation has existed since the 1920s and everyone who works in the firearms industry operates within it.
  Miss Hoey: Is the Home Secretary aware that, on a recent visit, one of the Australian Ministers—who is a Member of Parliament for Tasmania, where there was an appalling gun incident, as the Home Secretary knows—said that gun legislation received general support from all people in Australia only because compensation was treated seriously and everyone was compensated? If citizens generally, through our Government, are taking away people's rights, surely the least that the Government can do is to ensure that those people are compensated.
  Mr. Howard: Grateful though I am to the hon. Lady for patiently waiting to intervene, I do not accept the point that she makes, for the precise reasons that I am giving. As far as I am aware, it would be wholly unprecedented to award such compensation. It would establish an undesirable principle; I do not believe that we should establish that principle.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Sir Donald Thompson rose—
  Mr. Howard: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
  Mr. Winterton: My right hon. and learned Friend knows that I have in my constituency one of the most successful, and one of the largest, wholesalers of arms and ammunition. Does he expect me to vote for a Government who are very likely to put that company, which has been in existence for more than 50 years and provides about 30 jobs in my constituency, out of business, and thereby make a large number of people—a majority of them women—unemployed?
  Is what my right hon. and learned Friend is proposing real justice? I fully support the view just expressed by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey). If we are to deny people the right to continue a business that has operated legitimately for more than 50 years, we should fully and properly compensate them.
  Mr. Howard: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I very much sympathise with his constituent and I hope that the dire consequences that my hon. Friend predicted will not come to pass.
  Mr. Winterton indicated dissent.
  Mr. Howard: I know that my hon. Friend will consider the wider implications of what he proposes; I have tried to address those wider implications. I have more to say about those wider implications; I do not believe that they can be lightly set aside or ignored.
  Sir Patrick Cormack rose—
  Sir Donald Thompson rose—
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson) has been waiting, and I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) more than once.
  Sir Donald Thompson: The helpful document on compensation from the Minister of State says:
  "The Government has also agreed to make payments … This agreement does not extend"
  to small-calibre pistols held in stock by dealers nor does it extend
  "to ancillary equipment relating to them as there will continue to be a demand for such equipment."
  My right hon. and learned Friend took as examples transport and catering. In those industries, legislation is usually evolutionary, and a catering firm introduces new bits of kit and equipment to keep up with the times and with modern knowledge. However, the proposals before us are draconian. A man in my constituency makes nothing but ammunition for handguns. He employs five people. We shall put him out of business.
  Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that in some industries and in some
  798
  cases, legislative change of the type that we are discussing is what my hon. Friend has described as "evolutionary", but there are many examples where that is not the case and where the result of a specific piece of legislation is very serious for the firm concerned. Obviously, one does not like that to happen and one greatly sympathises with those whose jobs may be at risk, but it has not been the case that, when we have dealt with such matters in the past, we have provided compensation for that type of consequence.
  Mr. Winterton: This is exceptional.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: This situation is virtually unprecedented. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to give one example of a sector of legitimate business and industry totally destroyed by legislation without compensation, and without the opportunity for those employed in the industry to do something similar. That opportunity has gone. This is a unique situation, and I doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend can find precedent. Moreover, this would not establish precedent.
  Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. Friend. One may test matters to some extent by considering the history of the firearms industry. As I said on Report, major changes have been made in the regulatory environment that applies to this industry several times in recent history, and those changes have had a massive impact on the shooting industry and on those who use guns for leisure purposes. In 1920, firearms controls were introduced for the first time. In 1934, fully automatic weapons were prohibited. In 1962, airguns and shotguns were made subject to restriction for the first time. In 1988, semi-automatic and self-loading rifles were prohibited. In 1992, disguised firearms were prohibited.
  Many other minor changes have affected the operations of gun dealers and gun clubs apart from the major changes that I have just identified. All those changes were introduced to improve public safety, and some will undoubtedly have affected some businesses more than others; but none was made the subject of compensation for business. No one who works in the firearms industry can be unaware of the significance of regulatory controls on that industry.
  Mr. John Townend: Is my right hon. and learned Friend really trying to tell the House that if at some future date a Government introduced a Bill to prohibit drink on the ground that it was bad for people's health, every brewery, off-licence and pub would have to shut? All those people would go bankrupt; would the Government say, "Because this is for the benefit of health, there will be no compensation"? Surely my right hon. and learned Friend cannot envisage such circumstances.
  Mr. Howard: I take some comfort from the fact that, were any Government to introduce such an outlandish measure, my hon. Friend and I would be in the same Lobby opposing it resolutely—but I have every confidence that no such proposal would ever reach the statute book.
  Mr. Batiste: My right hon. and learned Friend has drawn a distinction between loss of business and loss of property. He is clearly not talking about compensation for

  799
  a business's loss of profits, but what about plant and equipment, which can often be quite valuable and which has no other use?
  Mr. Howard: I do not think so, for reasons that I have already given.
  Sir Anthony Grant: Is not a legitimate firearms dealer entitled to say, "I understand that an appalling tragedy took place and that a careful inquiry was conducted under a distinguished judge, having been set up by the Government, but I did not and could not anticipate that the Government would decide—when Parliament was not sitting—to go against the recommendations of that inquiry, and that is why we are experiencing difficulties now"?
  Mr. Howard: With great respect to my hon. Friend, it is not easy to resolve the question whether the Government have gone further than Lord Cullen's recommendations. I pointed that out when we were discussing the last group of amendments. We certainly went further than Lord Cullen recommended in that he recommended that people should be allowed to keep single-shot pistols at home. He put forward that suggestion for consideration: he did not really regard it as a recommendation. We have said that no single-shot pistol should be kept at home—that no pistols of any kind should be kept at home.
  Lord Cullen expressed a preference for disassembly of multi-shot pistols—we have just dealt with that—but said that if, for one reason or another, disassembly was not regarded as a viable solution, all private ownership of handguns should end, and that only handguns kept in and owned by clubs should be available for shooting purposes. I do not think that it can be argued that we have gone further than Lord Cullen in that respect, and I do not think that the question is as easy to resolve as is sometimes made out.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: I think that the House understands my right hon. and learned Friend's reluctance to establish a precedent by compensating people who have undoubtedly lost out as a result of the change in the law, but does this not send the country a terrible message? Are not law-abiding people being told, "You are entitled to run your businesses, but if we, Parliament, change the law at the drop of a hat, you will not be compensated, although you have been bona fide all your lives and your businesses are bona fide"? At the same time, as all hon. Members know, there are thousands of illegally held firearms that are not affected by the legislation, and to which the question of compensation simply does not apply. That, as I am sure my right hon. and learned Friend will recognise, is very rough justice.
  Mr. Howard: With great respect, I do not see how questions of compensation could apply to illegal firearms. We have a problem with such firearms, as I constantly acknowledge, and the police are doing their best to deal with it; but I do not think that the fact that we have not yet been able to eliminate illegal firearms relieves us of the responsibility to deal with the problem that arises when dreadful acts such as the one committed at
  800
  Dunblane are committed with legally held firearms. That takes us back to debates in which we have engaged more than once during the Bill's passage.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Mr. Howard: I will, but then I must deal with Lords amendment No. 27.
  Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify a question relating to property? It applies both to the businesses that we have just been discussing and to the clubs with which my right hon. and learned Friend is about to deal.
  We are not discussing big business. Dealers are small businesses, and we as a party are supposed to help small businesses. Clubs usually operate on very thin ice financially: they are generally mortgaged, and the ownership of the property—in the case of both clubs and businesses—is very tenuous. Destroying the business of dealers and the membership of clubs will put the ownership of property in jeopardy.
  Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what Lady Blatch said in the debate on these amendments in the other place? She said:
  "We"—
  the Government, that is—
  "accept that where the effect of government legislation is to deprive people of property or of the use of that property, then it is right that taxpayers collectively should pay those property owners for the value of that property. This principle has been a part of English law for many years. It also arises from our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, and is the principle which informs our compensation scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords. 4 February 1997; Vol. 577, c. 1592.]
  Will that apply to both clubs and dealers in this instance?
  Mr. Howard: It will apply—I used similar words a few moments ago—but I do not think that it will apply in quite the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
  Mr. Colvin: I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend would say that.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right in that respect. I think that he is well aware of the distinction that lies at the heart of my answer.
  Sir Peter Emery: I have listened to my right hon. and learned Friend with great interest, but I cannot quite follow the logic of the desire of the police and of the Home Office to get rid of illegal weapons. Surely, if compensation is to be paid to those who hand in such weapons, we stand a good chance of getting rid of rather a lot of them: it is nonsensical to deny that. Why not do it in that way?
  Mr. Howard: I am afraid that I am not attracted by my right hon. Friend's suggestion that wrongdoers should be rewarded with compensation. We had a successful amnesty last year, when a good many weapons were handed in, but I have no intention of compensating wrongdoers in the way that my right hon. Friend suggests.

  801
  Amendment No. 27 deals with clubs or associations that suffer losses as a result of the Bill. Some existing target shooting clubs that cater predominantly for pistol shooting may not be able to adapt to the new licensed arrangements; others which concentrate on providing rifle target or shotgun shooting, or adapt to these disciplines, will be little affected. Clubs will be eligible for compensation for prohibited handguns and accessories under the terms of the Government's compensation scheme, but we do not intend to compensate them for any other losses. The Government have not been, and cannot be, liable for business that may be lost by companies, clubs or associations when they introduce regulation in the interests of public safety.
  The protection of the public is one of the overriding duties of Government. It would be a significant inhibiting factor if, on occasions when the Government are obliged to legislate in the interests of public safety, they were also obliged to pay for business losses that might result from that legislation. As I have said, we intend to pay fair compensation to dealers for lost stock, but in declining to compensate for business loss as well the Government must have regard to problems that that would create for any future legislation on matters of public safety.
  Much as we regret the difficulties that many clubs and businesses may face, I believe that this is the right course for the Government to take.
  7 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I start from the simple proposition that the House should not pass legislation that offends the sense of justice and fair play of the ordinary British citizen. In my judgment, the response of the Home Secretary tonight shrieks of injustice. If the argument were put to ordinary British citizens, they would agree that it is wholly unfair and unjust.
  In the Second Reading debate on 12 February I set out the example of a small family-run firm in my constituency—Shooters of Swansea. The family who own the business have no other assets. They have used their private homes as security. They have carried on the business with the support and encouragement of the local authority and always fully in accord with the local police. As day follows night, that pistol shooting business will be ruined and the owners will have no compensation.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I notice that the hon. Gentleman said that the club was run with the support of the local authority. Is he aware that many local authorities, mainly Labour-controlled, are actively discouraging gun clubs by making life distinctly uncomfortable for them? Will he persuade his Front-Bench colleagues, perhaps in relation to another Department, that Labour councils should be discouraged from doing that?
  Mr. Anderson: I do not know what other local authorities may or may not do. I know that Swansea city council has given full planning and financial encouragement to that family business, and that it will be ruined.
  Following legal advice from a leading silk, I set out various principles of law in the Second Reading debate, relying in particular on the case of Lithgow and the
  802
  principle of the "fair balance," and the fact that in that case it was expressly said that whether that balance was fair depended in large part on the compensation offered to those who suffered.
  In Committee in the House of Lords, it was said by the Earl of Lytton, who moved the relevant amendment, that no answer had been given to the legal points that I raised, based on the advice of a very senior practitioner in that field.
  No answer was given then, and no substantial answer has been given today. I shall not detain the House with the arguments that were set out by Lord Lester in the other place. I will merely say that Lord Lester is a man of enormous experience in the field of human rights legislation. He set out the reasons why, in his judgment, there were indeed precedents—for instance, in Australia—of similar common law legislation where in the exceptional conditions of the gun legislation the Australian legislature, recognising that it must respond to the people's sense of fairness, compensated for business losses. A number of other examples were given—in planning law, for example, and in the rendering industry in connection with BSE.
  Such examples and precedents could be cited, if the Government were so minded. The Government, however, are concerned not with fairness but with the effect on the Treasury. I understand that those advising the Home Office are fairly confident that if the matter went to the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights, the Government would be likely to lose. The problem is, of course, time. If the matter were litigated in the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, it would take fully two years, and if it were litigated in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, it would probably take five years, unless and until that convention is incorporated into our domestic law.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe rose—
  Mr. Anderson: I must be brief. If the Home Office is simply seeking to buy time, how moral is that? That is the morality of the insurance company that plays for time in the hope that the terminally ill patient will die. It is clear that many businesses will be ruined by the time the matter is litigated and the Home Office probably loses. That is thoroughly unfair and unjust. It will offend the sense of justice on which the House should rest its legislation.
  Sir Hector Monro: I am as depressed with our Front Bench tonight as I was in 1988 when we debated the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. In that case, too, the Government rushed into legislation and found it singularly unsatisfactory when it reached the House.
  If only we had had a debate on Cullen in the House after the publication of the report and before policy legislation was decided on, we would have removed many of the anomalies facing us today.
  In another place 115 amendments were tabled. I appreciate that some of those are meeting points proposed by their Lordships and from this House, but it is clear that additional drafting was required and many changes in the legislation, all of which could have been dealt with more satisfactorily if we had not hurried forward so quickly.

  803
  The Front Bench has not addressed the matter of timing. Presumably the Bill will be enacted shortly. What will be the timing of events thereafter? Will the Home Secretary, and his counterparts for Scotland and Wales, order the police to close down all gun and rifle clubs until they meet the security regulations? When will all the pistols have to be handed in? The average police station will hardly welcome thousands of pistols, which will require valuation and many of which will be the subject of argument as to whether they are antiques or heirlooms, whether they are flintlocks or percussion capped, and so on.
  That must all be sorted out. Yet no guidance has been given. Nothing causes greater annoyance than uncertainty. The Home Secretary has created a huge amount of uncertainty about the proceedings once the Bill becomes an Act.
  As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and I have pointed out many times, if mountains of weapons are deposited in police stations all over the country, how will the valuations be carried out? An enormous amount of police time will be spent waiting for the relatively few qualified valuers of firearms to come and look at many individual weapons all over the country. The cost will be substantial.
  Mr. Rowe: I have no way yet of assessing whether what I have been told is true, but a respectable constituent of mine alleges that some of the people who were due for compensation after the Hungerford change in the law have still not received the money that was due to them.
  Sir Hector Monro: I have seen that in print during the past month or two.
  The Home Secretary must tell us today about the position of the gun and rifle clubs and their buildings and ranges. In those ranges, highly qualified people carry out their international shooting practice. We have a tremendous reputation throughout the world for marksmanship. I speak as a past president of the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, and I know how important the ranges are. Are they to be shut down forthwith, until they fulfil the terms of the security regulations? What are the regulations to be? What will be the difference between regulations applying to indoor ranges and those applying to open ranges?
  The Home Secretary must deal with all that. He has given us little information about the valuation of weapons. I appreciate that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), has produced a document for us giving approximate prices, but they seem to vary only between £150 and £450. We all know that high-precision weapons will be considerably more valuable than that. It is relatively easy to value a shotgun, but it is far more complicated for precision weapons of the quality that we are talking about, which are used for international-standard shooting in this country. Who will carry out the valuations? Will they be carried out by the police? Will they be carried out sympathetically and helpfully? Will everybody be given time to discuss whether their weapon is a military heirloom, an antique or a museum piece? None of that is clear.
  People want to know what will happen to their valuable possessions. It is bad enough having them confiscated, but it is even worse if one has kept a much-loved weapon
  804
  very secure for many years only to have it whipped away at the drop of a hat. We pointed out time and again that we are not doing anything to help make people in this country safer. Of course I accept the tragedy of Dunblane and understand the horrors that those people had to face, but what we are doing is not the answer. In Australia, a high-powered, multi-shot weapon was used, but such weapons are illegal here anyhow. In New Zealand, a shotgun was used. Shotguns are legal here, but we do not deal with that in the Bill. That shows that we are not being consistent, and we cannot say that what we are doing tonight will make this country safer, when the place is awash with illegal weapons.
  I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will explain the procedures for all the people who will have their weapons taken away from them.
  Mr. Jack Straw: The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) raised the issue of consistency. It is my belief that the application of consistent principles requires that the House supports the amendments that the Government have proposed today.
  We accept, and always have—I do not think that there has ever been any argument across the Chamber about this, save on one occasion in 1988—that where individuals or businesses lose their property or property rights as a result of legislation or decisions made under legislation, for example, as a result of putting a road through a particular route, it is entirely proper that they should be compensated for that loss. That has been a consistent principle. It is also right that where people lose their business as a result of a motorway going through it, they should be compensated for that total loss of business.
  Before we come to the issue raised by Lords amendment No. 25, it is worth bearing it in mind that—as many of my hon. Friends and I can testify—the motorway compensation principles do not work out all that equitably in practice. I have constituents whose houses are in the line of the M65 motorway link between the M6 and Whitebirk, to the east of Blackburn. Their houses are not directly on the line but are on the edge of the motorway. The Department of Transport has accepted that their property values have declined by more than 15 per cent.— a trigger point for compensation, but because according to the Department the noise levels have not increased sufficiently, those people cannot claim compensation. There are many similar examples.
  I believe that those people should receive compensation, because their property rights have been directly and adversely affected. Their right to compensation must come way above the claim of those who lose a business as a result of legislation.
  Mr. Gale: The Home Office has made it abundantly plain that it expects that small gun clubs will close because they will not be able to meet the security regulations, and as a result larger gun clubs will be set up. Those small clubs have members who have invested. They are not businesses. They are members' clubs. The members own them and have invested in the facilities. If the Bill goes through tonight, as planned, there will be no compensation for those people whatever. What does the hon. Gentleman think about that?
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Straw: I understand that, and although sympathy may come free, I have every sympathy with people in that predicament. I do not, however, believe that on any careful examination such clubs or businesses are in a different position from businesses that were affected by other legislation. I ask Conservative Members in particular, who have always—very honourably—been concerned about the impact of legislation on the public purse, to think about the consequences of agreeing this precedent today, for precedent it is bound to be.
  That is one example, but it is no different from the very adverse effect that legislation had on many businesses that made foam-filled furniture. They did so lawfully and honourably, but, following a change in the law they lost their businesses. The cattle deboning industry was wiped out and received no compensation whatever. Many pharmaceutical companies put drugs on to the market which are lawfully licensed, then some problem arises and they have to take them off. They may lose millions of pounds, as may their shareholders, but they receive no compensation at all.
  Sir Terence Higgins: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about the European convention on human rights? When voting on the amendment today, will he consider the implications of the convention, particularly if it should be incorporated? More important, the shadow Chancellor said very clearly that he would not do anything in excess of the Government's expenditure plans. It is quite clear that if compensation is to be paid—even in the restricted terms proposed by the Home Secretary—the policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates, that of a total ban on all handguns, is bound to be vastly in excess of what the Government propose to incur. What is his position on that?
  Mr. Straw: The compensation that would arise from a complete ban would not be vastly in excess—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It would not. It would be 20 per cent. more than the total, because the .22 ban affects only 20 per cent. of the total.
  The right hon. Gentleman's first point is very important. We thought very carefully about the European convention on human rights, and I am pleased that it is now being prayed in aid on both sides of the House. I look forward in the next Parliament to widespread support for its incorporation. After all, it was drafted in part by a distinguished former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir.
  If one reads carefully the speech of Lord Lester of Herne Hill, who is unquestionably a great expert on the European convention on human rights, one will see that he picked his words with great care. At no stage did he say that in his opinion the compensation scheme proposed by the Government would run foul of the European convention. The most that he said was that it raised powerful arguments about breaches, and we know that when a lawyer says that something raises powerful arguments he is accepting that the case is not all that strong.
  Lord Lester quoted the words of the European Court of Human Rights, which said that it has to be decided whether a fair balance has been struck between the
  806
  demands of the general interest of the community and the requirement to protect an individual's fundamental freedom. That is a fair way of putting the issue before the House. Of course there is an issue of an individual's fundamental freedoms. I wish that, in a perfect world, we could compensate everybody and also protect public safety, but we do not live in a perfect world. We have to make choices. I think that the Government's amendment properly reflects a balance.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Perhaps the caution of Lord Lester is as much as one could expect from such a distinguished lawyer, but it is surely not difficult to distinguish cases such as the factory producing foam-filled mattresses, which my hon. Friend cited, from that of a shooting club, because a factory producing foam-filled mattresses can adapt the premises to produce other forms of mattress. By their nature, purpose-built premises such as those in my constituency cannot adapt and would be totally ruined.
  Mr. Straw: That wholly depends on the particular case. There will be some clubs or gun dealers who will be able to adapt their trade to take account—[Interruption.] Part of the gun trade would be rendered illegal. Part of it was rendered unlawful in 1988, but a large part of the gun trade—rifles and shotguns are still lawfully licensed—remains wholly lawful, and that may include country sports.
  I wish to pick up a point that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made from a sedentary position about other areas in which businesses are affected by legislation. He has represented his constituents with great skill in respect of the textile trade in his constituency, as I have sought to do over the past 18 years in respect of my constituents. The textile industry is a shadow of its former self, not least as a result of Government decisions in accepting, for good reasons or ill, various changes in the multi-fibre arrangement. That arrangement—an international treaty—has led to the closure of whole swathes of the industry; yet not a penny of compensation could be or has been paid to those industries. That is why I say to hon. Members on both sides of the House that, whatever merit they may give the argument, a huge precedent would be created if we were to accept the amendment.
  Mr. John Townend rose—
  Mr. Straw: I will not give way. I am about to finish because others wish to speak.
  The effect of the precedent would be such that, when next we felt that there was a need to improve public safety through legislation, whether in respect of furniture, the pharmaceutical industry, the transport industry or firearms control, Governments and the House would always be constrained and often prevented from making decisions in favour of public safety by the enormous cost involved. Yes, as the European Court of Human Rights said, there is a balance to be struck between individuals' fundamental freedoms and the general interest of the community, but in my judgment and that of my hon. Friends, the balance on this issue must be struck in favour of the general interests of the community as a whole.
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: The argument seems to revolve very much around precedent. I am not a lawyer, but I am

  807
  advised that the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 offers not only compensation in general but compensation for anticipated profit. The national compensation code deals with local authorities and Governments acquiring land, property or businesses and is being applied to businesses required to relocate or extinguish as a result of the channel tunnel rail link. Compensation is also addressed by the Land Compensation Act 1973, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977 and various pieces of highways legislation.
  A Government ordinance to change the foam in a furniture factory, a drug failing or there being tighter control on effluent is completely different from ordinating the cessation of a legitimate business. I am deeply uncomfortable at the moral justice of what we are doing. The Australians very well understand the problem and have managed in their way to give full and fair compensation. If they can do it, we can do it. After all, theirs is a precedent and we can reasonably use it.
  Lords amendment No. 27 concerning clubs is about not dealers or businesses but a handful of individuals who have perhaps put some of their own money against a mortgage, lease or whatever. The sums of money are infinitesimal. Indeed, we cannot estimate the global sum, but the level is about £1 million or £2 million. That is not a lot for the Government but a great deal for the unfortunate individuals involved. I am very, very ashamed of my Government for not agreeing with the amendments.
  Mr. Dalyell: I just want to ask the Home Secretary one factual question. Home Office officials must have been summoned to the Treasury and asked how much, in the next year and the year after, all the Home Office's proposals would cost. What answer did his officials give?
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I rise to speak because I am incensed by what my Government are doing. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) talked about a sense of justice. My goodness, how the Government with this Bill are legislating against justice in every way. Throughout today's debate, one Member after another, from both sides of the House, has pointed out the injustice, illogicality, nonsense and lunacy of the legislation. Surely nothing brings the House into greater disrepute than what it is doing today: legislating in ignorance against justice in order to achieve a particular objective and not permitting proper and full debate.
  I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary earlier what he expects me to do when 30 to 35 per cent. of the business of a family company that I represent—I believe that it was founded by the current chairman's grandfather—is outlawed almost retrospectively by the Government, probably putting its future viability in doubt, preventing it providing jobs for the next generation and putting a number of my constituents out of work as soon as the legislation hits the statute book.
  Why does my right hon. and learned Friend not listen to the sense that is being spoken by Members of all parties? Whatever he may say, the Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to a horrific incident that we all regret. We all sympathise fully with all those who lost children on that occasion. He will come to rue the day that he allowed what I believe is dogma as a result of a particular occasion completely to dominate him—and the sense of justice to which the hon.
  808
  Member for Swansea, East referred to go out of the window. My right hon. and learned Friend does this House no service, he does his party no service and he will not have my support in the Lobby.
  Mr. Howard: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to some of the points that have been made in the debate.
  I of course understand the strong feelings to which the measures have given rise and the indignation of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), but I believe that the Government have come to the right decision on the question of the circumstances in which compensation should be payable. We have to look at these matters with a view to their wider implications, as I sought to explain to my hon. Friend in response to his intervention.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) asked a number of specific questions to which I shall attempt to reply in the time available. He asked about the transitional arrangements for the handing in of guns. Those are at present under discussion between the Government, the Association of Chief Police Officers and ACPO in Scotland. I very much hope that the matter will be able to be dealt with in precisely the spirit that my right hon. Friend suggested that it should be.
  We expect to be able to publish the security criteria for clubs as a consultation document with the British Shooting Sports Council, the firearms consultative committee and others—I hope reasonably soon. We hope to bring forward for parliamentary approval a compensation scheme before Easter. The timing of the surrender and compensation arrangements, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries specifically asked me, will depend on securing that approval.
  The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked about the total cost of compensation to be provided under the Bill. That is of course dealt with in the explanatory and financial memorandum, which sets out that the total cost of compensation is estimated to be in the region of £150 million.
  Mr. Marlow: I should like to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a short political question. He knows that the election is due by 1 May, that this Bill is bad legislation and that the Conservative party is opposed to it. Why on earth in God's name is he persisting with it?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend knows the answer to that question, because I have given it to him on a number of occasions. He has posed similar questions during our debates on the legislation.
  The amendments, with which I invite the House to disagree, would extend the arrangements for compensation beyond any of those that we have had before in comparable circumstances. I do not believe that it would be justifiable to ask the taxpayer to pay for such an extension. We have had to strike a difficult balance between our responsibilities to the taxpayer and our desire to compensate those who will suffer as a consequence of the legislation. I believe that we have struck the right balance, and on that basis I invite the House to disagree with the Lords amendment.
  Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the side amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 319, Noes 140.

  Division No. 79]

  [7.29 pm

  Ayes

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth Kinross)

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Amess, David

  Darling, Alistair

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Davidson, Ian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Day, Stephen

  Ashby, David

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Baldry, Tony

  Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Barron, Kevin

  Dowd, Jim

  Bates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dunn, Bob

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Berry, Roger

  Dykes, Hugh

  Betts, Clive

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Blunkett, David

  Elletson, Harold

  Boateng, Paul

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Boswell, Tim

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Evennett, David

  Bowis, John

  Faber, David

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brazier, Julian

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Flynn, Paul

  Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burns, Simon

  Foulkes, George

  Butler, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Canavan, Dennis

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

  Fyfe, Mrs Maria

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  George, Bruce

  Clappison, James

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushclilfe)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Gordon, Ms Mildred

  Clelland, David

  Graham, Thomas

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Coe, Sebastian

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Congdon, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Connarty, Michael

  Gunnell, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

  Hain, Peter

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Harris, David

  Couchman, James

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cox, Tom

  Heald, Oliver

  Cran, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Henderson, Doug

  810

  Hendry, Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Home Robertson, John

  Mudie, George

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Mullin, Chris

  Horam, John

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Nelson, Anthony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Neubert, Sir Michael

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

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

  Norris, Steve

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Olner, Bill

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Ingram, Adam

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

  Paice, James

  Jamieson, David

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

  Pickles, Eric

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Jowell, Ms Tessa

  Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

  Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

  Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Knapman, Roger

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Primarolo, Ms Dawn

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Kynoch, George

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Reid, Dr John

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Legg, Barry

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Litheriand, Robert

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Loyden, Eddie

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Luff, Peter

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sackville, Tom

  McAllion, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Salmond, Alex

  Macdonald, Calum

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  McFall, John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sheerman, Barry

  McKelvey, William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Simpson, Alan

  McLeish, Henry

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Snape, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Soames, Nicholas

  MacShane, Denis

  Soley, Clive

  Madden, Max

  Spellar, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Malone, Gerald

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Spring, Richard

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Sproat, Iain

  Mates, Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Maxton, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Meacher, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Meale, Alan

  Stephen, Michael

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Stewart, Allan

  Merchant, Piers

  Straw, Jack

  Michael, Alun

  Streeter, Gary

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Sykes, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  811

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wilkinson, John

  Thomason, Roy

  Willetts, David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Tipping, Paddy

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

  Winnick, David

  Tredinnick, David

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Trend, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Trickett, Jon

  Wood, Timothy

  Trotter, Neville

  Worthington, Tony

  Turner, Dennis

  Wray, Jimmy

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Waterson, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, Mike

  Mr. Matthew Carrington

  Watts, John

  and

  Wells, Bowen

  Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  NOES

  Alton, David

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Hoey, Kate

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Jessel, Toby

  Beggs, Roy

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Jones, Dr Lynne

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  (B'ham Selly Oak)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Key, Robert

  Butcher, John

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Butterfill, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Cann, Jamie

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Carlisle, John (Luton N)

  Lewis, Terry

  Cash, William

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Churchill, Mr

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

  Lord, Michael

  Colvin, Michael

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dalyell, Tam

  Maddock, Mrs Diana

  Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Marland, Paul

  Dover, Den

  Marlow, Tony

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Forman, Nigel

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Gill, Christopher

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Gorst, Sir John

  Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

  Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Hannam, Sir John

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hardy, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Harvey, Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Porter, David

  Hicks, Sir Robert

  Rathbone, Tim

  812

  Rendel, David

  Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

  Richards, Rod

  Thumham, Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tracey, Richard

  Rooney, Terry

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowe, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

  Wallace, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Whittingdale, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wilshire, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Sweeney, Walter

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Rupert Allason and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mr. Robert Banks.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be recorded that in the 140 were the overwhelming number of those—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I am trying to listen to a point of order. Will Members leaving the Chamber do so quietly, please?
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could it be recorded, as it was after the previous debate, that the 140 included the overwhelming number of those who had actually been in the Chamber listening to the debate?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. It is not a point of order for the occupant of the Chair.
  It being after half-past Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions to be decided at that hour, pursuant to the Order this day.
  Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to [Special Entry].

  Lords amendment: No. 27, insert the following new Clause—
  New Clause

    COMPENSATION FOR CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS
    (".—(1) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with a scheme made by him, make payments to persons who on 16th October 1996 were operating a target shooting club or association which as a result of the provisions of this Act will be unable to continue to operate.
    (2) A scheme under subsection (1) above shall provide payments in respect of loss incurred by persons who have responsibility for any debt, mortgage, lease or other liability in connection with the club or association.")
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 305,Noes 145.

    Division No. 80]

    [7.43 pm

    Ayes

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Currie, Mrs Edwina

    Ainger, Nick

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Darling, Alistair

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Davidson, Ian

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Boothferry)

    Amess, David

    Day, Stephen

    Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Arbuthnot, James

    Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

    Armstrong, Ms Hilary

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Douglas-Hamilton, Rt Hon Lord James

    Ashby, David

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Dowd, Jim

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Duncan, Alan

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Dunn, Bob

    Baldry, Tony

    Eagle, Ms Angela

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Elletson, Harold

    Barron, Kevin

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Bates, Michael

    Ennis, Jeff

    Bayley, Hugh

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

    Berry, Roger

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Betts, Clive

    Evennett, David

    Boateng, Paul

    Faber, David

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fabricant, Michael

    Booth, Hartley

    Faulds, Andrew

    Boswell, Tim

    Fenner, Dame Peggy

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Flynn, Paul

    Bowis, John

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Bradley, Keith

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Foulkes, George

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

    Brazier, Julian

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

    Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

    French, Douglas

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Fyfe, Mrs Maria

    Burns, Simon

    Garnier, Edward

    Butler, Peter

    George, Bruce

    Byers, Stephen

    Gerrard, Neil

    Callaghan, Jim

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Canavan, Dennis

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

    Gordon, Ms Mildred

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Graham, Thomas

    Chisholm, Malcolm

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clappison, James

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Gummer, Rt Hon John

    Gunnell, John

    Clelland, David

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Hain, Peter

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Coe, Sebastian

    Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

    Cohen, Harry

    Hawkins, Nick

    Congdon, David

    Heald, Oliver

    Connarty, Michael

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Conway, Derek

    Henderson, Doug

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

    Hendry, Charles

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Heppell, John

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Couchman, James

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cox, Tom

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Cran, James

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

    Cunliffe, Lawrence

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

    Horam, John

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

    Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    814

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

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

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Olner, Bill

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Page, Richard

    Ingram, Adam

    Paice, James

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Patnick, Sir Irvine

    Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

    Patten, Rt Hon John

    Jamieson, David

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

    Pickles, Eric

    Jessel, Toby

    Pope, Greg

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Prentice, Mrs Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

    Jowell, Ms Tessa

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Primarolo, Ms Dawn

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Raynsford, Nick

    Knapman, Roger

    Reid, Dr John

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

    Kynoch, George

    Robathan, Andrew

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Legg, Barry

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

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Lidington, David

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

    Litherland, Robert

    Sackville, Tom

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

    Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

    Luff, Peter

    Salmond, Alex

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    McAllion, John

    Sedgemore, Brian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Sheerman, Barry

    Macdonald, Calum

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    McFall, John

    Simpson, Alan

    MacKay, Andrew

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    McKelvey, William

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Snape, Peter

    McLeish, Henry

    Soames, Nicholas

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Soley, Clive

    McMaster, Gordon

    Spellar, John

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Spencer, Sir Derek

    MacShane, Denis

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Madel, Sir David

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Spring, Richard

    Malone, Gerald

    Sproat, Iain

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Squire, Ms Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Martlew, Eric

    Steen, Anthony

    Mates, Michael

    Stephen, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Stewart, Allan

    Maxton, John

    Straw, Jack

    Meacher, Michael

    Streeter, Gary

    Meale, Alan

    Sykes, John

    Mellor, Rt Hon David

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Merchant, Piers

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Michael, Alun

    Taylor, Ian (Esher)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Miller, Andrew

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

    Thomason, Roy

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Thornton, Sir Malcolm

    Morley, Elliot

    Tipping, Paddy

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

    Moss, Malcolm

    Tredinnick, David

    Mullin, Chris

    Trend, Michael

    Needham, Rt Hon Richard

    Trickett, Jon

    Nelson, Anthony

    Turner, Dennis

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Norris, Steve

    Walden, George

    815

    Waterson, Nigel

    Winnick, David

    Watson, Mike

    Wise, Mrs Audrey

    Watts, John

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wells, Bowen

    Wood, Timothy

    Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

    Worthington, Tony

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Wray, Jimmy

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Yeo, Tim

    Wilkinson, John

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Willetts, David

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Mr. Richard Ottaway and

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Mr. Matthew Carrington.

    NOES

    Alton, David

    Hughes, Simon (Southward)

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

    Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

    Hunter, Andrew

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Illsley, Eric

    Barnes, Harry

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Batiste, Spencer

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Beggs, Roy

    Bendall, Vivian

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Body, Sir Richard

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Bowden, Sir Andrew

    Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

    Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

    Key, Robert

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

    Butcher, John

    Lawrence, Sir Ivan

    Butterfill, John

    Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Lewis, Terry

    Cann, Jamie

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Cash, William

    Lord, Michael

    Churchill, Mr

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Colvin, Michael

    Maclennan, Robert

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Maddock, Mrs Diana

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Marland, Paul

    Dalyell, Tam

    Marlow, Tony

    Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

    Marshall, John (Hendon S)

    Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Dover, Den

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Durant, Sir Anthony

    Moate, Sir Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Montgomery, Sir Fergus

    Fomnan, Nigel

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

    Gale, Roger

    Pawsey, James

    Gallie, Phil

    Pearson, Ian

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

    Porter, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Rathbone, Tim

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Rendel, David

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Richards, Rod

    Gorst, Sir John

    Riddick, Graham

    Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Greenway, John (Ryedale)

    Rowe, Andrew

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

    Hannam, Sir John

    Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

    Harris, David

    Shersby, Sir Michael

    Harvey, Nick

    Sims, Sir Roger

    Haselhurst, Sir Alan

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Hicks, Sir Robert

    Skinner, Dennis

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Hoey, Kate

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Home Robertson, John

    Spearing, Nigel

    Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildf'd)

    Speed, Sir Keith

    Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    816

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Waller, Gary

    Sumberg, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Welsh, Andrew

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Whittingdale, John

    Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Thurnham, Peter

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Wilshire, David

    Tracey, Richard

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Tyler, Paul

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

    Mr. Rupert Allason and

    Wallace, James

    Mr. Robert Banks.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.
    Lords amendment No. 93 disagreed to.
    Amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment agreed to.

  Clause 20

    EXEMPTIONS FROM SECTION 1 OF THE 1968 ACT FOR OFFICERS ETC. OF LICENSED PISTOL CLUBS
    Lords amendment: No. 40, in page 10, line 16, at end insert—
    ("(3) A member of a licensed pistol club approved by the Secretary of State may, without holding a firearm certificate, use under the supervision of an officer of the club, for a period not exceeding 60 consecutive days, a small—calibre pistol and ammunition when engaged as a member of the club in, or in connection with, target shooting.")
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of the said amendment.
    Miss Widdecombe: Amendment No. 40 goes too wide in its effects and would pose a risk to the public. It would allow any club licensed by the Home Secretary to offer a facility to any member to shoot there without holding a firearms certificate. It would not be limited to starter shooters, but would apply to any member who did not hold a firearms certificate, and that might include members whose certificates had been revoked by the police.
    The police have expressed concern about the length of time—60 days—that the amendment would allow a person to shoot. It should be possible for a novice to make up his mind whether he wishes to pursue the sport of target pistol shooting in a shorter period than 60 days.
    Mr. John Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend explain why she thinks a new shooter could learn to shoot in 28 days rather than 60? I am sure that she appreciates that a novice will not be able to spend all those 28 days learning to shoot—people have to work or go to school. When their Lordships accepted the amendment, they considered the number of days that it would take a person new to the sport to learn it.
    Miss Widdecombe: It is not a question of the starter shooter learning the sport: it is a question of the

    817
    starter shooter deciding whether he wishes to pursue the sport and, therefore, whether to apply for a firearms certificate. We do not expect that a starter shooter would become proficient in 28 days, but that is long enough for him to decide whether he likes the sport and wishes to pursue it.
    Mr. Frank Cook: Why is it undesirable to extend the number of days from 28 to 60? A person might try shooting once and then have to go away, perhaps even on a parliamentary visit. After 29 days, he would be out of time and have to start all over again. What is so objectionable about the days from the 29th day to the 60th day?
    Miss Widdecombe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that any limit we set will be arbitrary, whether 60, 70, 50, 40, 90, 100 days or whatever. We have to try to find a reasonable limit that will meet the concerns of the police and, at the same time, meet the principle behind the amendment—that there should be a period in which someone can go to a club and decide whether he likes to shoot.
    Mr. Cook: But 28 days is not reasonable.
    Miss Widdecombe: I have already tried to explain that to the hon. Gentleman. If he does not understand it, I cannot assist him.
    We accept the principle behind the amendment, but we cannot accept the detail. Moreover, in the Government's response of 16 October 1996 to Lord Cullen's report, we said that we would make special provisional arrangements for starter shooters. It is unreasonable to expect people interested in the sport to pay the fee and obtain a firearms certificate for a small-calibre pistol before that person has had a chance to try it out. If the sport of target pistol shooting is to continue, licensed pistol clubs should be able to offer facilities to new members who are unsure whether to become full certificate holders.
    My noble Friend Lady Blatch gave an undertaking on behalf of the Government that a more appropriate amendment would be introduced at this stage in the Bill's passage. Therefore, the amendments that we have tabled allow the Secretary of State, when he issues a licence to a pistol club, to permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols without a firearms certificate at that club for a period of up to 28 days. That does not mean that they will be able to shoot on any 28 separate days but that the last day on which they shoot without a certificate should be no later than 28 days after the first.
    Amendments (a) and (b) are technical amendments, which are included in this group for convenience, but they do not relate directly to starter shooters.
    8 pm
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a technical point, is my right hon. Friend predicting that there will be a charge for that permission? The chief constable will have to give his permission, and presumably there will be some bureaucracy. Is there any suggestion of a charge being made? What is the initial cost of a firearms certificate, at the end of the 28 days?
    Miss Widdecombe: The cost of the firearms certificate at the conclusion of the 28 days will be same as if the
    818
    person had applied before the 28-day period. The idea is that, when the Secretary of State issues a licence to a club, he can permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols.
    Amendment (c) allows clubs to have pistols that may be used by starter shooters. Amendment (d) is a consequential amendment and amendment (e) allows the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on the licence. Not all clubs will be granted that facility. The Secretary of State would have to be satisfied that a club had in place sufficient supervisory and other controls to ensure that a starter shooter could safely be allowed to practise.
    Amendment (f) sets out the main provisions that I have described, and limits the length of time for the starter shooters' trial period to 28 days. Whether the Secretary of State allows the concession to starter shooters at any particular club will be a matter for him to decide. The amendments also allow him, if he considers it right, to make the concession to some licensed clubs but not to others. In deciding whether to allow starter shooters to shoot without a police certificate at a particular licensed club, he will be able to take account of all the circumstances, including the amount of supervision and training that the club might agree to devote to novice shooters and any concerns that the chief officer of police might have about the operation of the concession at the club in question.
    Mr. Henderson: When I was about 27 years old, some of my mates persuaded me to try winter hill walking and ice climbing in Scotland. I spent a great amount of money before I even got out of the car—buying gloves, hats, cagoules, ice axes, crampons and other items—and I remember thinking, "I hope that I enjoy this once I start, because, otherwise, I will have wasted a lot of money." Therefore, I have much sympathy with people who might fancy themselves as target shooters, and I realise that significant costs are involved, especially when starting.
    Therefore, it is appropriate to have a trial period in which people can decide whether they think that it is a sport for them, whether they like the environment that it offers and whether they are prepared to invest in the necessary equipment. As I had to make a decision before I even stepped on to the mountain, I think that 28 days is a reasonably generous period to allow someone to decide. If they are motivated, it will intensify their efforts to decide whether they like target shooting. It is a reasonable amount of time, and I support the Government's amendments in lieu of Lords amendment No. 40.
    Mr. John Carlisle: My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that we do not intend to divide the House on this measure, although, like the rest of the Bill, it involves a matter of principle. Overturning the Lords' suggestion of allowing 60 days and substituting 28 is somewhat disappointing. I have already explained to her the various possible practical difficulties with people who might not use the full the 28-day period, because they might be sick, at work, require a sudden holiday or have a family bereavement. Therefore, 28 days is not a very long period.
    The principle behind providing a period for starter shooters and behind their Lordships' amendment was to encourage young shooters—when possible, in a somewhat alien world. Part of the reaction to the Bill and to the Dunblane tragedy has been for some organisations that work with young people to react, like the Government,

    819
    in a knee-jerk fashion, which has caused disappointment. Those organisations, such as the scout movement, for example, are now actively considering banning all forms of target practice among their members. I think that some troops have already banned target practice. There have even been some problems with the Duke of Edinburgh award, which, as hon. Members will know, was the subject of early-day motion 402.
    It is incumbent on the House to encourage people, particularly youngsters, to take up the sport, as it is still a legitimate sport—or at least what will be left of it after the passage of this awful Bill is still legitimate. It is somewhat incongruous that, in only the past couple of weeks, we have heard proposals from the Prime Minister to encourage combined cadet forces in schools. In only the past few days, we have heard that the military services, because they are short of personnel, are actively trying to recruit 16-year-olds. However, we are not encouraging—as I think that we should be—youngsters who want to take up the sport of shooting.
    Provision of a 28-day period is somewhat mean-minded of the Government, and I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) that it is difficult to understand why it should not be 60 days instead of 28. In principle, however, we must encourage young people. We have obtained at least something from the Government, but not very much.
    Mr. Frank Cook: I can understand that the Minister and the Government cannot accept Lords amendment No. 8. I am also not surprised by their position, because of the attitude that they have expressed on so many other matters. However, I have yet to hear why the amendment is unacceptable. The hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) has adequately explored the confusion over the Government's position.
    I am still astonished, however, that a 60-day period is unacceptable. The Minister has told the House that the Secretary of State has within his gift the ability to allow the concession. He can give the concession, he can withhold it—he can do whatever he likes with it. However, a 60-day period is still not acceptable. I know that the period will be arbitrary, but why have the Government chosen 28 days? We are wasting a lot of time on disagreeing with those in another place who made a good argument and were able to pass an amendment. That is exceedingly wilful.
    I am also astonished by the attitude adopted by Opposition Front Benchers. Unless circumstances have changed and I am not aware of the change, the Labour party has made a sworn declaration that it will ban all handguns once it gets into power. Nevertheless, we are talking about approving a 28-day period in which people can decide whether they enjoy taking part in a sport that will eventually be denied to them. So many illogical events are occurring. If the events were taking place in a music hall, I would enjoy them, but, as they are occurring in a legislative Chamber, I am appalled. I do not know where we go from here. I appeal sincerely for hon. Members to think again before engaging in an argument that they apparently do not fully understand.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: It would be churlish not to thank the Government for accepting the principle. Had the amendment not been made, it would have been virtually
    820
    impossible for anyone wanting to take up shooting to do so without spending a great deal of money—the amount of which we shall no doubt hear later—to get a firearms certificate from scratch and without trying the sport. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), but I have to tell him that .22 shooting is, in my long experience, a great deal more pleasant than ice climbing. I must say that I have never been ice climbing, and the thought of it fills me with horror.
    I do not know why we are reducing the total from 60 days to 28 days, but it is symptomatic of the neurotic approach that the Government have to the sport. Anyone with a gun in his hand is, to them, lethal and dangerous, and has to be surrounded by regulations, forms, certificates and security to the point that we are locking ordinary people out of the sport. I am grateful for this opportunity, under pretty stringent conditions, to make that point.
    The only thing that worries the shooters is that they take a few weeks to get to know anyone whom they will admit to a club. Normally, clubs have a probationary membership period of at least three months, and sometimes six months, before they will accept anyone, for reasons that we well understand. Limiting this to 28 days will make that personal contact rather difficult. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will take that point and, if in the future the regulations are altered, one of the weaknesses will be the short time available for regulars to get to know a newcomer.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I seek some guidance from the Minister in relation to amendment (g), which refers to clause 23 and the preceding clause 22. If clause 23 is amended in the way that the Minister seeks, would it prevent a recurrence of a tragic event that happened in my constituency a few days ago? That case illustrates the need for the police to have the strongest powers concerning licensed club members who are under criminal investigation.
    I have raised this case with the Secretary of State for Scotland and have urged upon him the need for an early fatal accident inquiry into this case, in which a member of the Greenock gun club was charged in Greenock sheriff court with using lewd and libidinous practices in relation to four young boys. He was released from court and, literally hours later—despite the fact that the police had removed his personal weapons from his home and from the club—was able to enter the club, open a weapons locker and use one of the weapons contained therein to commit suicide. The police acted properly and efficiently in confiscating his weapons.
    Sir Jerry Wiggin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Time is short, and it is just conceivable that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is speaking to a different amendment from the one we are discussing. We should like to hear the Minister's response. I think the hon. Gentleman mentioned Lords amendment No. 2, which we are not discussing.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is quite right. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the amendment, and he may be referring to Lords amendment No. 2.
    Dr. Godman: I am referring to amendment (g), which deals with clause 23 and is concerned with the power

    821
    of entry and inspection of clubs. I appreciate that time is of the essence, but I am seeking to impress upon the Minister that when members of gun clubs are being investigated by the police, not only should they have their weapons removed—as happened in Greenock—but, in terms of the operation and management of these clubs as provided for by clause 23, they should be refused access to the premises. That is why I am seeking an assurance from the Minister along these lines, because this tragedy could have been avoided. It points the way to similar tragedies taking place if, by way of the management of these clubs, such a person is still allowed access.
    Miss Widdecombe: In the one minute that remains, I shall try to address the specific points that have been raised. First, I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) that the cost of granting a firearms certificate will be £56, and for a pistol club licence £150. There will be no extra charge for clubs which allow starter shooters. I hope that that is helpful to him.
    As to the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) concerning the tragedy in his constituency—I well understand his concern—it is very difficult to see how somebody being investigated by the police could be automatically banned from entering a club if he was not already in possession of a certificate.
    It being fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to the Order this day.
    Lords amendment disagreed to.
    Government amendments (a) to (g) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 1 to 7, Nos. 9 to 11, Nos. 13 and 14, No. 15 and Government amendment (a) thereto and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 16 to 24, agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 33, No. 34 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and Nos. 35 to 39 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 41 to 49, No. 50 and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 51 to 70 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 71, after clause 32, to insert the following new clause—Register of holders of shot gun and firearm certificates—
  ".—(1) There shall be established a central register of all persons who have applied for a firearm or shot gun certificate or to whom a firearm or shot gun certificate has been granted or whose certificate has been renewed.
  (2) The register shall—

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

  (b) be kept by means of a computer which provides access on—line to all police forces."

  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: Perhaps I shall not be out of order if I refer briefly to the comments of the hon. Member for
  822
  Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I am sorry for interrupting him in the last few seconds of the previous debate.
  I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. The shooting fraternity will have taken notice of the incident that he has mentioned, and will want to take security measures to prevent such an event in future. I strongly suspect that, when the Home Office comes forward with stronger security provisions, there will be some double locking or double entry, or something of that sort, to secure armouries. Those armouries will be attractive places to go, full of complete weapons. We have already had that debate, and I shall be out of order if I go further on that. The shooting community will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
  The history of the computerisation and registering of firearms has been bedevilled by the fact that we have so many different police forces. As in so many other areas, this is not a unified operation. The British Shooting Sports Council asked more than five years ago for a civilian firearms board to supervise the issue and monitor the numbers of all shotguns, rifles and revolvers, so that there was a use to be had from such a register.
  Until a short time ago, if a firearm was discovered late on a Friday evening by one police force, there was no way in which all the other police forces in the country could be asked whether it was on their register. Thirteen police forces use one sort of computer, six use another, and the others all deal with some separate system. In any event, the systems are not connected by telephone.
  The system of registering firearms was not responsive to the needs of the police. That seemed pretty crazy to us, so we proposed an independent board. We believed that that would be cheaper and more efficient. We visualised it being staffed by ex-firearms officers or armourers, or people with an expert knowledge of shooting and shooters. A firearms officer would get to know all the shooting fraternity in the county and the dealers, and would be well in with the shooting world.
  Prejudice broke in somewhere. After an amazing series of reports by various accountants, the Home Office finally came up with a figure of £10 million a year to run such a service. For about 1.1 million shotguns and, let us say, about 500,000 rifles and revolvers—I forget the exact total—that seemed rather a lot of money. Sadly, we have never seen some of the accountancy reports behind that decision.
  A central register would go some way towards providing a practical response that the shooters are perfectly happy about. We have no worry about details of our weapons and their numbers being kept on a computer. We want the machinery to be useful. Nothing is more purposeless than bureaucracy with no pay-off.
  I do not say that we welcome the precise terms of the new clause, but we are prepared to accept it. We can see some good coming out of it. When she starts to deal with the practicalities of the Bill, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will impress firmly on the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) the necessity of the police forces talking to each other by computer. It is ludicrous that they are so far apart in this day and age.
  Some of those measures will cost money that will have to come out of other budgets. The Home Office has dragged its feet on the issue. The shooting fraternity can

  823
  rightly say that it has pressed the Home Office on the issue without success. It has needed a disaster of the sort that we have had before any action is taken. This is at least a step in the right direction.
  Mr. Frank Cook: I shall speak on this amendment because of the Minister's response to my accusation of negligence during the debate on the limitation of time motion. She announced that there were proposals for a register later in the Bill. I was pleased to hear that—until I looked at the proposals.
  Hon. Members will remember that, when describing the procedures for the Metropolitan police, I identified six agencies that are checked by a certificating officer before any certificate is issued: he checks with the domestic violence unit; he checks with the local intelligence officer; he checks section SO18 for adult cautions; he checks the police national computer for convictions; he checks with Infos, the intelligence pool; and he checks the general registry, which is a library of all surplus files of unfounded allegations that have no result.
  That is fine for London. The certificating officer can expose a Jack the lad who has been anti-social and would appear unsuitable for the custodianship of a weapon, but if the same Jack the lad disappears to Sussex, there is no guarantee that the local constabulary will conduct the same inquiry.
  The provision in Lords amendment No. 71 for a register of holders of shotgun and firearms certificates would therefore tell of those who have been successful and perhaps those who have applied and not got a certificate, but it will not give the full reasons. It will still be possible, not for someone to move out of London and get one elsewhere, but for someone who has been refused one elsewhere to move to London and get one.
  While the move towards a register is a move to the good and I welcome it, I must point out to the Minister that it does not go far enough. Furthermore, it does not take care of the weapons. We need not only a register of holders of firearms, but a register of the weapons themselves. If there are to be legal and illegal weapons, we need to be able to distinguish one from the other. Patently, the provision for that sort of check does not exist under the amendment.
  8.30 pm
  Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about the need for an independent body, we need better provision within the police force for expert opinion. In far too many constabularies, the duties required under previous firearms legislation have been conducted by constables, who have been well intentioned and keen to be conscientious, but who were poorly trained. Frequently, they are moved around—it is said, for career development—from one area to another, so they do not acquire the expertise necessary for consideration of these matters. I hope that the Minister of State will accept my comments and observations in the spirit in which I have made them, and will try to be constructive in her response.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am prompted by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) to say a word about communication.
  824
  If police forces had talked to one another—and, frankly, if Members of Parliament and local authorities had talked to one another—the tragedy of Dunblane might not have happened. In 1988, prompted by Mrs. Paula Morby, then of Linlithgow, I was brought face to face with the case of Thomas Hamilton. That lady complained bitterly that she was unhappy about her son being taken away to camp by a man she did not care for at all. Incidentally, all I am saying now was said to the Cullen inquiry and to the police.
  To cut a long story short, Hamilton came to my surgery and subsequently to my house, and was extremely angry that I had brought the police into what he would call the destruction of his boys' club in Linlithgow. Eventually, when he moved out of Linlithgow, I did little more about it, other than talk to my then parliamentary colleague Alex Eadie, who then represented Midlothian.
  There were two things that we did not know. The first was that Hamilton was moving around the country. Had I pooled knowledge with my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), who had had similar experiences, or with my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), it might all have been different, but it never occurred to us to swap information. I think that I speak for my colleagues in saying that none of us had the slightest notion that that man was involved with guns.
  I have drawn the conclusion—hindsight is a wonderful thing, incidentally—that in future there must be communication. It is a double-edged sword, as there can be communication on great unfairnesses between individuals, but this is a matter of judgment, and I do not see how else it can be done. We are entitled to emphasise the importance of communication between police forces.
  Miss Widdecombe: The amendment requires the establishment of a national register of firearm and shotgun certificate holders. I can give the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) some reassurance, although perhaps not as much as he would like, inasmuch as one of the categories that he was asking to be covered can be.
  The system that we are discussing with the police is called Phoenix, and it will be able to hold details of people who have had firearms or shotgun certificates refused or revoked, so it will not merely be holders. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I am afraid that it is as helpful as I can be, and I cannot include the other things he asked for at this juncture on that system.
  Mr. Frank Cook: Only eight negligences.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am glad to find that they are reduced by one. When the hon. Gentleman studies carefully what we have done, he might reduce the list by some more.
  Before I deal with the substance of this debate, I should like to complete, if I may, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I think that I probably may—the comments that I was endeavouring to make before I was cruelly cut off last time.
  What I was saying might have sounded negative to the hon. Member for Stockton, North, but only because it was the first half of the sentence, and I did not get to the second half. I was trying to point out that it would not automatically be known if a starter shooter was being investigated, but that the Secretary of State will not

  825
  license clubs to have starter shooters unless he is satisfied that their security precautions are good, and, for example, that there is adequate one-to-one supervision.
  It is not proposed that starter shooters should be able to go to a club and automatically reach out, take a gun and have unsupervised handling of it. I hope that that is some consolation to the hon. Gentleman. It would be difficult for the grounds that someone was being investigated to act as a criterion alone, because it would presuppose knowledge, which might not be there. Certainly, if a responsible officer of the club were being investigated, there would be a case for closing the club, so there are safeguards.
  Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I suspect that you did not hear me, but I digressed a little.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): I heard the right hon. Lady very clearly and concisely. If she had gone further, it would have been brought to her attention.
  Miss Widdecombe: I am grateful for your tolerance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I return to the substance of the amendment, and the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) about the setting up of a central firearms control board to issue certificates. Lord Cullen did not favour the removal from the police of any of the functions concerned with the operation of the present system—that can be found in chapter 8, paragraph 5. We have accepted that recommendation, and agreed with that view.
  There was certainly no suggestion that we rejected such a control board simply on the grounds of cost or any such consideration. It was also rejected because such a board would create duplication of effort—there would still be a need for continued police involvement even if a central board were set up.
  On that basis, I think that we are right to agree with the Lords in their amendment. We do not see a reason for making a national database a statutory requirement, but we are committed to setting it up, and I therefore do not intend to oppose the amendment.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 72 to 75 agreed to.

  Clause 34

    POWER OF SEARCH WITH WARRANT
    Lords amendment: No. 76, in page 18, line 26, at end insert—
    ("(3A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (2)(b) above to seize and detain anything found on any premises or place shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises or place to be produced in a form in which it is visible and legible and can be taken away.")
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The amendment has already been discussed. The hon. Gentleman has missed his opportunity.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 78, and No. 79 and Government amendment (a) thereto, agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 80 to 83, No. 84 and Government amendment (a) thereto, and No. 85 agreed to.

  Clause 36

    APPROVED RIFLE CLUBS
    Lords amendment: No. 86, in page 20, line 16, at end insert—
    ("(7A) The power of a constable or civilian officer under subsection (7) above to inspect anything on club premises shall include power to require any information which is kept by means of a computer and is accessible from the premises to be made available for inspection in a visible and legible form.")
    Mr. Dalyell rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that this, too, has already been discussed.
    Lords amendment agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 87 to 92 and No. 94 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 95, after clause 40, to insert the following new clause—
  ("—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional and consequential provisions and such savings as he considers necessary or expedient in preparation for, in connection with, or in consequence of—

  (a) the coming into force of any provision of this Act; or

  (b) the operation of any enactment repealed or amended by a provision of this Act during any period when the repeal or amendment is not wholly in force.

  (2) Regulations under this section may make modifications of any enactment contained in this or in any other Act.
  (3) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Miss Widdecombe.]
  8.45 pm
  Sir Jerry Wiggin: The amendment, which appeared at the 11th hour, appears to someone such as myself—I am not qualified as a barrister—to give sweeping powers to the Home Secretary. I have, however, been given an absolute undertaking that it refers only to the transition period and will help to smooth out minor irregularities and problems.
  Bearing in mind the fact that there are those in the shooting community who have got rather overexcited about the provision, I should be very grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could explain why it was introduced at such a late stage and repeat the undertaking, so that shooters will not feel that there is a Henry VIII clause at the end of the legislation that will act to their disadvantage, at the Home Secretary's discretion.
  Mr. John Carlisle: I endorse my hon. Friend's comments. My right hon. Friend the Minister will not be

  827
  surprised to hear that a certain amount of suspicion was aroused among members of the shooting fraternity as this late amendment was bounced into the Bill. Frankly, they felt—I choose my words delicately—somewhat let down by the Government over the whole of the Bill.
  This evening's proceedings have been remarkable—almost unique—in that every single speech and intervention, other than those from the Front Benches, has been opposed to the principle of the Bill and to particular items in it. Not one speech has been made entirely in favour of any measure in the Bill—not even the 28-day limit.
  Clarification is sought by the shooting fraternity, whose members have been amazingly patient during our proceedings, even about the fact that our debate on some extremely important issues is being unnecessarily truncated this evening, as it was on a previous occasion.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister will have noticed that the votes in favour of the Lords amendments on disassembly and compensation for clubs and for dealers were remarkably high. I have no doubt that newspaper headlines tomorrow will say that that has been the biggest revolt of this Parliament so far—a Parliament that is at its fag end. There is deep unhappiness throughout the country, not only among the shooting fraternity, but among those who believe in justice, fairness and generosity, which the Bill has not demonstrated in any measure.
  We need a clear explanation that the measure is purely transitional and that the Home Secretary, whoever it may be at the time, will not be able to pick out items for which he or she might have an especial liking and change the Bill before it hits the statute book—on whichever sad day that happens. I know that I speak on behalf of many people who have written to me and of many of my constituents who have expressed deep concern about the Bill and the way in which it has been handled by the Government.
  Mr. Dalyell: One of the things that may happen in the transition period is the discovery that many of the clubs to which we have been light-heartedly referring have ceased to exist. It is my understanding that in central Scotland there are only two clubs, neither of which is particularly accessible to my constituents or to a lot of other people.
  Another question that it is legitimate to peg to this is: who exactly are the civilian officers who are referred to throughout the Bill, and what qualifications do they have?
  Mr. Gill: Like my hon. Friends the Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), I seek an assurance that the powers will be used moderately. There is always a great suspicion that such powers will go far beyond what the House would want.
  The House is well aware of the great upset among shooters about the Bill as a whole. They feel that they have been scapegoated for the events of Dunblane. None of us could fail to have been impressed by both the number and the quality of the letters that we have received about the Bill. We are all used to receiving many letters on many subjects, but I have been incredibly impressed by the quality of the letters and the force of the arguments, as well as by the sense of outrage that comes through all the letters from people whose sport is being outlawed.
  828
  It is quite without precedent that people who were quietly and peaceably enjoying a sport should find that at the drop of a hat it is no longer legal. There will be continuing unhappiness as a result of the refusal of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to allow for any form of consequential loss for those who have lost their businesses, either as suppliers to the trade or as operators of clubs. None of this ill-conceived, unwelcome, unwarranted legislation does anything to address the problem of firearms that are held without licence—the hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms. There must be some suspicion that, in taking the powers under this amendment, we have not heard the last of this legislation. I hope that I express the sentiments of shooters who have written to hon. Members to draw attention to their grave reservations about the provision.
  Finally, I underscore what my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said about the unprecedented number of Conservative Members who have voted against the Bill at every stage. It is a deeply unpopular measure and it is regrettable that it has come to the House. As a Conservative Member, I have to say that it is not a Conservative measure.
  Miss Widdecombe: I give the House an absolute assurance that this is not, and was never intended to be, any sort of Henry VIII clause. The new clause makes it clear that its powers are purely in respect of transitional and consequential provisions, of provisions that are already written into the Bill. It does not give any wider powers to the Secretary of State.
  We introduced the powers late, because the fast passage of the Bill and the necessity to introduce tighter controls on firearms in the near future made us decide that over the next few months some minor anomaly might become evident. We wanted to have the necessary powers to deal with that. There is no question whatever, and I say this categorically and give an absolute assurance, of this being a Henry VIII clause.
  On the question of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the civilian officers referred to in the Bill are police staff who specialise in firearms licensing. They are often former police or military officers. The hon. Gentleman tried twice to intervene on amendments that had already been theoretically discussed. If he wishes to write to me on either subject, I should be delighted to reply.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments No. 96 and consequential Government amendment (a), No. 97, No. 98 and consequential Government amendment (a), Nos. 99 to 104, No. 105 and consequential Government amendment (a), and Nos. 106 to 115 agreed to.
  Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Doug Henderson, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. David Lidington, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Miss Ann Widdecombe; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  To withdraw immediately.
  Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

  TRANSFER OF CROFTING ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E (Scottish Grand Committee (Bills in relation to their principle)),
  That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Question agreed to.

  TRANSFER OF CROFTING ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transfer of Crofting Estates (Scotland) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—

  (1) The payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure of the Secretary of State—

  (a) in making loans or grants to provide assistance to establish bodies to whom property is to be transferred under that Act and in defraying the legal expenses and other costs of such bodies in connection with the transfer;

  (b) in paying compensation in respect of the removal of rights of pre-emption under that Act; and

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

  Question agreed to.

Young People (Alcohol)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
8.56 pm
Mr. Jim Cunningham: I welcome this opportunity to debate the effects of alcohol on young people, as, I am sure, do many other hon. Members, because we do not often debate the subject. This is not an attempt in any way to attack reputable landlords, pub owners or off-licensees. However, there is a problem among a minority of them.
It seems that there has been a general lack of co-ordination in our approach to the problem. More than 40,000 people die each year from alcohol-related illnesses. Statistics compiled by a voluntary agency called Turning Point show that alcohol is the third biggest killer in the United Kingdom after heart disease and cancer. Many of the effects of alcohol misuse are long term and appear only after many years of abuse, which means that young people do not realise the effects of their drinking until it is too late. Acute intoxication, which occurs after heavy drinking, has a short-term effect that can depress the central nervous system and lead to coma or even death. Long-term effects involve the development of dependency and alcoholism, detrimental effects on the liver and kidneys, memory loss, severe depression and a deterioration in the individual's personal life.
Several surveys and reports have been commissioned in the past few years to discover the extent of alcohol use among children and young people. The most notable findings are that 42 per cent. of 12 to 14-year-olds and 82 per cent. of 15 to 17-year-olds have drunk alcohol. It shows that an extremely large number of young people have experience with alcohol. In 1994, 17 per cent. of 11 to 15-year-olds were regular drinkers, compared with only 13 per cent. in 1990. That points to an increase in the habitual use of alcohol.
A particularly disturbing statistic is the apparent ease with which young people have access to alcohol, with 52 per cent. of 15-year-olds having purchased alcohol at some point. The ease with which under-age drinkers seem to be acquiring alcohol is a major cause for concern. Children appear to obtain alcohol in several ways. The first is by frequenting pubs. It is no secret that young people go to pubs before they are 18. That is not a new phenomenon, but it does not mean that we should be complacent about it. One solution to that aspect of the problem might be to increase the training of managers and staff of licensed premises. They should be made fully aware of their responsibilities as gatekeepers of the licensing laws. Training is also a practical way of ensuring that all pub staff have a knowledge of the licensing laws, thereby limiting the harm to young people.
The second method that young people use to obtain alcohol is by purchasing it at off-licences. It is widely suspected that the bulk of illegal alcohol sales to children are made by a small number of disreputable traders. Those traders are destroying the good name of one of our most successful industries and, at the same time, damaging our children's health. Off-licences could be deterred from selling alcohol to children and youths by increasing the fines that those establishments are required to pay when they are charged with selling alcohol to under-age drinkers.

831
A third concern is the vast appeal of alcopops to children. Despite the claims of some brewers, this new breed of alcoholic drinks is marketed predominantly at young people. That has led inevitably to such drinks appealing to those under the age of 18 and encouraging them to drink alcohol. Those points were supported by the Advertising Standards Authority ruling in January 1996.
We welcome the efforts that the Department of Health has made in the area of health education, but much remains to be done. There is no strategic approach to tackling the problem—instead the Government have adopted a piecemeal approach. There is a lack of Government funding. As written answers to questions that I tabled before Christmas show, there is no co-ordinated approach across Britain to providing rehabilitation and support to young people who have become dependent on alcohol. The Minister does not even know how much each health authority spends on the problem.
A more thoughtful approach is required in order to tackle the problem. We need a central focus where information may be shared throughout the country about which treatments work and what is happening where. The Coventry and Warwickshire alcohol advisory service in my constituency is running a successful project. An integral part of the project is a student education scheme, which allows young people to research and deliver alcohol education to schools and youth groups in Coventry and Warwickshire. The service provides young people with the necessary information that will enable them to make intelligent decisions about alcohol consumption.
Mr. Brian David Jenkins: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the project being run by the Coventry and Warwickshire alcohol advisory service. Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the success of the service, youth and alcohol workers who are trying to run education programmes find that there are no appropriate, up-to-date materials available? Does he agree that the Government should take a lead on the issue and work with the many interested parties to provide the initiatives necessary to tackle the serious problem of under-age drinking in our towns?
Mr. Cunningham: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I cannot make the point any better than he has done. We must do more to teach young people throughout Britain about a civilised approach to drinking. We must make them understand that it is neither normal nor acceptable for people—especially young people—to embark on regular drinking binges that leave them in an unconscious state or worse. They must understand that social drinking means only a moderate intake.
The link between alcohol and youth crime is well documented. Too many magistrates too often hear the line, "I was under the influence of alcohol," as an excuse for public disorder or criminal behaviour. Some 44 per cent. of the victims of violent crime described their assailants as being drunk, and alcohol is associated with 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of homicides, 70 per cent. of stabbings and 70 per cent. of beatings. In 88 per cent. of cases involving criminal damage and in 90 per cent. of those involving public disorder, the defendants were either drunk or had admitted to having consumed a significant amount of alcohol. It is therefore not surprising that the Home Office's
832
own statistics—the British crime survey—show that people have come to associate drunken behaviour with crime and that they become wary of young people who are drinking.
Alcohol-related crime and disorder must be taken more seriously. There need to be more appropriate punishments for drunken behaviour and those who persistently offend should attend programmes designed to tackle their dependency. The drinks industry has an important role to play in the campaign. All producers, distributors and retailers should be required to adhere to a mandatory code of practice to ensure that their products do not disproportionately appeal to the under-age drinker.
A Department for Education and Employment circular that encouraged schools to provide substance misuse education only briefly touched on alcohol. We cannot simply add alcohol advice to any campaign against drugs, because they are two completely different problems. The Department for Education and Employment should ensure that students are taught that the culture that makes alcohol a symbol of status, power and mystique is wrong.
9.5 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) on having initiated the debate and I am grateful to him and to the Minister for allowing me some of their time to participate.
I should declare an interest: I am the chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse and, like all hon. Members, I recognise the risk that alcohol poses to our young people. Survey after survey has shown that children and teenagers are starting to drink alcohol at an earlier age than ever before and that they are drinking more and more on each occasion. That is a worrying trend and, if we are to reverse it, we shall need a strategy that focuses on the range of alcohol-related issues and not only on the problem of young people drinking in public, important though that is.
Alcohol is a greater risk to young people than Ecstasy and other drugs, yet little media attention is paid to it or to the warnings given of the dangers it poses to young people. We all remember Leah Betts and know of the tragic circumstances of her death; but I wonder how many hon. Members remember the name of Lindsay Grant? Lindsay was a 15-year-old on holiday in north Wales who died last year after drinking half a bottle of vodka. Only The Times newspaper covered her tragic story and I refer to it in order to show the complete contrast with the massive publicity given to any drug-related death. There was no public outcry at Lindsay's death, despite her parents' warning of the dangers to young people from alcohol. That highlights the unwillingness of the public, the media and policy makers to acknowledge that the risks posed by alcohol are as great as, if not greater than, those posed by drugs.
The problem of alcohol and young people can start to be properly identified only if we have in place a system for collecting data from the accident and emergency departments on the number of children and teenagers attending as a result of alcohol poisoning or other drink-related accidents. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of under-15s being admitted to hospital accident and emergency units with alcohol poisoning has risen tenfold from 1,000 recorded cases a year in the 1980s. Those figures need to be quantified, because there

833
is currently a major gap in the collection of this sort of information by the national health service. Accumulation of information is important if we are to highlight the serious nature of the problem.
That is why I find it astonishing that the Government have decided to suspend the general household survey, which was the most useful measure of levels and patterns of alcohol consumption. Losing that survey will affect our ability to track progress towards the targets on alcohol consumption in "The Health of the Nation" White Paper. I hope that the Government might be persuaded to reconsider their decision on the future of that survey.
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the development of the so-called designer drinks and alcopops mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East. Those sweet-tasting drinks, with their sexy names and flashy bottles, have a high alcohol content. At 5.5 per cent., they are often stronger than many beers and ciders. Their taste gives them a particular appeal to children and teenagers.
Recent research carried out by the university of Strathclyde has shown how popular those designer drinks are with children between the ages of 12 and 17. Alcopops and designer drinks are already making a worrying situation worse, and there is genuine anxiety that the marketing of them is legitimising an illicit activity—under-age drinking.
I understand that Whitbread has promised to put on sale alcoholic "slush" drinks and milkshake-based alcoholic drinks. If that is true, I consider it to be grossly irresponsible. It is vital that we have solid regulations to ensure that these drinks do not appeal to the under-18s.
If we are serious about tackling alcohol misuse among children and teenagers, it is important that we teach those young people a safer approach to drinking, not one that aims only to prevent under-age purchase of alcohol. We must set up initiatives that involve parents, teachers, youth workers, the police and children. We need a national alcohol strategy, as I believe that that is the only way in which we shall tackle alcohol-related problems among young people.
Tackling, alcohol misuse among young people needs to be given a much higher priority in this country than is currently the case.
9.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Simon Burns): I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Cunningham) for raising this important issue today and for the contribution by the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig). As they will appreciate, the Government take the issue very seriously, and I hope to reassure them tonight that the Government do have an important strategy for tackling not only the problems of drinking by young people and under-age drinking, but the whole issue of alcohol, alcohol abuse and "The Health of the Nation" in the context of alcohol.
We have been aware of a growing volume of public concern about alcopops—a matter which both hon. Gentlemen mentioned—since they began to appear in the summer of 1995, and we have kept a close eye on
834
developments since then. We share the hon. Gentlemen's concerns about their potential appeal to young people so, in the Budget in November 1996, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the duty on them to bring them into line with beers of similar strength. From 1 January 1996, the duty on drinks of up to 5.5 per cent. alcohol by volume was increased by more than 40 per cent.—raising the tax on a bottle by between 7p and 8p a bottle.
Both hon. Gentlemen mentioned statistical evidence and information. There is a growing body of anecdotal and ad hoc survey evidence about the effects of these types of drinks on under-age drinkers. I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen have read the results of all the recently published surveys that have been reported in the press, which purport to show that these drinks have a significant appeal to teenagers, especially girls, and that younger teenagers may indeed be the main group to whom these drinks appeal.
A couple of weeks ago, the British Medical Journal reported a survey by the Centre for Social Marketing at the university of Strathclyde—which the hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned—which found that 14 and 15-year-olds found so-called designer drinks especially appealing, whereas 16 to 17-year-olds tended to regard them as childish drinks. Other surveys have shown that they may be perceived to be less strong than traditional drinks and easier to buy.
Although those reports are all matters of considerable concern to us, we feel that we lack reliable and comprehensive data about national consumption by young drinkers, especially comparable data over time on which to base conclusions about the effects of these drinks.
We have been collecting data on young people's drinking since 1988, and I hope that the hon. Member for Islwyn is especially reassured that we have been doing that by means of the biennial teenage drinking survey carried out by the Office for National Statistics. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that the most recent survey was carried out during October and November last year, and that some results should be available by Easter this year. They will show whether teenage drinking has increased since the introduction of alcopops in 1995, and will give us more detailed information than has been available so far on who is drinking alcopops and how much those people are drinking.
Mr. Jimmy Wray: How much of the revenue collected from alcopops has been given to local authorities to combat their misuse?
Mr. Burns: It is rather difficult to give statistics of that nature. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate from what I said earlier, the tax increase introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor in November came into effect only on 1 January this year, so we have not had enough time to come up with such calculations. I can, however, tell the hon. Gentleman that through our general funding of the national health service—which, as he will know, has increased year on year on year on year in real terms under the present Government—money has been available to cater for the health needs of those who suffer from problems involving alcohol and, moreover, those suffering from more classical types of illness and from the effects of drug abuse. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.

835
As I was saying, I hope that the results of the teenage drinking survey carried out last autumn will show us whether teenage drinking has increased since the introduction of alcopops in 1995, and will give us more detailed information than has been available so far on who is drinking alcopops and how much those people are drinking. At present, we have no consistent evidence available to us to suggest that alcopops are increasing the overall level of under-age drinking, or that the new-style drinks are supplanting the more traditional beer and cider. What information we have can sometimes be contradictory, which is why I consider it so important for us to have the results of the survey at Easter. We can then gain a better idea of exactly what is going on. As soon as we have accurate information, it will be easier for us to determine what steps we need to take in addition to those that we are already taking as part of our strategy to deal with alcohol abuse generally.
Although the Government lack consistent and comparable time series data to allow us to draw sensible conclusions about the effects of alcopops, we are tackling under-age drinking on a number of fronts—through legislation and, just as important, through better education and awareness of the effects of drinking. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentlemen, both of whom rightly mentioned the critical role that education must play and the actions that we can take, beyond education, to show that sensible drinking at the right age—and, of course, it is illegal to sell alcohol to those who are under age—will minimise the potential for health problems and other difficulties that young people may experience as they enter their 20s and, indeed, in later life.
Our education policy is well established. We believe that schools, colleges and the youth service should encourage young people to develop responsible attitudes to alcohol consumption. Young people need to learn how to make sensible choices about whether, when and how much to drink, and to resist persuasion and peer pressure to drink inappropriately or to excess.
The interdepartmental group reviewing the Government's sensible drinking message was very concerned about young people's drinking, as hon. Members would expect. In a report published in December 1995, it recognised the risks for young people drinking alcohol in unsafe amounts, and the responsibility of parents in regard to their children's introduction to alcohol. It added that young people needed to be aware of the specific risks from excessive drinking related to their life styles, and of the need to minimise those risks to prevent harm to themselves and others. To get the key messages across, we have been working since then with the Health Education Authority to produce health education materials offering advice to young people. A new campaign targeting young drinkers was launched by the HEA in the middle of January to highlight the risks of "binge" drinking and to encourage a more mature approach towards alcohol.
An interactive campaign Internet site—for those who are aficionados of the Internet, it is www.wrecked.co.uk—gives down-to-earth facts about drinking and the chance for youngsters to send their own messages and receive free campaign materials. I am sure that the House will be pleased to know, and it is certainly heartening from our point of view, that on its first day, 17 January this year, the site received 1,199 visitors.
836
In addition, a leaflet aimed at families to promote discussion of alcohol issues between young people and their parents has also been produced. More materials planned for later in the year will highlight the risks of getting drunk and satirise the "drunk" culture that is prevalent, sadly, among young people in particular—the notion that it is clever, trendy and acceptable for people to abuse alcohol on social occasions and, even more worryingly, on their own.
It is interesting to observe the way in which attitudes to drink-driving have changed over the past 10 or 15 years, partly or perhaps almost exclusively as a result of education. Fifteen years ago, however irresponsible it may seem now, if a friend or acquaintance was caught drink-driving, there was sympathy for that person because of all the trouble that he would have if he was unable to drive to work, drive socially and so on. Now it has become firmly established in the minds of the vast majority of people in this country that drink-driving is totally unacceptable. It is a fine achievement that that message has got across, and that society's attitudes towards drink-driving have changed so dramatically.
Through education and example, we must bring about a change of attitude, especially among young people, towards drinking and, in particular, under-age drinking, to ensure that it is not considered clever, socially acceptable or de rigueur when going out with one's friends to get drunk out of one's brain. People must be made aware of the dangers to health resulting from such an irresponsible action, the anti-social behaviour that it can create and the fact that it is not amusing for other people to be in the presence of someone who is drunk and sadly making a fool of himself.
We are not so naive as to pretend that young people will not encounter drink problems, or that members of their family will not do so. That is one of the reasons why we support Drinkline, a national alcohol helpline providing confidential information, advice and a support service for anyone, regardless of age, who is concerned about his own or someone else's drinking. Drinkline also provides information on appropriate local services and has produced "The Big Blue Book of Booze," a guide to sensible drinking, especially targeted at young people.
The hon. Member for Coventry, South-East raised the subject of licensing. I remind the House of a fact that is all too often overlooked: it is an offence to sell alcohol to a person under the age of 18. It is also an offence for a person under 18 to buy it. That applies to all alcoholic drinks above a certain strength, including alcopops.
We strengthened the law in 1988 by placing the onus of responsibility for checking a customer's age firmly on the licensee. Previously, sale to someone under 18 had to be done "knowingly" for an offence to be committed. Now anyone charged with that offence must show that he exercised all due diligence in trying to prevent the sale, or that he had no reason to suspect that the customer was under the age of 18. That provides a reasonable degree of protection for licensees faced with the difficult task of establishing a customer's true age, but ensures that all licensees take their responsibilities seriously.
I welcome the Portman Group's initiative, and other initiatives throughout the country. For example, licensees and publicans have introduced identification card schemes before they will sell alcohol to young people or people who may be under the age of 18. That is an important

837
step forward because it helps to minimise the problem. I would like more publicans and licensees to take up the Portman scheme or introduce their own schemes to minimise the potential and temptation to sell alcohol to those who are under age.
In 1988, we increased to £1,000 the maximum fine for selling alcohol to people under 18.
We are all concerned about how young people behave if they succeed in getting hold of alcoholic drinks. Because of the problems associated with public drinking in some areas, in 1990 we made available to local authorities a model byelaw that makes it an offence for a person to continue drinking alcohol in a designated public area after being warned by a police constable not to do so. A number of local authorities have now adopted that byelaw or are in the process of doing so. I pay tribute to the city of Coventry, which was a pioneer in the creation of the byelaw. I wish that my own local authority of Chelmsford in Essex had followed Coventry's example a few years ago.
That byelaw is an important step forward, but it is not all-embracing, because, as the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will know, it does not carry a power of arrest or confiscation. Nor is it directed only at young people.
Mr. Jim Cunningham: As the Minister will be aware, one of the conditions of the byelaw is that if a policeman arrests somebody whom he suspects may have an alcohol problem, the police involve the social services department. That is the case in Coventry. I know that that is true of other cities as well, and it is very useful in trying to help people.
Mr. Burns: I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman in any way about that. It is a helpful additional power for the police constable in tackling the problem.
Because the byelaw does not provide direct powers of arrest or confiscation, the Government support the private Member's Bill that is being promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), which will give the police the power to confiscate alcohol from under-age people drinking in public. As the House will know, that Bill is currently proceeding through the House. I hope that it will reach the statute book before the general election—whenever that may be—because it is an important measure that tries to deal with the problem.
As I said in reply to a parliamentary question that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East asked last November, the Government believe that self-regulation by the industry is the most effective way to control alcohol advertising. That issue was raised briefly earlier in the debate. We welcome the very responsible approach that the Portman Group and its members took in drawing up the voluntary code of practice for the packaging, marketing and sale of alcoholic drinks, in response to concerns about alcoholic soft drinks and their appeal to young people.
As I am sure hon. Members are aware, the code, which was published last April, seeks to prevent the supply of all alcoholic drinks, not just alcopops, to under-18s, by requiring that brand names, packaging and merchandising are not targeted at them, and that retailers take particular care to ensure that alcohol is not purchased by under-18s.
838
We welcome the Portman Group's further moves to raise the code's profile with the general public, because that is crucial. It has now appointed a fully independent panel to consider complaints about breaches of the code. It will allow the Portman Group to offer an advisory service on new products, knowing that its advice will not be prejudicial to the consideration of any subsequent complaints, as these will be considered by the independent panel. We welcome that further development and the Portman Group's other activities regarding young people and drinking. Notable among those is its youth task force, which aims to identify the influences on under-age drinking, implement pilot projects on education and retail training, and make recommendations to the Government, local government and service providers. We look forward to seeing its findings and recommendations, which are due in the autumn. The Government are continuing to monitor the industry's response closely and shall certainly want to take stock again after the first year of operation of the code.
The Government have not been impressed by recent reports of developments in broader alcohol marketing, such as alcopop home-brew kits, alcoholic slush puppies, to which the hon. Member for Islwyn referred, and sachets of alcohol marketed as "alcotots". Although the manufacturers of those innovations often sit outside the conventional drinks industry that is represented by the Portman Group and hence are not signatories to the code, it is surely right that they are seen as part of the totality of the alcohol industry. It is up to the industry in all its forms to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the public and the Government that it can regulate itself effectively regarding alcohol products.
As the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East will appreciate, we take the problem of under-age drinking extremely seriously. Like everyone else, we are all too aware of the misery, hardship and, problems that it causes not only to individuals but to their families and the impact that it has in general on society and innocent people.
We are keeping the situation very much under review and considering options for the future. We would not, however, want to act precipitously while we are short of national time series data on alcohol consumption levels of under-age drinkers. Nor would we want to act before the Portman Group's latest changes to the operation of its code of practice have been given time to take effect—certainly not before its code has had at least a year of operation, which will be by spring this year.
I once again assure hon. Members that we are fully aware of the problems, as they would expect. We fully share their concern. I hope that they accept my assurances that we have a strategy for tackling the problem. We have a full education initiative in operation not only through Health Education Authority advertising, but in schools and colleges—as I mentioned—and the national curriculum. Alcohol abuse is as important as drug abuse. We are waiting for data so that we do not have to rely solely on anecdotal information. In the light of hard data, we will be able to see the best way forward in trying to minimise the problems that blight so many people, families and, inevitably, communities.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Ten o'clock.

TREASURY

  Treasury Building (Development)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment his Department made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances in the Treasury building which might be affected by its planned development with Exchequer Partnership plc; and what plans he has for (i) energy efficiency and (ii) waste management schemes in the development of the building. [13637]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  All known asbestos is recorded in an Asbestos Register and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health—COSHH—registers are also held. Regular health and safety inspections, audit and tours are carried out. All halon fire extinguishers have been replaced and regular checks for CFC leakage detection are carried out on relevant departmental equipment. This information is available to Exchequer Partnership plc.

  So far as the redevelopment project is concerned, Exchequer Partnership will be contractually obliged to ensure that an "excellent" rating under the BREEAM system is obtained. In addition, design and construction will be carried out in accordance with all statutory authority regulations and requirements, including European legislation, statute or subordinate legislation relevant to new building and refurbishment. Exchequer Partnership plc must adhere to the Government's environmental policies.

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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. [14797]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Postcodes are used extensively by the Office for National Statistics. The Treasury and the Chancellor's other departments and agencies make no use of postcode areas.

  Personal Savings
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the number and proportion of households with personal equity plan savings of a value(a) less than £10,000, (b) £10,000 to £20,000, (c) £20,000 to £30,000 and (d) over £30,000. [16018]

  Mr. Jack
  The information requested is not available.

  Investment Income
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the average amount of 442
  income tax paid by adult (a) pensioner and (b) non-pensioner taxpayers with annual investment income of (i) less than £50, (ii) £50 to £75, (iii) £75 to £100, (iv) £100 to £125, (v) £125 to £150, (vi) £150 to £175, (vii) £175 to £200, (viii) £200 to £250, (ix) £250 to £300, (x) £300 to £400, (xi) £400 to £500 and (xii) over £500 for the most recent year for which information is available. [15989]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates for 1997–98 based on projections from a mixture of statistical sources are given in the table. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for all of the specified bands of investment income.

  Average amount of income tax paid1

  Range of taxable investment income for 1997–98

  Taxpayers aged under 64

  Taxpayers aged 65 or over

  £

  £

  £

  1–49

  2,350

  900

  50–99

  2,450

  950

  100–499

  3,500

  1,050

  Over 500

  6,100

  2,600

  1Includes income tax paid on all types of income such as earned income, self employment and investment income.

  British Agrochemicals Association
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he has had with the British Agrochemicals Association Ltd. in the last 12 months; what was the subject of the meetings; and if he will make a statement. [16291]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I have had no meetings with it in the last 12 months.

  Personal Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the net present cost in 1996 prices of tax relief on contributions made to appropriate personal pensions since 1988–89 assuming the social discount rate used by his Department. [13840]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 4 February 1997]: The net present cost of income tax relief for the years 1988–89 to 1995–961 in respect of contributions to appropriate personal pensions is given in the table, split between national insurance fund contributions and contributions above this minimum made by employees and employers. The figures are in 1996–97 prices rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion, and have been calculated using the GDP deflator and a real discount rate of 3.75 per cent. in line with that underlying the Government Actuary's report on occupational and personal pension schemes, Cm 3221.

  NIF contributions

  Employee/employer contributions

  Total contributions

  £ billion

  £ billion

  £ billion

  Net present cost of income tax relief paid

  2.0

  2.3

  4.3

  1 The cost of income tax relief for 1995–96 is provisional.

  Financial Advice (Complaints)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the delay in
  443
  the investigation by the investment ombudsman and the Investment Management Regulatory Organisation of a complaint by Mr. Alan Holmes of Gullane, East Lothian, concerning compliance with IMRO rules and the terms of the Financial Services Act 1986 in relation to independent financial advice given to him by IMRO-regulated companies. [15112]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: The investment ombudsman's office has been set up by IMRO for the independent investigation of complaints about investment business brought by investors against firms regulated by IMRO. Consistent with the independent status of the ombudsman, his investigations are not subject to Government direction or supervision. The service is provided free to complainants. Before the ombudsman can investigate a complaint, he must be satisfied that it falls within his jurisdiction, and this can take time to determine with complex cases. The case to which the hon. Member refers is complicated, but the ombudsman is dealing with it as quickly as is possible.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are paid by English-based employers and work in Scotland and whose income tax is collected from their English employer. [15992]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The information is not available.

  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much income tax was collected by the Inland Revenue from Scottish-based employers in each of the last five years. [15932]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: During each of the years from 1992–93 onwards the following amounts of income tax and national insurance contributions have been collected under PAYE from Scottish-based employers. It is not possible to identify separately amounts of income tax and national insurance contributions.

  1992–93: £6,448,442,000

  1993–94: £6,865,410,000

  1994–95: £7,466,284,000

  1995–96: £7,984,301,000

  1996–97 (to January 1997): £5,835,077,000.

  Additionally, some employers will have paid income tax on the profits of their business but separate totals are not held for Scottish-based employers.

  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the time it would take to introduce an income tax regime to tax people where they live instead of at their employer's pay office. [15933]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: The estimate sought could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of setting up an income tax regime to tax people where they live instead of at their employer's pay office. [15934]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: None.
  444
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals are paid by Scottish-based employers and work outside of Scotland and whose income tax is collected from a Scottish employer. [15991]

  Mr. Jack
  The information is not available.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what correspondence Her Majesty's Treasury has had with(a) the British Rail Board vendor unit and (b) bidders for subsidiary companies of the British Rail Board in respect of the surplus on the British Rail pension fund and the privatisation of subsidiary companies; and if he will make a statement. [16040]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: None.

  Savings
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average amount of savings held per household in(a) Post Office accounts, (b) tax-exempt special savings accounts, (c) building society accounts, (d) bank accounts, (e) other accounts, (f) gilts, (g) unit trusts, ((h) stocks and shares, (i) personal equity plans, (j) national savings bonds, (k) save-as-you-earn and (l) premium bonds broken down by gross weekly household income divided into £100 bands. [16017]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available.

ENVIRONMENT

  Wild Boar
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the change in the number of wild boar in England. [15646]

  Mr. Clappison
  There are no figures available on the numerical trends in wild boar in England. Licences to keep wild boar are issued by local authorities, who maintain central records.

  While there have been sporadic sightings of wild boar in the wild, many of these have not been substantiated and there is no confirmed evidence of the animal breeding in the wild.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Government intend to apply the London convention's ban on sea disposal of radioactive wastes to radioactive scale on redundant oil installations; what criteria they will apply in assessing the best practicable environmental option for disposal of radioactive material from oil and gas installations; and how those criteria will differ from the criteria applied to wastes from the civil nuclear industry and radioactive military waste. [15672]

  Mr. Clappison
  The London convention does not prohibit the dumping at sea of wastes or other materials containing "de minimis"—exempt—levels of radioactivity.
  445
  Authorisations for the disposal of radioactive wastes are issued by the environment agencies under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. Policy on determining authorisations is set out in the White Paper "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy—Final Conclusions", Cm 2919.

  Packaging Waste
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to help to minimise the effect on small businesses of the producer responsibility for packaging waste directive. [15703]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Following extensive consultation with industry on the draft packaging waste regulations, my rt hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 18 December,Official Report, columns 614–16, the modifications that we propose to make in the light of the comments and proposals received.

  Among the changes announced were measures to help small businesses. We are proposing a staged approach to the new system, bringing in the largest businesses first, and we have introduced a turnover element to the cut-off threshold which should assist smaller businesses in establishing whether they will be obligated under the regulations. Businesses with a turnover of £5 million or less, and who handle 50 tonnes of packaging or less, will not be obligated in the years 1997 to 1999. With effect from 1 January 2000, the small business threshold applies to those with turnover of £1 million or less or who handle 50 tonnes of packaging or less. In addition, the provision that wholesalers take the selling obligation for small retailers will take effect from 1 January 2000. These changes will mean that the number of businesses obligated in the first few years will be in the region of 4,000 rising to around 9,000 by the year 2000. This compares with a total of over 250,000 businesses who handle packaged goods.

  A further measure which will help small businesses is the development of a ready reckoner or packaging catalogue to ease the collection of data and my Department has now commissioned contractors to this end.

  Local Authority Receipts
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the total usable receipts held by each local authority in each year since 1990. [15729]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  A list of the usable capital receipts held by each English local authority on 31 March of each year from 1990 to 1996 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15913]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Specific measures to protect the health and safety of young people and the relevant minimum age requirements are listed in annex 3 of the Health and Safety Commission's consultative document,446
  "The Health and Safety (Young Persons) Regulations 1996: Proposals to implement the health and safety provisions of the EC Directive on the protection of young people at work". Copies of this document have been placed in the House of Commons Library. No other part of my Department is responsible for enforcing minimum age requirements.

  Outstanding Charges (Northamptonshire)
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the arrears of outstanding uncollected(a) domestic rates, (b) business rates, (c) community charge and (d) council tax for each collecting authority in Northamptonshire. [15728]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Estimates of the levels of business rates, community charge and council tax 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. Information on the arrears of domestic rates is not available. The latest available figures for the Northamptonshire authorities and the dates to which they relate are as follow:

  £000

  Estimated arrears of:

  Business rates

  Community charges

  Council taxes

  Corby (31 March 1995)

  211

  1,189

  451

  Daventry (31 March 1993)

  475

  1,663

  —

  East Northamptonshire

  —

  —

  —

  Kettering (31 March 1994)

  390

  860

  463

  Northampton

  —

  —

  —

  South Northamptonshire (31 March 1995)

  1,092

  368

  205

  Wellingborough (31 March 1993)

  804

  1,099

  —

  — No information has been published by CIPFA for East Northamptonshire or Northampton since community charge was abolished.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which 10 local councils in England have the highest amounts of uncollected council tax; [16156]

  (2) which local council in (a) the north-west of England and (b) England as a whole has the highest amount of uncollected council tax; [16163]

  (3) which local council in (a) the north-west of England and (b) England as a whole has the lowest amount of uncollected council tax. [16167]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Estimates of the levels of council tax 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.
  447
  The authorities with the highest amounts of uncollected council tax in England at 31 March 1995 are as follows:

  Council tax arrears(£ million)

  Lambeth

  40.2

  Birmingham

  25.9

  Manchester

  121.6

  Liverpool

  19.3

  Bristol

  18.5

  Camden

  12.4

  Newham

  12.1

  Leeds

  11.2

  Southwark

  10.8

  Sheffield

  9.9

  1Highest in north-west of England.

  Wyre has the lowest amount of council tax arrears in the north-west of England, with a total of £0.6 million uncollected as at 31 March 1995. The Isles of Scilly has the lowest uncollected council tax in England, with a total of £6,000 uncollected as at 31 March 1995. CIPFA does not publish data for all authorities, so the figures above represent only those authorities which have supplied data.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which local council has(a) the north-west of England and (b) England has the lowest council tax rates; [16164]

  (2) which local council in (a) the north-west of England and (b) England as a whole has the highest council tax rates. [16165]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is a follows:

  1996–97 council tax (band D, two adults) for area of billing authority

  Lowest

  £

  Highest

  £

  (a) North West

  Halton

  647

  Liverpool

  1,006

  (b) England

  Westminster

  295

  Liverpool

  1,006

  Willenhall Shopping Precinct
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress with the development of the Willenhall shopping precinct. [15597]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that Bellways Homes Ltd. and English Partnerships are likely to reach agreement this month on the amount of grant required to enable the redevelopment of the Willenhall shopping precinct to proceed.

  Household Growth
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has received as part of the consultative process on his Department's Green paper, "Household Growth; Where will we Live," in respect of the imposition of time limits on the period of time for which a developer may retain derelict urban land. [16043]

  Mr. Clappison
  The consultation period on the Green Paper ends on 17 March. None of the responses received to date has specifically covered this issue.
  448
  Mr. Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of new households formed between the current date and 2016 will be occupied by people living alone. [16044]

  Mr. Clappison
  The projected number of households in England at mid-year in 2016 is 23,598,000 a net increase of 3,421,000 on the projected number at mid year 1996. Of this net increase 2,753,000 households or 80 per cent. are projected to be one-person households where a one-person household is defined as someone living alone who does not share either housekeeping or a living room with anyone else.

  Mr. Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of new housing was built on urban or brown field sites in(a) the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available and (b) the previous 12-month period. [16045]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The latest year for which figures are available is 1993. In that year 49 per cent. of new residential development in England was on land that had been previously developed for urban uses. In the previous year the proportion was 47 per cent. These figures were published in the Department's "Land Use Change in England Statistical Bulletin" last year. A new edition of this bulletin, with figures for 1994, will be published in May this year.

  Mr. Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of cohabiting new households, expressed as a percentage of total new projected households, his Department predicts for the years(a) 2000, (b) 2008 and (c) 2016, respectively. [16330]

  Mr. Clappison
  The net increases in the number of households headed by a cohabiting couple in England at mid-year 2001, 2006, 2011 and 2016 are projected to be 70,000, 122,000, 172,000 and 202,000 higher respectively than those at mid-year 1996, representing 8 per cent., 7 per cent., 7 per cent. and 6 per cent respectively of the net total new households projections on the same basis for these years.

  Show Houses (Taxation)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what recent representations he has received concerning the taxation of show houses for local government purposes; what response he has made; and if he will make a statement; [16204]

  (2) what is his policy on the taxation of show houses; and if he will make a statement. [16205]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Show houses are liable for non-domestic rates. We have received representations from the House Builders Federation and the Manufacturing and Construction Alliance that show houses should, instead, be subject to the council tax. We have agreed to meet both organisations to discuss this matter.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) at which meetings of the Building Research Establishment management board, held(a) prior

  449
  to 8 December 1996, (b) between 8 and 20 December 1996 and (c) since 20 December 1996, members of his Department's BRE privatisation team were present; [16490]

  (2) at which meetings of the Building Research Establishment management board held (a) prior to 8 December 1996, (b) between 8 and 20 December 1996 and (c) since 20 December 1996 members of the in-house bid team were present; [16491]

  (3) which members of the Building Research Establishment management board are also members of the in-house bid team; [16492]

  (4) if he will list the meetings of the Building Research Establishment management board which were attended by members of his Department's BRE privatisation team at which members of the BRE management board who were also involved in the BRE in-house bid team were present. [16541]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  All members of the BRE management board are members of the management bid team. Since the management bid team was authorised to enter the competition for the purchase of BRE, a member of the team of officials established by the Department to transfer BRE to the private sector has attended each meeting of the BRE management board. The meetings were held on 25 November 1996, 20 December 1996 and 27 January 1997.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all the occasions during the past three years on which Ministers have met members of the staff of the Building Research Establishment, the names of all those who attended the meetings and the subjects discussed on each occasion. [16493]

  Mr. Jones
  In the past three years, Ministers have visited the Building Research Establishment for the following occasions:Minister for Housing and Planning, 16 May 1994, to open the Conseil International de Bâtiment international conference on the environment.
  Minister for Construction and Planning, 5 February 1996, to see the first use of recycled aggregate in the foundations of the new energy efficiency building.
  Minister for Construction and Planning, 12 June 1996, to seal a time capsule in the new building and to open the new Burn hall.

  Ministers have paid routine visits to BRE, to see at first hand the work BRE does, as follows:
  Secretary of State for the Environment, 17 June 1994
  Minister for Construction and Planning, 30 March 1995
  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), 13 September 1996.

  The Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister for Construction and Planning attended opening events to mark the BRE's 75th anniversary in London on 13 May 1996, and the Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), attended the closing events in Glasgow on 3 October 1996.

  On these occasions the Ministers took the opportunity to discuss operations across the establishment with a range of staff. Additionally, Ministers meet members of staff from time to time in the course of normal
  450
  departmental business, and at meetings, seminars and other functions organised by the construction industry and other interests.

  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received about the possibility of the Building Research Establishment in-house bid team(a) having access to more information than the external bidders and (b) being treated in a different way to the external bidder in relation to meetings with other interested parties. [16489]

  Mr. Jones
  None. The Department has taken all reasonable steps to ensure a level playing field between all bidders.

  Environment Agency (Prosecutions)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the prosecutions carried out in England and Wales by the Environment Agency for water quality and integrated pollution control offences, in each month since October 1996 indicating(a) the person or company prosecuted, (b) the date and outcome of the prosecution, (c) the nature of the offence and (d) the penalty imposed. [15670]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: I have arranged for the relevant details of prosecutions carried out by the Environment Agency for water pollution and integrated pollution control offences for the period October 1996 to January 1997 to be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Beef Waste
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 11 February,Official Report, column 101, if he will list the locations of the (a) incinerators and (b) tyre-burning plant tested for emissions in respect of the burning of cattle carcases; and if he will reconcile the figures for the total number of incineration plants set out in his answer and in the answer from the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food of 11 February, Official Report, column 145–46. [16249]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The incinerators are: Rechem, Fawley, Hampshire; Rechem, Pontypool, Gwent; Yorkshire Environmental, Knostrop, Leeds; Yorkshire Environmental, Ashford, Kent; Vetspeed, Royston, Herts. The tyre burning plant is Elm Energy, Wolverhampton.

  The answers given by me and by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture on 11 February related to the questions asked. The Prosper de Mulder rendering plant at Widnes is the subject of an air pollution authorisation from the local authority, Halton borough council. Emissions testing has taken place. The incinerator at Vetspeed, Royston, burns cattle carcases, not rendered remains. The trial incineration of tannery waste at Pontypool, Knostrop, Ashford and Wolverhampton was listed in my reply for completeness, although rendering of tannery waste is not a process which meets the definition of rendering in the Animal By-Products Order 1992 and these incinerators were not, therefore, included in my hon. Friend's reply.

  Waste Disposal at Sea
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what discussions and on what dates have taken place between his Department, MAFF and the DTI regarding(a) a common definition of bulky waste and (b) a policy for its disposal at sea; [15629]

  (2) what is his Department's definition of bulky waste in respect of disposal of waste at sea; [15628]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of potential disposal sites for bulky wastes at sea; and if he will place in the Library copies of (a) studies evaluated by his Department and (b) correspondence between his Department and other bodies on this subject. [15647]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The London convention of 1972 on dumping of waste at sea refers to containers, scrap metal and other bulky wastes liable to sink to the sea bottom which may present a serious obstacle to fishing or navigation.

  The protocol to the London convention, agreed in November last year, describes bulky wastes as items primarily comprising iron, steel, concrete and similarly unharmful materials for which the primary concern is physical impact.

  The Ospar convention, which will shortly supersede the Oslo convention and whose more stringent controls on dumping at sea are already applied to UK waters, does not refer to bulky wastes. Under Ospar the dumping of all wastes or other matter is prohibited except for specified categories which include inert materials of natural origin—for example, rock—and vessels and aircraft until 2004; offshore installations and pipelines may also be considered for disposal. Each case is considered on its merits and it is UK policy to license disposal at sea only when there is no safe and practicable alternative. The only assessment so far undertaken of potential disposal sites at sea for a bulky waste was conducted by the Scottish Office in relation to the Brent Spar. All the studies included in that assessment have already been placed in the Library.

  Details of the interdepartmental discussions on this topic could be derived only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what procedure his Department follows in determining best practicable environmental options; and what criteria govern the disposal of bulky wastes at sea, in the case of(a) redundant oil and gas installations, (b) radioactive wastes and (c) other wastes; [15649]

  (2) what are the interdepartmental co-ordination and consultation mechanisms used in determining the best practicable environmental options for disposing of bulky wastes at sea, in the case of (a) redundant oil and gas installations, (b) radioactive wastes and (c) other wastes; and by what means public opinion is taken into account. [15653]

  Mr. Boswell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The dumping of waste at sea is subject to the provisions of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 and the UK has agreed to abide by guidelines and assessment procedures adopted under relevant international conventions.
  452
  In particular, we apply annex 11 to the recently agreed protocol to the London convention which sets out the considerations that need to be taken into account when conducting an assessment of wastes that may be considered for dumping at sea. These include whether appropriate opportunities exist to re-use, recycle or treat the waste without undue risks to human health or the environment or disproportionate costs; the chemical, physical and biological properties of the waste; the suitability of the proposed dump site; and potential effects on the environment.

  Other Departments and the conservation agencies are consulted on such assessments as appropriate on a case by case basis. In relation to the decommissioning of oil and gas installations, which is the responsibility the Department of Trade and Industry, a wide range of fisheries, amenity and environmental interests are consulted.

WALES

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) for each unitary council and (b) for Wales in 1997 prices for the financial years 1996–97 and 1997–98 the (a) standard spending assessment, (b) capping limit for spending and (c) spending on care in the community, indicating the percentage change in each case. [15339]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Table 1 gives the standard spending assessments and table 2 the capping limits on spending for 1996–97 and 1997–98 at constant 1997–98 prices. No adjustments have been made for changes in local authority funding arrangements between 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Outturn expenditure figures for care in the community are not centrally available. Identified allocations for care in the community within authorities standard spending assessments for 1996–97 1997–98 prices, are shown in table 3.

  Table 1: Standard spending assessments

  Council

  1997–98 (£000)

  11996–97 (£000)

  Change (£000)

  Percentage change

  Blaenau Gwent

  65,269

  65,786

  -517

  -0.8

  Bridgend

  110,865

  109,739

  1,125

  1.0

  Caerphilly

  147,190

  147,213

  -23

  0.0

  Cardiff

  250,773

  249,935

  839

  0.3

  Carmarthenshire

  151,724

  151,325

  399

  0.3

  Ceredigion

  61,527

  61,113

  413

  0.7

  Conwy

  92,824

  91,849

  975

  1.1

  Denbighshire

  79,476

  80,126

  -650

  -0.8

  Flintshire

  115,628

  114,810

  819

  0.7

  Gwynedd

  109,516

  108,531

  985

  0.9

  Isle of Anglesey

  61.760

  62,018

  -258

  -0.4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  56584

  56,976

  -393

  -0.7

  Monmouthshire

  65,860

  65,325

  535

  0.8

  Neath Port Talbot

  122,316

  122,860

  -544

  -0.4

  Newport

  118,639

  119,867

  -1,228

  -1.0

  Pembrokeshire

  101,848

  102,438

  -590

  -0.6

  Powys

  119,200

  117,962

  1,239

  1.1

  Rhondda, Cynon Taff

  212,409

  211,228

  1,181

  0.6

  Swansea

  196,438

  197,414

  -976

  -0.5

  Torfaen

  79,336

  79,352

  -17

  0.0

  453

  Table 1: Standard spending assessments

  Council

  1997–98(£000)

  11996–97(£000)

  Change(£000)

  Percentage change

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  95,846

  96,526

  -680

  -0.7

  Wrexham

  100,625

  100,529

  96

  0.1

  All councils

  2,515,652

  2,512,922

  2,730

  0.1

  11996–97 local government revenue settlement estimated at 1997–98 prices.

  Table 2: Capping limits on spending

  Council

  1997–98(£000)

  11996–97(£000)

  Change(£000)

  Percentage change

  Blaenau Gwent

  71,106

  70,955

  151

  0.2

  Bridgend

  117,264

  116,250

  1,015

  0.9

  Caerphilly

  154,611

  154,447

  164

  0.1

  Cardiff

  261,849

  261,232

  617

  0.2

  Carmarthenshire

  159,313

  158,311

  1,002

  0.6

  Ceredigion

  67,642

  67,394

  248

  0.4

  Conwy

  92,824

  91,849

  975

  1.1

  Denbighshire

  84,344

  85,145

  -801

  -0.9

  Flintshire

  120,836

  120,120

  716

  0.6

  Gwynedd

  114,524

  113,639

  884

  0.8

  Isle of Anglesey

  62,582

  62,313

  269

  0.4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  60,122

  59,966

  156

  0.3

  Monmouthshire

  65,860

  65,325

  535

  0.8

  Neath Port Talbot

  132,996

  132,365

  631

  0.5

  Newport

  120,000

  119,867

  134

  0.1

  Pembrokeshire

  103,921

  103,553

  367

  0.4

  Powys

  120,411

  119,196

  1,215

  1.0

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  228,967

  228,261

  706

  0.3

  Swansea

  203,116

  202,013

  1,103

  0.5

  Torfaen

  81,389

  81,256

  132

  0.2

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  97,404

  97,452

  -48

  0.0

  Wrexham

  105,055

  103,414

  1,641

  1.6

  All councils

  2,626,136

  2,614,325

  11,812

  0.5

  11996–97 local government revenue settlement estimated at 1997–98 prices.

  Table 3: Allocations within total standard spending assessments in respect of care in the community

  Council

  1997–98(£000)

  11996–97(£000)

  Change(£000)

  Percentage change

  Blaenau Gwent

  4,240

  3,831

  409

  10.7

  Bridgend

  7,276

  6,526

  750

  11.5

  Caerphilly

  9,148

  8,242

  905

  11.0

  Cardiff

  15,991

  14,385

  1,606

  11.2

  Carmarthenshire

  11,142

  10,031

  1,111

  11.1

  Ceredigion

  4,258

  3,826

  432

  11.3

  Conwy

  7,326

  6,611

  715

  10.8

  Denbighshire

  5,792

  5,271

  521

  9.9

  Flintshire

  7,257

  6,518

  740

  11.4

  Gwynedd

  7,704

  6,937

  767

  11.1

  Isle of Anglesey

  3,987

  3,679

  309

  8.4

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3,821

  3,480

  342

  9.8

  Monmouthshire

  4,540

  4,018

  522

  13.0

  Neath Port Talbot

  8,909

  7,946

  963

  12.1

  Newport

  7,356

  6,681

  675

  10.1

  Pembrokeshire

  6,353

  5,706

  647

  11.3

  Powys

  7,548

  6,818

  730

  10.7

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  15,553

  14,016

  1,538

  11.0

  Swansea

  13,596

  12,328

  1,268

  10.3

  Torfaen

  4,627

  4,167

  459

  11.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  5,993

  5,468

  525

  9.6

  Wrexham

  6,793

  6,080

  713

  11.7

  All councils

  169,209

  152,562

  16,647

  10.9

  11996–97 local government revenue settlement estimated at 1997–98 prices.

  Teachers (Redundancy)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to introduce to reduce the number of teacher redundancies. [15834]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Local education authorities and schools are responsible for decisions relating to the employment and deployment of individual schools teachers. The local authority settlement announced recently should enable those local authorities who attach the same high priority to education as my right hon. Friend and Ito have sufficient resources to meet the needs of schools.

  Health Authorities (Allocation of Resources)
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has reached a decision concerning the allocation of resources to health authorities in Wales for 1997–98. [16854]

  Mr. Hague
  I announced on 12 December 1996,Official Report, columns 405–09, that I shall be providing an additional £94 million for the NHS in Wales in 1997–98. This will bring total spending to £2,368 million; £1,658 million of this will fund the hospital, community and family health service.

  Within this amount, the five health authorities, general practitioners and general practitioner fundholders will receive revenue funding of £1,505 million, £52 million or 3.5 per cent. more than in 1996–97 plans. In real terms, this is an overall increase of 1.5 per cent. Within these resources, I have been able to give health authorities £49 million, which represents a 3.5 per cent. cash increase on discretionary purchasing power, and £3 million to cash limited general medical services, which is a 5.6 per cent. cash increase.

  I am expecting health authorities and trusts to continue to generate efficiency savings and in 1997–98 these should amount to at least 2.7 per cent. This will release some £40 million which, together with the new money, will be available to meet inflationary and other pressures, and to increase investment in patient care.

  Health authorities and trusts will also receive £105 million to fund capital development. Included with this is some £9 million of new provision in order to fund the package of urgently needed capital development that I set out in my budget statement. The rationalisation of services between the Cardiff royal infirmary and the university hospital of Wales, the new link road to the hospital site and work on the new cancer centre in north Wales can now begin next year. These developments complement the capital schemes worth £40 million that are currently subject to the private finance initiative and I fully expect to see some successful outcomes in 1997–98. The private finance initiative offers a unique opportunity to bring forward capital developments which are funded outside public expenditure.

  Officials have today informed health authorities and trusts of the provisional allocations to health authorities and trusts' external financing limits. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Primary Schools (Hillingdon)
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the relationship between the level of funding and education standards in maintained primary schools in the London borough of Hillingdon. [16235]

  Mr. Dicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the relationship between the level of funding and education standards in maintained primary schools in the London borough of Hillingdon. [16237]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There is no simple relationship between levels of funding and education standards.

  Further Education
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will take steps to assist further education colleges running operating deficits to restore their financial health without jeopardising the quality and scope of the education offered. [16102]

  Mr. Paice
  Colleges are independent, autonomous bodies and are responsible for managing their own financial affairs. The Further Education Funding Council has effective arrangements in place for identifying colleges in financial difficulty and for working with them to recover their financial health.

  School Computers
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the ratio of computers to secondary school pupils in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) Japan in the last five years for which figures are available. [16143]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Comparative data are not readily available. A recent international report by Research Machines on information technology provision in schools, covering countries in the group of 7, indicated that in 1996 the ratio of computers to secondary school pupils in the United Kingdom was one per 8.5 pupils, in the United States of America one per 12 pupils and in Japan about one per 25 pupils.

  School Inspections
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools by local education authority have been deemed by Office for Standards in Education inspectors to be failing to provide a satisfactory standard of education. [16171]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested on the 243 failing schools, as at 31 January 1997, is given in the following table. In addition, I have placed in the Library a coloured map containing the same information.

  For completeness, I should add that 18 schools have already been restored to health as a result of the special measures policy and 12 have closed.
  456

  LEA

  Number of schools

  Corporation of London

  0

  Camden

  1

  Greenwich

  3

  Hackney

  5

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1

  Islington

  2

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  Lambeth

  11

  Lewisham

  4

  Southwark

  4

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Wandsworth

  3

  Westminster

  1

  Barking

  0

  Barnet

  0

  Bexley

  0

  Brent

  4

  Bromley

  1

  Croydon

  4

  Ealing

  0

  Enfield

  1

  Haringey

  2

  Harrow

  0

  Havering

  1

  Hillingdon

  0

  Hounslow

  1

  Kingston

  0

  Merton

  0

  Newham

  3

  Redbridge

  0

  Richmond

  0

  Sutton

  2

  Waltham Forest

  6

  Birmingham

  6

  Coventry

  1

  Dudley

  0

  Sandwell

  3

  Solihull

  1

  Walsall

  3

  Wolverhampton

  2

  Knowsley

  0

  Liverpool

  6

  St. Helens

  0

  Sefton

  0

  Wirral

  1

  Bolton

  1

  Bury

  1

  Manchester

  4

  Oldham

  1

  Rochdale

  2

  Salford

  2

  Stockport

  1

  Tameside

  0

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  1

  Barnsley

  0

  Doncaster

  0

  Rotherham

  0

  Sheffield

  5

  102

  Bradford

  8

  Calderdale

  1

  Kirklees

  3

  Leeds

  6

  Wakefield

  0

  Gateshead

  1

  Newcastle

  3

  North Tyneside

  0

  South Tyneside

  0

  Sunderland

  1

  Bath and North East Somerset

  0

  457

  LEA

  Number of schools

  City of Bristol

  0

  North Somerset

  South Gloucestershire

  0

  Hartlepool

  0

  Middlesborough

  1

  Redcar

  0

  Stockton

  1

  Hull

  5

  East Riding

  0

  North East Lincolnshire

  0

  North Lincolnshire

  0

  North Yorkshire

  0

  York

  0

  Bedfordshire

  1

  Berkshire

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  3

  Cheshire

  0

  Cornwall

  1

  Cumbria

  3

  Derbyshire

  1

  Devon

  3

  Dorset

  1

  Durham

  0

  East Sussex

  2

  Essex

  6

  Gloucestershire

  3

  Hampshire

  3

  Hereford and Worcester

  2

  Hertfordshire

  5

  Isle of Wight

  0

  Kent

  4

  Lancashire

  14

  Leicestershire

  8

  Lincolnshire

  2

  Norfolk

  8

  Northants

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  7

  Oxfordshire

  4

  Shropshire

  2

  Somerset

  1

  Staffordshire

  5

  Suffolk

  0

  Surrey

  1

  Warwickshire

  1

  West Sussex

  0

  Wiltshire

  2

  131

  1. Independent

  Colbrook Independent Special School, Shropshire. Talbot Independent Special School, Northumberland.

  2. GM Schools

  Southfields Secondary, Kent 1.

  St Hugh's Secondary, Lincolnshire 1.

  Upbury Manor Secondary, Kent 1.

  Aston St. Peters Primary, Bedfordshire 1.

  Our Lady of Fatima Sec, Liverpool 1.

  Kelsey Park Secondary School, Bromley 1.

  St. Margaret's Special School, Bedfordshire 1.

  Hayes Manor Secondary School, Hillingdon 1.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children of school age, who are the subjects of statements of special educational needs, are being educated in(a) private schools specialising in such children, (b) maintained
  458
  special schools, (c) special units within maintained schools and (d) mainstream classes in maintained schools. [16438]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Schools' returns to the Department showed that in January 1996, 4,992 pupils with statements were educated in non-maintained special schools, 5,810 in independent schools, 87,458 in maintained special schools, 1,826 in pupil referral units, and 127,238 in maintained nursery, primary or secondary schools. Information on whether pupils with statements in mainstream schools are taught in general classes or separately is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) boys and (b) girls of school age are the subjects of statements of special educational needs; and how many of these have (i) special learning difficulties and (ii) behavioural problems. [16435]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Schools' returns to the Department showed that in January 1996 a total of 227,324 pupils had statements. Information by gender, or by type of special educational need, is not collected centrally.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number and the proportion of eligible parents who have(a) received a voucher application form and (b) returned a voucher application from, in respect of provision for their four-year-old in the summer term 1997. [15958]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The parents/carers of 653,746 eligible children have been sent an application form. Of those, as of 12 February 1997, a total of 511,780—more than 78 per cent.—had returned their forms to the nursery voucher centre.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from providers in the four areas piloting the nursery voucher scheme, regarding the impact of the voucher scheme on provision for three-year-olds. [15960]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received representations on a number of aspects of the nursery voucher scheme, including the desirability of extending the scheme to three-year-olds. As the deduction from each local education authority's standard spending assessment is only in respect of existing places for four-year-olds, it should not impact on the provision for three-year-olds.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many places for voucher-bearing four-year-olds were provided in(a) the maintained sector, (b) the voluntary sector, (c) the private sector and (d) overall in (i) the first term and (ii) the second term of the nursery voucher pilot scheme. [15955]

  Mr. Squire
  The table provides a breakdown of the number of places provided under the voucher scheme by type of provider for each of the phase 1 local education authority areas in the summer and autumn terms of 1996.
  459

  Number of places provided in the summer and autumn terms

  Norfolk

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Total

  Summer term

  Private and voluntary sectors

  3,656

  248

  448

  168

  4,520

  Independent schools

  222

  148

  197

  92

  659

  Grant-maintained schools

  158

  40

  71

  0

  269

  Local authority day nurseries

  0

  40

  35

  49

  124

  Special schools

  21

  0

  4

  0

  25

  LEA-maintained schools

  4,274

  600

  2,043

  832

  7,749

  Total

  8,331

  1,076

  2,798

  1,141

  13,346

  Autumn term

  Private and voluntary sectors

  773

  123

  127

  120

  1,143

  Independent schools

  206

  269

  347

  113

  935

  Grant-maintained schools

  344

  45

  232

  0

  621

  Local authority day nurseries

  0

  23

  6

  29

  58

  Special schools

  18

  0

  8

  0

  26

  LEA-maintained schools

  7,548

  621

  2,040

  886

  11,095

  Total

  8,889

  1,081

  2,760

  1,148

  13,878

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when parents of four-year-olds will receive a nursery voucher in respect of provision in the summer term 1997. [15957]

  Mr. Squire
  The first tranche of nursery education vouchers will arrive with parents from 24 February 1997. Thereafter vouchers will be issued to parents on receipt of a correctly completed application form.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish the chief inspector's report on the findings of the inspections carried out up to the end of November, in the pilot phase of the nursery voucher scheme. [15959]

  Mr. Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has published today the chief inspector's overview report on the findings of inspections carried out in the local authority areas participating in phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her current estimate of the number and percentage of parents in the four areas piloting the nursery voucher scheme who have seen or heard advertising for the scheme. [15953]

  Mr. Squire
  Research undertaken in March 1996 among a sample of the 16,000 eligible parents in the four phase 1 participating authorities showed that, overall,

  Voucher redemption in summer and autumn terms

  Norfolk

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Wandsworth

  Westminster

  Summer term 1996

  Estimated children

  9,300

  1,650

  3,300

  1,900

  Vouchers issued

  8,914

  1,140

  3,123

  1,395

  Vouchers redeemed (full or part)

  8,331

  1,076

  2,798

  1,141

  Nominal value of unredeemed voucher parts

  £526,251

  £28,859

  £141,913

  £107,589

  Autumn term 1996

  Estimated children

  9,300

  1,650

  3,300

  1,900

  Vouchers issued

  9,128

  1,142

  3,147

  1,469

  Vouchers redeemed (full or part)

  8,889

  1,081

  2,760

  1,148

  Nominal value of unredeemed vouchers parts

  £177,960

  £35,570

  £174,403

  £142,463

  460
  some 38 per cent. claimed to have seen or heard some advertising for the nursery education voucher scheme. The figure rose to 48 per cent. in Norfolk. Given that publicity had to be contained within the participating authorities, this is a very respectable figure.

  No subsequent research of this nature has been undertaken, but it seems reasonable to conclude that with the advent of national advertising for phase 2 a greater proportion of parents in the four phase 1 areas are now aware of the scheme.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many vouchers have been(a) issued and (b) redeemed in respect of (i) term one and (ii) term two of the nursery voucher scheme; and what is the cash value of unredeemed vouchers; [15954]

  (2) in respect of each of the four nursery voucher pilot areas (a) what is the number of eligible four-year-olds, (b) how many applied for a voucher and (c) how many redeemed a voucher in (i) the first term and (ii) the second term, of the pilot phase. [15956]

  Mr. Squire
  The following table provides a breakdown of the estimated number of children eligible for a voucher, and the number of vouchers issued and redeemed for each of the phase 1 local education authority areas in the summer and autumn terms 1996. Unredeemed vouchers do not have a cash value; they represent the potential grant that would have been paid had they been redeemed.

  Grant-maintained Status Applications
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the timetable which governs the process of application for grant-maintained status if a board of school governors recommends that such status should be sought. [16252]

  Mr. Forth
  If the governing body of a school passes a resolution to ballot parents on grant-maintained status, or if it receives a valid petition from parents, it must hold a ballot within 10 weeks. If a majority of those parents who vote are in favour of GM status, the governing body must publish, within four months of the ballot result, statutory proposals for acquiring GM status. There is then a period of two months during which objections to those proposals may be made. My right hon. Friend decides the proposals, taking account of any objections, as soon as possible thereafter.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of schools likely to apply for grant-maintained status within the next six months; and if she will make a statement. [16254]

  Mr. Forth
  There are currently some 50 schools which have published statutory proposals to become grant maintained following a yes vote in parental ballots, and nine more are in the process of balloting parents. Beyond that, the number of schools applying for grant-maintained status depends on parental choice and we do not try to predict it.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many(a) primary and (b) secondary schools have begun the process of seeking grant-maintained status; in how many of those cases parents voted by a sufficient majority in favour of acquiring such status; in how many of the cases of such affirmative votes applications have so far been received by his Department; in how many of those cases of applications received such status (i) was approved, (ii) was denied and (iii) is still pending; and if she will make a statement. [16251]

  Mr. Forth
  The GM process starts when a school decides to ballot parents on applying for GM status. If parents vote yes, the school publishes statutory proposals to become a grant-maintained school. These are considered by the Secretary of State, who may approve or reject them. The following table gives details of ballots and their outcomes in England since GM legislation was first introduced in 1988.

  (a) Primary

  (b) Secondary

  Number of schools holding ballots

  764

  944

  Yes votes by parents

  566

  702

  Statutory proposals published

  561

  701

  Statutory proposals approved by Secretary of State

  494

  654

  Statutory proposals rejected by Secretary of State

  50

  39

  Statutory proposals under consideration

  17

  8

  Figures exclude special schools and schools established by promoters. Where schools have held more than one ballot, only the outcome of the latest has been included. Where schools have published proposals more than once, only the latest decision has been counted.
  462
  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the grounds upon which an application by a school for grant-maintained status could be refused by the Secretary of State; and in what circumstances under the relevant Act the Secretary of State could defer a decision. [16253]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend considers each application for grant-maintained status on its merits and in the light of the relevant circumstances. The reasons for any decision not to approve GM statutory proposals therefore vary from case to case. The legislation does not make provision for the deferral of decisions on GM applications.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people after claiming jobseeker's allowance for a period of 13 weeks have taken(a) part-time employment of less than 25 hours, (b) temporary employment of less than (i) six months and (ii) 12 months and (c) employment paying less than £3 per hour in each month since 7 October 1996. [16125]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of people who, after claiming Jobseeker's Allowance for a period of 13 weeks, have taken (a) part-time employment of less than 25 hours, (b) temporary employment of less than (i) 6 months and (ii) 12 months and (c) employment paying less than £3 per hour in each month since 7th October 1996.
  Unfortunately, I cannot provide the information you request as it is not available. The reasons for this are:
  the Employment Service records employment details where jobseekers have been placed into vacancies advertised through Jobcentres, but no details are available for jobseekers finding employment through alternative means. Therefore I cannot identify total numbers for any of the categories you have requested;
  when details of vacancies are taken by the Jobcentre, an indicator is set if the vacancy is temporary but the period of temporary work is not specified;
  vacancies taken by the Jobcentre are classified as part time if the vacancy offers up to 30 hours work per week, but no differentiation is made between part time vacancies on the basis of the number of hours;
  in general, Jobcentres record the average weekly earnings rather than the hourly rate.
  Although the information you have requested is not available, you may find it useful to refer to the Labour Market Trends publication produced by the Office for National Statistics, which provides further Labour Market analysis.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people have been subject to benefit disqualification as a result of(a) breaking the labour market conditions, (b) failing to complete the jobseeker's allowance agreement, (c) refusing to attend mandatory training courses and (d) failing to act on the jobseeker's direction in each month since 7 October 1996; [16126]
  463
  (2) how many people have been subject to benefit disqualification for refusing to accept a job offer notified by the Employment Service in each month since October 1996. [16127]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Ms Roseanna Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about how many people in each month since October 1996 have been subjected to benefit disqualification as a result of breaking the labour market conditions, failing to complete the jobseeker's allowance agreement, refusing to attend mandatory training courses, failing to act on the jobseeker's direction, and refusing to accept a job offer notified by the Employment Service. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Unfortunately information is not available in the form you have requested. The information is not available on a monthly basis but statistics are compiled quarterly. Information about decisions on questions arising on claims for unemployment benefit is contained in a document entitled "Analysis of Adjudication Officer's Decisions", which is published quarterly, and includes information on all the main entitlement questions arising on claims.
  The publication for the quarter ending 31 December 1996 will also include decisions given on questions arising on claims for Jobseeker's Allowance. All the main questions will be shown separately, including those relating to the areas referred to above. I expect to publish this analysis by the end of March 1997 and copies will be placed in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his answer of 3 February,Official Report, column 466, what level of TEC reserves is available for discretionary expenditure. [16856]

  Mr. Paice
  The information provided by training and enterprise councils in England about the level of reserves shown in their statutory accounts for 1995–96 show that the total of £260 million comprised £51 million for investment in capital assets, £86 million for working capital and £123 million for discretionary expenditure. Of the sum available for discretionary expenditure, £102 million was earmarked for planned expenditure in 1996–97 and beyond for economic regeneration and other purposes in line with their corporate and business plans.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and which United Kingdom constituencies have higher unemployment rates than(a) Germany and (b) France. [15673]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  464
  Letter from Dennis Roberts to Mr. Peter Bottomley dated 18 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked the director of the Office for National Statistics to reply to your recent question on those parliamentary constituencies with a higher rate of unemployment than Germany and France. The Director has asked me to reply in his absence.
  Unemployment rates by Parliamentary Constituency are not available for either the claimant count or the internationally comparable ILO measure of unemployment derived from the Labour Force Survey.

DEFENCE

  Publicity Material (Languages)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many items of publicity material are produced by his Department in the Urdu language. [14850]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 10 February,Official Report, column 5. Details of any other material produced by my Department in the Urdu language are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Policies (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [14954]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Information is not available in the form requested by my hon. Friend. However, my Department publishes data on the destination of MOD equipment expenditure on an annual basis in "UK Defence Statistics". Table 1.9 shows expenditure in each of the standard UK regions. A copy of the latest "UK Defence Statistics" is in the Library of the House. Data are not available at a lower level than that published. My hon. Friend may wish to know, however, that my Department has placed over 550 contracts in the Bournemouth area over the last 12 months worth in total in the region of £40 million.

  Suicides (Armed Services)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many suicides there have been in each of the armed services in each year since 1990. [15387]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 12 February 1997]: The number of coroner verdicts of suicide in each of the armed services, including Gurkhas1, for each year since 1990 are:

  Year

  Navy

  Army1

  RAF

  Total

  1990

  8

  20

  14

  42

  1991

  5

  22

  7

  34

  1992

  6

  19

  5

  30

  1993

  1

  18

  4

  23

  1994

  6

  18

  5

  29

  1995

  1

  15

  2

  18

  1996

  2

  3

  0

  5

  1997

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Information in the table as at 10 February 1997.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the ways in which his Department has demonstrated the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through an environmental audit of(a) energy use and (b) waste management within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16423]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This answer can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the role of(a) the Department of Trade and Industry, (b) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (c) the Department of Education and Employment in the design consultations on the replacement for the royal yacht Britannia. [15736]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In view of the trade promotion and representational roles of the royal yacht, officials from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will assist the Ministry of Defence in developing the specification for the new vessel. No Department for Education and Employment participation is currently planned.

  Sensorineural Hearing Loss
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations his Department has had with the Department of Social Security in relation to replies to parliamentary questions from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe, on the subject of sensorineural hearing loss and war pensions. [15860]

  Mr. Soames
  The administration of the war pension scheme is a matter for the Department of Social Security. On medical matters, the legislation governing that scheme requires the War Pensions Agency to take the advice of a medical advisor appointed by the Secretary of State for that Department. My Department has no part to play in this process; consequently, there has been no need for consultation.

  Eskmeals and Shoeburyness Ranges
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what steps have been taken in recent years to reduce the fixed costs of the ranges at(a) Eskmeals and (b) Shoeburyness; [16479]

  (2) what are the fixed costs to the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency of providing the ranges at (a) Eskmeals and (b) Shoeburyness. [16480]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your questions about the fixed costs of running the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness, and the steps which have
  466
  been taken to reduce them, since as Chief Executive of DERA, this is a matter for which I am responsible. I will reply to both questions in this letter.
  The fixed costs of providing accommodation, estate management, security, communications infrastructure and site management, during 1997/8, are expected to be:
  Shoeburyness: £6,397,000
  Eskmeals: £2,138,000
  This cost is before the provision of any staff or costs directly associated with the provision of any staff or costs directly associated with the provision or support of trials capabilities.
  Both ranges have taken steps to reduce their fixed costs. At Eskmeals, savings have been achieved by reducing the numbers of staff, rationalising working practices and reviewing property and estate practices. Similarly, staffing levels and maintenance programmes have been reduced at Shoeburyness. Changes have also been made to the way in which work is done, including the contractorisation of works services.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the test and evaluation work of(a) Eskmeals range and (b) Shoeburyness range is devoted to (i) new weapon procurement and (ii) equipment improvement programmes to enhance existing defence systems. [16481]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the nature of the work done in support of the Ministry of Defence's equipment procurement programme at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness, since as Chief Executive of DERA, this is a matter for which I am responsible.
  Work on the Eskmeals range is divided in broadly equal parts between new equipment procurement and equipment improvement programmes. At Shoeburyness, typically half of the tasks undertaken involves the proof testing of weapons and munitions. The remainder of the work is in support of new equipment procurement or improvement programmes, but on both ranges the precise balance varies from year to year.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the staff complements of(a) Eskmeals range and (b) Shoeburyness range in each of the past five years in each of the categories (i) contractors, (ii) civil servants and (iii) military staff. [16478]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the staff complements of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness, since as Chief Executive of DERA, this is a matter for which I am responsible.
  467
  The number of staff working on the ranges, as at 1 April in each of the last 5 years was as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Eskmeals

  Civil servants

  65

  65

  63

  56

  56

  Military

  12

  12

  11

  9

  8

  Contractors

  174

  173

  170

  148

  140

  Shoeburyness

  Civil servants

  83

  83

  79

  77

  68

  Military

  24

  24

  21

  21

  18

  Contractors

  400

  388

  399

  380

  343

  I hope this is helpful.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what facilities are available at the Eskmeals range that are not available at other ranges of his Department; [16488]

  (2) what proportion of the work of the Shoeburyness range involves overwater recovery; and at what other range facilities in the United Kingdom or overseas this work could take place. [16477]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your questions about the facilities and capabilities at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness and their availability at other ranges, since as Chief Executive of DERA, this is a matter for which I am responsible. I will respond to both of these questions in this letter.
  Although none of the facilities currently available at Eskmeals is directly replicated elsewhere, it would technically be feasible to provide all but one of the capabilities offered by the range on other sites. The firing of ammunition incorporating Depleted Uranium in a contained environment cannot be conducted on any other Ministry of Defence range in the United Kingdom.
  During the current year, over water recovery is forecast to account for some 5% by value of all work undertaken at Shoeburyness. I am only aware of one other facility, in Australia, at which it is possible to carry out comparable over water recovery.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the charges for the use of the Eskmeals and Shoeburyness ranges are set at a level commensurate with recovering the costs of operating those facilities; [16482]

  (2) what increases in the level of charges were set in each of the last five years for the use of (a) Eskmeals and (b) Shoeburyness ranges. [16483]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your questions about the levels of charges and operating costs and increases in charges of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness, since as Chief Executive of DERA, this is a matter for which I am responsible. I will cover both questions in this letter.
  468
  Charges for the use of the ranges are set at a level which should enable the full cost of operating the facilities to be recovered, based upon a predicted level of demand. In the event, a significant reduction in the level of customer demand for the facilities on both ranges has resulted in income falling well short of that required to cover the cost of operating them.
  Information on the level of charges is only available from when DTEO began trading, as part of DERA in 1995. At Eskmeals, the average increase in rates from 1995/6 to 1996/7 was 1.5%. However the basis of charging for the use of facilities at Shoeburyness changed between 1995/6 when, for example, there were five different rates for static trials, and 1996/7 when there were 15. Direct comparisons are not therefore possible.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from members of the public regarding the safety of(a) the Eskmeals and (b) the Shoeburyness ranges. [16476]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 18 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply to your question about the numbers of representations that have been received from members of the public regarding safety at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness, since as Chief Executive of DERA, this is a matter for which I am responsible.
  I am not aware of any concerns expressed by members of the public about the safety of operations at either of the ranges since they became part of DERA in 1995.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Army Manning
  Mr. Lamont
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further initiatives he is taking to improve manning in the Army. [16743]

  Mr. Soames
  I am determined to reverse the current levels of undermanning in the armed forces. We shall accelerate our recruiting efforts, which already show a marked improvement in results over previous years. The Army alone will need up to 17,000 recruits per annum over the next few years.

  Numbers are not the only issue, however. Equally important is the need to attract recruits of the right quality to cope with the complexities of modern warfare, and to provide the highest standards of leadership, for which our forces are rightly renowned and which were previously provided under the junior leaders scheme.

  To obtain suitable high quality recruits in sufficient numbers, we propose to supplement our current recruiting methods with a new approach designed to attract school leavers of 16 years and over interested in gaining qualifications and enhanced career opportunities as well as guaranteed employment.

  I have decided, therefore, to open a new Army foundation college in September 1998. It will offer a 42-week Army foundation course for soldiers destined for front line roles, combining military and leadership

  469
  training with vocational education. It will develop key skills in numeracy, communications, information technology, personal skills and problem solving, needed for access to national vocational qualifications.

  When fully established the college will accommodate up to 1,300 students. Its graduates will therefore contribute significantly to resolving the Army's manning difficulties. We are confident that many of them will rise to fill key positions, providing the Army with high quality leadership into the future.

  Following the example of other successful defence projects, such as the recent competition for the new joint services command and staff college, we intend to seek private finance for the college. There is a possible site available at the former army apprentices college at Harrogate, which we shall draw to the attention of bidders, but it would not be appropriate to take a firm decision on location at this stage.

  The new Army foundation college will ensure that the Army is well placed to attract the best young men and women into its ranks. It will offer ambitious young people valuable qualifications and one of the most challenging and worthwhile careers in the country today.

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what promotional and public information campaigns his Department is(a) currently running and (b) planning to run during the next six months; and for each campaign (i) how much it will cost, (1) in total and (2) to his Department, (ii) what agencies or bodies are undertaking the work and (iii) what is its planned duration. [7414]

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Policy

  116,453

  167,390

  190,406

  259,384

  324,740

  453,000

  Navy

  2—

  538,639

  637,249

  571,312

  590,974

  592,000

  Army

  2—

  2—

  494,000

  831,000

  1,009,000

  586,000

  RAF

  2—

  339,000

  555,000

  615,000

  652,000

  607,000

  1 Forecast.

  2 Information not held centrally.

  We do not publish detailed future plans as approval to commit expenditure is subject to formal endorsement through Ministers and the parliamentary supply system.

  Recruitment

  £ million

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  11996–97

  Navy3

  2—

  3.583

  3.617

  3.505

  6.912

  6.816

  Army4

  10.995

  8.094

  9.537

  10.893

  22.272

  21.590

  RAF

  3.244

  2.058

  2.256

  3.812

  3.535

  5.108

  1Forecast.

  2Information not held centrally.

  3Includes all costs attributable to marketing the RN/RM as a career.

  4Includes all costs attributable to marketing the Army as a career and expenditure on recruiting and publicity for the Territorial Army.

  We do not publish detailed future plans as approval to commit expenditure is subject to formal endorsement through Ministers and the parliamentary supply system.
  470
  Mr. Soames
  In addition to service recruiting campaigns, which continue throughout the year, my Department sponsors, organises and controls centrally activities aimed at promoting understanding of Defence policy and the armed forces. These have taken the form, principally, of a touring Defence policy exhibition which for a number of years has followed a programme of displays at public events across the country; and in the work of the single service presentation teams which operate throughout the year. During the next six months, it is planned to mount the Defence policy exhibition at the Birmingham international boat and caravan show over nine days in February.

  Excluding manpower, the overall cost of the Defence policy exhibition in 1996–97 is expected to be £453,000, of which the display costs at Birmingham amount to £38,000.

  The costs of the single service presentation teams, primarily service manpower, in 1996–97 are expected to be £1.785 million.

  The costs of service recruitment campaigns in 1996–97 are expected to amount to £33.51 million.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [7532]

  Mr. Soames
  Expenditure on the Defence policy exhibition—excluding manpower—service presentation teams and service recruitment advertising in each of the last five years for which information is available was as follows:

SCOTLAND

  Hospital Beds
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds there were in each NHS trust in Scotland in each year from 1994 to 1996; and if he will make a statement. [15896]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The table shows the average daily number of beds staffed and available for the reception of in-patients and day cases.

  Changes in the number of available staffed beds between 1994 and 1996 reflect several developments, including shorter lengths of stay for patients receiving treatment in acute specialties, greater use of day case surgery, and the increase in the number of patients being cared for in the community rather than in hospital.

  NHS hospitals—average available staffed beds by NHS Trust1— years ending 31 March 1994 to 1996

  NHS Trust

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Scotland

  44,185

  42,351

  40,555

  Argyll and Clyde

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  639

  652

  620

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  380

  368

  364

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  428

  408

  405

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,715

  1,651

  1,633

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  523

  513

  500

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health Care NHS Trust

  1,050

  1,007

  945

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  944

  902

  877

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  699

  667

  586

  Borders

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  443

  436

  418

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  392

  377

  379

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  160

  454

  469

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  827

  772

  714

  Fife

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,789

  1,615

  1,517

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  419

  474

  439

  Queen Margaret Hospitals NHS Trust

  369

  365

  366

  Forth Valley

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,751

  1,653

  1,525

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  405

  395

  394

  472

  NHS hospitals—average available staffed beds by NHS Trust1— years ending 31 March 1994 to 1996

  NHS Trust

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  442

  456

  429

  Grampian

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,420

  1,418

  1,425

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,789

  2,578

  2,414

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  425

  418

  437

  Greater Glasgow

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  1,420

  1,291

  1,263

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  2,775

  2,650

  2,364

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  1,169

  1,065

  1,066

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  943

  859

  784

  The Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  1,035

  943

  918

  The Yorkhill NHS Trust

  414

  421

  397

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  1,457

  1,318

  1,303

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  —

  —

  —

  Highland

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  216

  226

  226

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  886

  847

  788

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  619

  600

  600

  Lanarkshire

  Hairnyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  776

  773

  754

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,943

  1,777

  1,689

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  6984

  663

  645

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  652

  643

  645

  Lothian

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  1,130

  1,111

  1,090

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,618

  1,598

  1,533

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  146

  159

  141

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  1,613

  1,599

  1,432

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  981

  1,007

  990

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  825

  815

  814

  Orkney

  Orkney Health Board Unit

  152

  150

  150

  Shetland

  Shetland Hospitals and Community Services Unit

  142

  137

  136

  Tayside

  Angus NHS Trust

  834

  802

  774

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  1,152

  1,091

  1,032

  473

  NHS hospitals—average available staffed beds by NHS Trust1— years ending 31 March 1994 to 1996

  NHS Trust

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  1,068

  1,061

  1,023

  Pert and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  950

  904

  891

  Western Isles

  Western Isles Health Unit

  266

  265

  250

  1 Composition of trusts is based on services provided during year ending 31 March 1996. Includes directly managed units.

  Timber Products
  Sir Irvine Patrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Forest Stewardship Council in respect of standards for the sustainability of timber products. [15485]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Forestry Commission is consulting widely on a draft UK forestry standard and will take account of the Forest Stewardship Council's views.

  Sinclair Gardens, Bishopbriggs
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the date for the public inquiry into the pathway closure at Sinclair gardens in Bishopbriggs, Glasgow. [15698]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has not been asked to confirm an order extinguishing the right of way over a path at Sinclair gardens in Bishopbriggs, Glasgow. If such a request is made by East Dunbartonshire council consideration will be given to the need for a public inquiry.

  BSE (Cattle Cull)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's search for cattle associated with BSE cases to be culled under the terms of the Florence agreement; how many cattle have been identified so far; what is his latest estimate of the likely total; how many farms are involved; and what is his estimate of the time scale for completing this search and concluding the accelerated cull. [16318]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  On-farm visits to natal herds, in which a confirmed case of BSE was born, started in the week beginning 27 January. So far, the total number of Scottish cattle that have been identified through these visits as having been exposed to the same feed as BSE cases is 286. Of this number, 49 animals have so far been confirmed as exposed by the central veterinary unit, all of which have moved out of the natal herd and need to be traced further. The latest estimate of the number of cattle affected in Great Britain is 90,000 to 100,000, of which around 4,300 may be in Scotland. However, the true number of animals affected can be determined only by on-farm visits.

  Around 300 farms in Scotland have herds in which a confirmed case of BSE was born. Farms which have bought in exposed animals will also be affected. Again, the number of such farms can only be established through the visits to the natal herds, and subsequent tracing visits.
  474
  It is very difficult at this early stage to estimate the length of time it will take to conclude the cull.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to and what reports he has received from the authorities in(a) Kashmir and (b) India concerning the hostage Paul Wells. [16226]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Mr right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the kidnapping of Paul Wells and Keith Mangan with his Indian and Pakistani counterparts during his January visits. We remain deeply troubled that there has been no confirmed news of the two men since August 1995. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our concern clear and obtained assurances of all possible assistance in finding out what has happened to the men. He has since written to their families. The Foreign Office consular division will keep them fully informed of any developments.

  We are in touch with the Indian authorities, and with the Chief Minister of Kashmir. The diplomatic missions of the UK, USA, Germany and Norway also follow closely the investigation undertaken by the Jammu and Kashmir police.

  Israel
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms of scrutiny the Government propose to put forward to(a) the European Commission and (b) other EU bodies in relation to article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement; and if he will take steps to ensure these mechanisms are sufficiently transparent to allow assessment of the operation and effect of the human rights clause in the association agreement. [16191]

  Mr. Hanley
  Heads of diplomatic missions of EU member states in Israel and the occupied territories, as in other countries, continually monitor the human rights situation and send regular reports to the EU Presidency, which are seen by all Member State governments. This includes reporting in connection with the association agreements. The EU-Israel association agreement will establish a political dialogue which will allow the EU to raise human rights issues more effectively with the Israeli Government. The association council set up under the agreement will examine any major issues arising under the agreement.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Israel's compliance with articles 1 and 38 of the EU-Israel interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters. [16325]

  Mr. Hanley
  Article 1 of the agreement concerns respect for human rights and democratic principles. We and the EU regularly raise these important matters with the Israeli Government. Article 38 is about the territories to which the agreement applies: as it applies to the territory of the state of Israel, it would not include the
  475
  occupied territories. The question of whether Israel would be in breach of the agreement by certifying goods produced in the occupied territories as produced in Israel is a matter for the Commission.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has received from Israel in respect of its compliance with articles 1 and 38 of the EU-Israel association agreement once Parliament has ratified that agreement. [16326]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer. Articles 1 and 38 in the interim agreement are equivalent to articles 2 and 83 in the association agreement. We have received no assurances bilaterally from Israel on this agreement, which is between Israel and the EU.

  South Africa
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what travel advice his Department provides for travellers visiting South Africa. [15898]

  Dr Liam Fox
  The current travel advice for South Africa, issued on 7 February 1997, states:Incidents of armed attack, mugging and car hijacking are common, both during daylight hours and at night. The level of violent crime is high, particularly in the Johannesburg area. The murder rate is high and victims in recent months have included a number of foreigners. Care is required in all major cities. Isolated areas should be avoided. Drivers should park in well-lit areas and never pick up strangers. It is inadvisable to wear expensive jewellery or carry cameras when walking in urban areas. The minimum of cash should be carried. Townships and surrounding areas should be avoided.
  If staying in an hotel, seek the advice of the management about which areas should be avoided. Visitors should contact the British High Commission/Consulate for further guidance. British High Commission Pretoria; (012) 342 2200; British Consulate General Johannesburg; (011) 327 0015; British Consulate Cape Town; (021) 253 670; British Consulate Durban; (031) 305 2929; British Consulate East London; (0431) 54 430; British Consulate Port Elizabeth; (041) 55 2423.

  China
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning the treatment of political prisoners. [16327]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly raise our concerns on human rights, including the treatment of political prisoners, with the Chinese authorities, both bilaterally and through the European Union. My right hon. and learned Friend and Foreign Secretary did so most recently during his talks with Qian Qichen in Singapore on 14 February.

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning Ngawang Choephel's imprisonment in Sangyip. [16328]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on 3 February 1997,Official Report, column 504.
  476
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese Government concerning conditions at Sangyip. [16329]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have not made any specific representations to the Chinese Government concerning conditions at Sangyip prison. However, my right hon. and learned Friend and the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about Tibet with the Chinese Foreign Minister when they met in Singapore on 14 February.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [15113]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 18 February. [15114]

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

  Residential Properties
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the residential properties which are within his gift.[15709]

  The Prime Minister
  Chevening, Dorneywood and the three flats in Admiralty house.

  Manpower Information Service
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he had made of the national on-line manpower information service report from the university of Durham; and if he will make a statement. [16307]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  NOMIS—national on-line manpower information system—is the Office for National Statistics on-line labour market statistics database run under contract by the university of Durham. It enables users to access electronically via a modem link, a wide range of official labour market statistics.

  NOMIS does not produce reports, but the information that it makes available is widely used for research purposes and under crown copyright is quoted as the source of information.

  There are currently 800 subscribers to NOMIS, including local authorities, academics, research bodies, central Government and the commercial sector.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Belize
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a final decision will be taken by the Overseas Development Administration over
  477
  Britain's contribution to the building of the Belize southern highway project; and what criteria will govern the appraisal of this project. [16194]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We expect to take a decision by June 1997. Project appraisal will be undertaken in accordance with established procedures, which require rigorous examination of economic, environmental, social and technical aspects.

  Regional Political Conference (Great Lakes Region)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions the British Government have recently held with(a) the Secretary-General of the United Nations, (b) the United States Government, (c) the Canadian Government and (d)regional Governments regarding the holding of a regional political conference in the great lakes region. [16324]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  The UK is in close contact with EU partners, the UN, and with regional states, regarding a regional political conference on the Great Lakes. We fully supported recent statements by the European Union and UN Security Council endorsing such a conference. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development raised the issue during bilateral meetings this year with the Presidents of Uganda and Kenya.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to facilitate the holding of a regional political conference in the great lakes region. [16323]

  Dr. Fox
  We believe that regional states must take a leading role in efforts to hold an international conference on the great lakes, and have regularly encouraged them to do so. We fully support the appointment of the Special Envoy of the UN Secretary-General and the Organisation for African Unity, Mohamed Sahnoun, who will co-ordinate international and regional efforts towards such a conference, which should be held under UN and OAU auspices. He is planning to visit London soon. The UK will continue to play an active role in the preparations for the conference.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the United Nations inspector-general contained in his report on the international genocide trials in Rwanda. [16322]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  I welcome the recent report by the UN office of internal oversight services into the international tribunal, which has identified areas of serious concern in the management of the tribunal. I commend Secretary-General Annan's announcement that he intends to reform the management of the tribunal.
  478
  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a)representations he has received and (b)discussions he has participated in regarding the management of the international genocide trials in Rwanda. [16321]

  Dr. Fox
  We have received no representations regarding the international criminal tribunal. We fully support UN Secretary-General Annan's intention to address vigorously the reported problems in the management of the tribunal.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  The Buying Agency
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what targets he has set for The Buying Agency. [16683]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have set the agency the following targets for 1997:Financial
  to generate a return on capital employed of 8 per cent.
  to increase sales of the core business by 20 per cent.
  to increase customers of the fuel and energy business by 5 per cent.
  Productivity
  to reduce the cost per £ of savings from the core business to 4.4p.
  to reduce the cost per £ of core business sales to 2.6p.
  Customer satisfaction
  to resolve 95 per cent. of customer complaints in one month.
  to deliver 94 per cent. of direct orders by the due date.
  Internal quality
  to improve the quality of the agency's workplace by achieving the health at work award.
  Environmental
  to set up an environmental management system as described in ISO 14001 standard.

  Ministerial Travel Costs
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the(a) total costs and (b) costs to each Department of (i) ministerial travel expenses (ii) foreign visits and (iii) accommodation costs in respect of (1) foreign visits and (2) other travel associated with ministerial duties in each year since 1992. [16256]

  Mr. Freeman
  The information required is not held centrally and is available only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Privatised Utilities (Information)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidance he has issued to the privatised utility regulators concerning the disclosure of information by the companies which they regulate. [15345]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The right of domestic and smaller commercial consumers of electricity and gas to change supplier can be exercised with a minimum of bureaucracy only if certain specified information about customers can be passed between licensed suppliers. In October, at the request of The Office of Electricity
  479
  Regulation, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Energy made the Electricity Act 1989 (Disclosure of Information) (Licence Holders) Order 1996 to facilitate this. The Office of Gas Supply has had access to technical advice given by my Department to British Gas about the requirements of section 42 of the Gas Act 1986, as amended. The provisions in the new order and the Gas Act are subject to the normal requirements of the Data Protection Act 1984, which is administered by the Data Protection Registrar.

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date his Department was first notified of Shell UK's proposals to dispose of the Brent Spar at sea. [15648]

  Mr. Page
  Consideration of Shell UK's proposals to dispose of the Brent Spar was spread over a period running form August 1991 to December 1994.

  Trade Fair Support Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations the Government have received from trade associations about the proposed changes to the trade fair support scheme. [15719]

  Mr. Nelson
  As at 14 February 1997 officials and Ministers in my Department had received letters from 40 trade associations on this topic.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade for what reasons the Government are withdrawing financial support for the trade fair support scheme. [15718]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government will continue to support a substantial number of trade fairs.

  The Government will be supporting core events under trade fair support scheme rules until March 1999. Support will be increasingly available for other fairs through the sector challenge. This will allow industry to propose more flexible and longer-term projects for exploiting the export opportunities that overseas trade fairs offer.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the level of financial support by the Government to the trade fair support scheme in the last three financial years. [15717]

  Mr. Nelson
  The amounts are:

  Year

  £ million

  1994–95

  17.1

  1995–96

  19.9

  1996–97

  118.9

  1Estimate.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the board of Trade if he will meet the British Ceramic Plant and Machinery Manufacturers Association to discuss the changes to the trade fair support scheme. [15720]

  Mr. Nelson
  My Department has met a number of trade associations to discuss the changes and is willing to meet the British Ceramic Plant and Machinery Manufacturers Association.

  Coal
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what have been the prices per tonne in sterling of coal(a) imports and (b) exports for each month from October 1996 to date. [15879]

  Mr. Page
  Import and export data are available to November 1996.

  Average monthly price £ per tonne

  Import

  Export

  October 1996

  36.48

  48.92

  November 1996

  34.13

  51.54

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the tonnage of coal(a) imports and (b) exports for each month from October 1996 to date. [15878]

  Mr. Page
  Import and export data are available to November 1996.

  Thousand tones

  Imports

  Exports

  October 1996

  1,206

  100

  November 1996

  1,941

  115

  Domestic Utility Prices
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade in which of the past 25 years the domestic prices of(a) electricity, (b) gas and (c) telephone calls fell in (i) real and (ii) nominal prices. [15835]

  Mr. Page
  The years when a fall in prices have occurred relative to the preceding year are shown in the table. All prices include VAT where appropriate.

  Electricity

  Gas

  Telecoms1

  Real terms

  1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1995, 1996

  1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1993, 1996

  1977, 1978, 1979, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996

  Nominal terms

  1987, 1993, 1996

  1987, 1992, 1993

  1977, 1983, 1994, 1995, 1996

  Note:

  1 Telecoms data are for 1994 onwards only.

  Source:

  Retail Prices Index, Office for National Statistics.

  Energy Research Budget
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the research budget for(a) coal, (b) nuclear, (c) gas and oil and (d) renewable energy sources in 1996; and in each case what was the figure as a percentage of his Department's total budget. [15881]
  481
  Mr. Page
  The Department's expenditure plans for these programmes for 1996–97 may be found on page 34 of "Trade and Industry: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1996–97 to 1998–99", Cm 3205, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. The Department's overall expenditure plans are summarised on page 8 of the same publication.

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the number of persons employed through private employment agencies for the last five years for which figures are available. [16240]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The labour force survey historical supplement published last year gives the following figures for those working through agencies on a temporary basis.

  Spring 1992: 81,000

  Spring 1993: 91,000

  Spring 1994: 114,000

  Spring 1995: 161,000

  Spring 1996: 201,000

  In addition, employment agencies find permanent fixed period contract, seasonal and other forms of employment for workers which are not included in the above figures.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the number of employment agencies that were officially registered for each year that it was a statutory requirement to register. [16239]

  Mr. Taylor
  The licensing of employment agencies under the Employment Agencies Act 1973 commenced in June 1976. The number licensed at the end of each year ending 31 March until licensing ceased on 3 January 1995 is as follows:

  1976–77: 3,991

  1977–78: 5,336

  1978–79: 6,000

  1979–80: 6,760

  1980–81: 6,787

  1981–82: 6,579

  1982–83: 6,618

  1983–84: 7,019

  1984–85: 7,830

  1985–86: 9,000

  1986–87: 10,352

  1987–88: 11,769

  1988–89: 14,137

  1989–90: 16,537

  1990–91: 17,193

  1991–92: 15,644

  1992–93: 14,422

  1993–94: 14,808

  1994–95: 15,202

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will estimate the number of employment agencies operating in the United Kingdom for each year since deregulation. [16241]
  482
  Mr. Taylor
  Agencies in Great Britain continue to be regulated under the provisions of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and associated regulations. Similar arrangements apply in Northern Ireland. The licensing requirements were replaced by a power of prohibition on 3 January 1995. Since then there has been no requirement for employment agencies to notify either this Department, or the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland, of their existence or closure.

  Electricity Cables
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many miles of the National Grid's overhead electricity distribution cables have been relaid underground in each of the past 10 years. [15790]

  Mr. Page
  This is a matter for the company.

  Mink Pelts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many mink pelts were imported into the United Kingdom in the last year for which figures are available. [16413]

  Mr. Nelson
  In 1995 the UK imported 753,000 mink fur skins.

  Employment Protection
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the employment protection legislation which does not apply to people employed by an employment agency rather than the company for which they work. [16472]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Employment protection legislation applies in the same way to all employees, whether they are employed by an employment business or by a company.

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment his Department has made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings which his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16276]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department is committed to complying with the requirements of all health and safety legislation relating to the identification and control of hazardous materials in the workplace, and replacing ozone depleting substances with environmentally friendly alternatives. My Department occupies some 220 sites: assessments of the amount of hazardous materials and ozone-depleting substances are held locally. These assessments have not been collated centrally.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the ways in which his Department has demonstrated the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through an environmental audit of waste management within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16420]
  483
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My departmental policy has been to concentrate on larger sites in implementing environmental audits. My Department uses the Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method—BREEAM—when undertaking large building refurbishments. Following refurbishment of the No.1 Victoria street headquarters building a BREEAM assessment rating of "very good" was achieved.

  Wherever possible, my Department uses the DIY environmental performance checklist, produced for premises managers by the Environment Agency and within the DTI headquarters estate. My Department has implemented an environmental management audit system, which is aimed at assessing and recording the estates impact on the environment. By 1998, my Department will have reduced its impact on the external environment by moving from 25 per cent. to 75 per cent. waste recycling.

  Airbus
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the total expenditure to date on launch aid for the Airbus A330/340 aircraft; and when he expects repayments to begin. [15855]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  Total launch aid of £447.1 million has been granted for the Airbus A330/340 aircraft. Based on current estimates of aircraft sales, I expect repayments to begin in early 1998.

  Nuclear Contamination
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the claims against (i) his Department and (ii) the nuclear generating companies for nuclear contamination for each year since 1980; what is the value of each(a) claim and (b) settlement; and how many are currently outstanding. [15951]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Claims for compensation against alleged nuclear contamination have to be lodged in accordance with the terms of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. Three claims have been made against the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under section 16(3), all in 1991–92. None was successful and no cases are currently outstanding.

  The nuclear industry operate a voluntary compensation scheme for radiation linked diseases, an industry/trade union "no fault" voluntary scheme, which covers the entire industry—both civilian and, more recently, military—rather than just the power generators themselves. Between its inception in 1982 and the end of 1996, this scheme paid out £3.25 million in compensation in a total of 73 cases out of around 650 claims.

  To protect the identity of individual claimants, more detailed data on these claims and settlements cannot be made available.

  Nuclear Waste Transport
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the costs of security for, and escorting of, the transport of nuclear waste by(a) rail and (b) road for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [15950]
  484
  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Ensuring the safety and security of nuclear materials, including nuclear waste, during transportation whether by rail or road is the top priority for the owners of this material and the carriers. It is not possible to separate out the security costs from the overall costs of transportation, which are a matter for the owners.

  There are no costs specifically incurred in the escorting of nuclear waste.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what extra resources will be made available to the Office of Telecommunications as a direct result of its responsibility for regulating access to digital broadcasting networks; what plans he has to meet the additional costs involved by a levy on broadcasters; and if he will make a statement. [16028]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The level of resources available to Office of Telecommunications is a matter for the Treasury. However, Oftel's cash limit increased to £10.4 million for 1997–98, compared to £9.1 million for 1996–97. This increase was partly in recognition of increasing enforcement responsibilities, including in relation to digital broadcasting. The allocation of resources within this total is a matter for the director general and I have asked him to write to the hon. Member. Oftel is funded by licence fees paid to the Government. The supply of conditional access to digital televisions is regulated by Oftel through a class licence granted by the Secretary of State under section 7 of the Telecommunications Act 1994. The licence contains provisions to allow the Director General of Telecommunications to set licence fees payable by operators of conditional access systems authorised by the licence. The director general will set fees for any licensee to reflect the level of enforcement activity required by the general nature of the activity involved and by any particular licensee. Accordingly, the costs of enforcement will be borne by the conditional access operators and there are no plans for a general levy on broadcasters for this purpose.

  Engineering Policy Unit
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the aims and objectives of his Department's engineering policy unit; and if he will make a statement. [16114]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The mission of my Department's engineering policy unit is to promote the better development and use of engineering skills to improve the competitiveness of UK industry. It has strategic responsibility for stimulating innovation and encouraging best management practice in the selection, education, training, recruitment, employment and development of engineers and technicians. It is the single point of contact for matters pertaining to all the engineering institutions and is responsible for transdepartmental engineering human resource policy matters.
  485
  The engineering policy unit has developed, enabled and supported the hugely successful "action for engineering" initiative, which has brought together some 125 representatives from industry, business, the professional institutions, academia, Government and charities in a steering group and six task forces to take co-ordinated action to increase substantially the influence, involvement and achievement of professional engineers and technicians for the benefit of British industry. With my Department's support, action for engineering has implemented or developed 32 projects for members of the engineering community to take forward.

  The engineering policy unit has also supported the strategic development of the Year of Engineering Success.

  The unit has been instrumental in fostering a new spirit of collaboration and cooperation within the engineering community and seeks to maintain a dynamic dialogue between the educators and trainers of engineers on the
  486
  one hand and employers of engineers on the other. It ensures that the needs of industry are reflected in Government policy and supply side initiatives on engineering education and training.

  Chemical Weapons Advisory Committee
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will make an announcement on the composition of the Chemical Weapons Advisory Committee. [16111]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: We expect soon to be in a position to make an announcement about the appointment of the chairman of the Chemical Weapons Advisory Committee. A subsequent announcement will be made about the other members of the committee, who will be selected following consultations with the newly appointed chairman. The committee will be in place before the chemical weapons convention comes into effect on 29 April 1997.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Policies (Bournemouth)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effect of his Department's policies on the residents of Bournemouth since 1992, with special references to the effects of changes in the resources provided in real terms. [14948]

  Mr. Watts
  Since 1994–95, my Department has provided more than £2 million of funding for the Bournemouth and Poole transport packages, which consist of junction improvements, park and ride, road safety schemes, and improved cycling and walking facilities. In 1997–98, Bournemouth will receive £200,000 for its share of the package funding. As from 1 April when Bournemouth becomes a unitary authority, total Department of Transport funding for 1997–98 will be £564,000.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 27 November 1996,Official Report, columns 273–76, what is his current estimate of the (a) gross and (b) net proceeds of sale of companies previously owned by British Rail. [15402]

  Mr. Watts
  Total gross proceeds of those companies, which were previously owned by British Rail and which have been sold pursuant to the Railways Act 1993, are £5.35 billion. This includes dividends of some £800

  Number over five minutes late (BR)

  p10 1995–96

  p11 1995–96

  p12 1995–96

  p13 1995–96

  p1 1996–97

  p2 1996–97

  p3 1996–97

  p4 1996–97

  p5 1996–97

  p6 1996–97

  p7 1996–97

  p8 1996–97

  p9 1996–97

  Chiltern

  40

  62

  79

  41

  35

  38

  102

  45

  franchised

  Great Eastern

  544

  441

  399

  137

  113

  129

  256

  153

  127

  138

  156

  276

  453

  Isle of Wight

  data not available

  London Tilbury and Southend

  160

  160

  157

  133

  74

  107

  franchised

  Northampton Lines

  143

  155

  250

  176

  211

  84

  162

  104

  86

  118

  103

  193

  181

  North London Lines

  data not available

  Kent Coast

  490

  410

  464

  328

  134

  102

  237

  175

  200

  169

  225

  franchised

  Kentlink

  838

  762

  903

  597

  314

  263

  559

  381

  302

  361

  506

  franchised

  South London Lines

  404

  333

  324

  266

  193

  206

  franchised

  Sussex Coast

  186

  180

  220

  145

  101

  82

  franchised

  Solent and Wessex (main line)

  141

  140

  franchised

  South Western Lines (suburban)

  301

  216

  franchised

  Thames

  94

  99

  109

  83

  47

  61

  114

  69

  114

  55

  109

  franchised

  Thameslink

  171

  203

  160

  200

  72

  75

  146

  181

  107

  88

  164

  183

  219

  Great Northern

  334

  286

  417

  227

  138

  172

  170

  123

  121

  246

  227

  396

  328

  West Anglia

  177

  128

  181

  73

  52

  41

  101

  114

  68

  50

  43

  331

  151

  North London Orbital

  data not available

  Watford Locals

  73

  73

  110

  87

  86

  54

  45

  45

  48

  25

  33

  87

  87

  Percentage over 5 minutes late (BR)

  p10 1995–96

  p11 1995–96

  p12 1995–96

  p13 1995–96

  p1 1996–97

  p2 1996–97

  p3 1996–97

  p4 1996–97

  p5 1996–97

  p6 1996–97

  p7 1996–97

  p8 1996–97

  p9 1996–97

  Chiltern

  4.8

  5.8

  7.8

  3.8

  3.6

  3.7

  10.0

  4.2

  franchised

  Great Eastern

  24.4

  15.9

  14.8

  4.9

  4.5

  4.9

  9.8

  5.6

  4.7

  5.3

  5.7

  10.0

  16.5

  Isle of Wight

  data not available

  London Tilbury and Southend

  13.8

  9.4

  9.8

  7.8

  4.8

  6.6

  franchised

  488
  million and £50 million paid before the sales of rolling stock leasing companies and BR infrastructure companies; proceeds still to be realised from the sale of Railtrack plc; and gross proceeds of sales completed after 27 November 1996. Vendors' costs of sales up to 31 March 1996 are estimated to be £51.66 million. As completion accounts and costs of sales for a number of sales in the current year have yet to be finalised, an estimate of net proceeds is not available.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current estimate of the cost of departmental staff working on rail privatisation; and what sums his Department has spent on bought in services in this connection. [15401]

  Mr. Watts
  My current estimate of the cost of departmental staff working on rail privatisation in 1996–97 is £2.1 million; the cost of services bought in in connection with rail privatisation in 1996–97 is £5.8 million, exclusive of VAT.

  Rail Services (Punctuality and Reliability)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number and (b) the percentage of trains, which arrived more than five minutes later during peak hours on each of the former Network SouthEast lines in each four week period since December 1995. [15962]

  Mr. Watts
  Information for the number of franchised services which arrived more than five minutes late during the peaks is not currently available. Available information for British Rail services and for the percentage of franchised services which arrived more than five minutes late during the peaks is in the tables.
  489

  Percentage over 5 minutes late (BR)

  p10 1995–96

  p11 1995–96

  p12 1995–96

  p13 1995–96

  p1 1996–97

  p2 1996–97

  p3 1996–97

  p4 1996–97

  p5 1996–97

  p6 1996–97

  p7 1996–97

  p8 1996–97

  p9 1996–97

  Northampton Lines

  18.3

  13.5

  27.7

  20.9

  24.6

  7.7

  14.6

  8.9

  8.2

  11.4

  8.7

  16.9

  16.4

  North London Lines

  data not available

  Kent Coast

  24.4

  20.7

  19.7

  13.1

  6.0

  4.3

  10.3

  7.3

  8.4

  7.3

  9.4

  franchised

  Kentlink

  22.4

  21.0

  19.9

  12.9

  7.7

  6.0

  12.7

  8.2

  6.5

  8.2

  10.9

  franchised

  South London Lines

  15.1

  8.7

  8.5

  6.9

  5.6

  5.6

  franchised

  Sussex Coast

  18.9

  12.8

  15.5

  10.2

  7.9

  6.1

  franchised

  Solent and Wessex (train line)

  14.6

  10.3

  franchised

  South Western Lines (Suburban)

  11.9

  5.9

  franchised

  Thames

  8.0

  6.7

  7.6

  5.5

  3.5

  4.3

  8.1

  4.8

  7.7

  3.9

  7.4

  franchised

  Thameslink

  18.1

  16.7

  13.9

  18.1

  6.8

  6.4

  12.6

  15.9

  9.3

  7.6

  13.3

  17.8

  17.9

  Great Northern

  18.9

  13.3

  20.7

  10.9

  7.1

  8.3

  8.3

  5.6

  5.5

  11.9

  10.7

  18.9

  15.2

  West Anglia

  10.0

  6.1

  9.1

  3.5

  2.7

  2.0

  5.1

  5.4

  3.2

  2.5

  2.0

  15.6

  7.1

  North London Orbital

  Data not available

  Watford Locals

  14.7

  10.9

  16.7

  16.2

  10.8

  8.9

  7.1

  6.7

  7.4

  4.2

  4.9

  12.9

  13.1

  Percentage of franchised peak services arriving more than five minutes late

  1995–96 percentage

  1996–97 percentage

  Train operator

  Route group

  P12

  P13

  P1

  P2

  P3

  P4

  P5

  P6

  P7

  P8

  P9

  P10

  South West Trains

  Main Line

  17

  6.3

  6.1

  5

  8

  6.2

  8.5

  8.7

  6.9

  20.6

  19.4

  10.6

  Suburban

  11.8

  4.4

  4.1

  4.2

  8.1

  5.6

  8.1

  5.4

  4.3

  13.3

  15.2

  8.8

  Connex South Central

  South London Lines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.9

  5.3

  4.3

  4.2

  6.8

  16

  22.4

  10.5

  Sussex Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10.2

  7.2

  9

  9

  8.1

  11.7

  12.5

  14.3

  LTS Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6.3

  6

  4.2

  5.2

  5.5

  6.1

  6.6

  5.4

  Chiltern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5.4

  3.8

  7.7

  11

  6.9

  3.5

  South Eastern

  Kent Link

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20.2

  21.4

  18.8

  Kent Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  23.7

  24.1

  19.7

  Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.7

  8.7

  9.3

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a) the number and (b) the percentage of trains cancelled on each of the former Network SouthEast lines in each four week period since December 1995. [15963]

  Trains cancelled (BR)

  p10 1995–96

  p11 1995–96

  p12 1995–96

  p13 1995–96

  p1 1996–97

  p2 1996–97

  p3 1996–97

  p4 1996–97

  p5 1996–97

  p6 1996–97

  p7 1996–97

  p8 1996–97

  p9 1996–97

  Chiltern

  17

  17

  35

  5

  12

  15

  33

  15

  franchised

  Great Eastern

  64

  121

  150

  44

  43

  25

  131

  29

  32

  23

  54

  33

  93

  Isle of Wight

  8

  5

  23

  8

  2

  20

  19

  10

  2

  13

  3

  franchised

  London Tilbury and Southend

  201

  68

  95

  83

  57

  47

  franchised

  Northampton Lines

  38

  20

  36

  32

  20

  11

  43

  21

  52

  20

  23

  124

  21

  North London Lines

  data not available

  Kent Coast

  103

  83

  131

  96

  71

  47

  89

  45

  51

  51

  118

  franchised

  Kentlink

  174

  178

  267

  259

  163

  128

  245

  134

  115

  175

  202

  —

  —

  South London Lines

  63

  80

  107

  67

  38

  49

  franchised

  Sussex Coast

  44

  55

  105

  33

  24

  54

  franchised

  Solent and Wessex (main line)

  52

  46

  franchised

  South Western Lines (suburban)

  157

  66

  franchised

  Thames

  221

  352

  321

  159

  132

  37

  133

  91

  106

  97

  108

  franchised

  Thameslink

  116

  90

  84

  45

  28

  28

  70

  175

  79

  47

  66

  64

  79

  Great Northern

  174

  80

  138

  62

  144

  42

  54

  48

  51

  159

  221

  222

  50

  West Anglia

  203

  104

  114

  52

  33

  33

  251

  81

  26

  48

  38

  82

  63

  North London Orbital

  528

  290

  708

  393

  230

  170

  192

  211

  237

  86

  193

  95

  138

  Watford Locals

  65

  41

  76

  37

  17

  13

  59

  67

  81

  90

  20

  56

  55

  Percentage cancelled (BR)

  p10 1995–96

  p11 1995–96

  p12 1995–96

  p13 1995–96

  p1 1996–97

  p2 1996–97

  P3 1996–97

  p4 1996–97

  p5 1996–97

  p6 1996–97

  p7 1996–97

  p8 1996–97

  p9 1996–97

  Chiltern

  0.5

  0.4

  0.8

  0.1

  0.3

  0.4

  0.8

  0.3

  franchised

  Great Eastern

  0.6

  0.9

  1.1

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.8

  0.2

  0.2

  0.2

  0.4

  0.2

  0.7

  Isle of Wight

  0.5

  0.3

  1.4

  0.5

  0.1

  1.1

  1.1

  0.6

  0.1

  0.7

  0.2

  franchised

  London Tilbury and Southend

  3.6

  1.0

  1.4

  1.2

  1.0

  0.7

  franchised

  Northampton Lines

  1.3

  0.5

  1.1

  1.1

  0.7

  0.3

  1.0

  0.5

  1.3

  0.5

  0.5

  2.8

  0.5

  North London Lines

  data not available

  Kent Coast

  1.0

  0.8

  1.0

  0.7

  0.6

  0.4

  0.7

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.9

  franchised

  Kentlink

  1.0

  1.1

  1.3

  1.2

  0.9

  0.6

  1.1

  0.6

  0.5

  0.8

  0.9

  franchised

  South London Lines

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  0.4

  0.2

  0.3

  franchised

  Sussex Coast

  0.5

  0.4

  0.8

  0.3

  0.2

  0.4

  franchised

  Solent and Wessex (main line)

  0.6

  0.4

  franchised

  ':

  South Western Lines (suburban)

  1.2

  0.4

  franchised

  Thames

  1.8

  2.3

  2.1

  1.0

  0.9

  0.3

  0.9

  0.6

  0.7

  0.7

  0.7

  franchised

  Thameslink

  2.5

  1.6

  1.6

  0.8

  0.6

  0.5

  1.3

  3.1

  1.4

  0.9

  1.2

  1.3

  1.4

  Great Northern

  2.3

  0.9

  1.6

  0.7

  1.8

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  0.6

  1.9

  2.4

  2.4

  0.5

  West Anglia

  2.4

  1.0

  1.2

  0.5

  0.4

  0.3

  2.6

  0.8

  0.3

  0.5

  0.4

  0.8

  0.6

  North London Orbital

  10.3

  4.5

  14.8

  6.1

  4.0

  2.8

  3.2

  3.3

  3.7

  1.7

  3.5

  2.0

  3.2

  Watford Locals

  2.8

  1.3

  2.5

  1.5

  0.6

  0.5

  2.2

  2.4

  2.9

  3.5

  0.7

  2.0

  2.0

  490
  Mr. Watts
  Information for the number of franchised services cancelled is not currently available. Available information for British Rail services and for the percentage of franchised services cancelled is in the tables.
  491

  Percentage of franchised services cancelled

  1995–96 percentage

  1996–97 percentage

  Train operator

  Route Group

  P12

  P13

  P1

  P2

  P3

  P4

  P5

  P6

  P7

  P8

  P9

  P10

  South West Trains

  Main Line

  0.9

  0.2

  0.4

  0.4

  0.2

  0.4

  1

  0.3

  0.3

  0.6

  0.5

  1

  Suburban

  1.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.3

  0.8

  0.4

  0.7

  0.4

  0.2

  1.4

  0.4

  1.4

  Connex South Central

  South London Lines

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  0.3

  0.3

  0.4

  0.4

  0.5

  0.4

  0.9

  Sussex Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  0.2

  0.3

  0.3

  0.3

  0.9

  0.8

  3

  LTS Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1.5

  1.3

  0.9

  0.9

  0.8

  0.6

  0.6

  2.6

  Chiltern

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.3

  0.8

  0.6

  0.4

  0.2

  South Eastern

  Kent Link

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.5

  0.8

  0.9

  Kent Coast

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1.3

  1.4

  Thames

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.7

  0.7

  1.3

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the terms of the passengers charter which apply to all train operating companies. [15966]

  Mr. Watts
  The British Rail passengers charter applies to train operating companies while they remain under the control of the British Railways Board. All franchise operators must publish their own passengers charters which must include provisions at least as favourable to passengers as those provided under British Rail's charter.

  Franchise operators' passengers charters are annexed to the franchise agreement, and copies are in the Library of the House.

  Freight Facilities Grants
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list(a)the total budget for the current year allocated to freight facilities grants, (b)the amount spent so far and (c)the estimated year-end spending. [16231]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is as follows:

  (a) £5,423,000

  (b) £923,528

  (c) £3,604,700.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what virement there was of the unspent budgets for freight facilities grants for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96; and what this surplus was spent on. [16457]

  Mr. Watts
  Unspent freight facilities grant provision in 1994–95 and 1995–96 served to offset spending pressures generally elsewhere on the administration and transport services vote. An overall surplus arising on the vote in each year was surrendered to the Consolidated Fund.

  Trans-Pennine Road
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from business and commercial organisations concerning the possibility of a second major trans-Pennine road supplementing the M62. [16224]

  Mr. Watts
  I am not aware of any recent business or commercial representations concerning the possibility of a second major trans-Pennine road supplementing the M62.

  Road Lighting
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice and guidance he has issued to 492
  local authorities concerning their road lighting policies, with particular reference to the effect of those policies on the countryside and tranquil areas. [16229]

  Mr. Watts
  The Highways Agency publishes road lighting standards and advice, including measures for the limitation of environmental intrusion, for use on motorway and all-purpose trunk roads. In particular the booklet "Road Lighting and the Environment", held in the House of Commons Library, describes how the environmental impacts of road lighting can be reduced and problems resolved. It is for local highway authorities to decide the extent to which they use this advice.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the ways in which his Department has demonstrated the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through an environmental audit of(a) energy use and (b)waste management within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16425]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department sets targets to improve energy and waste management efficiency and cost effectiveness by environmental audit and other means. Progress is reported in the annual working environment report.

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the presence of(a)hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings which his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16282]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department publishes an assessment in its annual working environment report. A copy is in the House of Commons Library and on the Department's Internet site—http://www.open.gov.ulddot/dothome.htm.

  Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to consult(a)local authorities, (b)industry bodies and (c) representatives of the unemployed about the impact upon regeneration

  493
  projects of those aspects of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill which are supported by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [16013]

  Mr. Watts
  We have made it clear that, in deciding whether to set traffic reduction targets, local authorities would need the flexibility to take into account traffic growth consequent on regeneration projects, so that these objectives do not conflict, and that the Bill would need to be amended to this effect in order to secure our support. We would want to consult a wide range of bodies in drawing up guidance to local authorities on this point.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the administrative and operational impact upon local authorities of the responsibility for implementing those provisions of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill which are supported by his Department. [16011]

  Mr. Watts
  We shall be discussing detailed implementation of the Bill's requirements with local authorities. The approach we support would result in little if any additional administrative or operational impact above the activities local authorities should already undertake in compiling their transport capital investment strategies.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the implications for planning policy and procedure of the implementation of those provisions of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill which are supported by his Department. [16012]

  Mr. Watts
  The process of setting traffic targets would need to dovetail with local land use plans, which in turn would need to reflect local authorities' traffic forecasts. We would intend to issue guidance on this area.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to undertake a compliance cost assessment of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill; and if he will make a statement. [16009]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill will not impose a cost on business; there is no need, therefore, for a compliance cost assessment.

  Mr. Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from(a) the Confederation of British Industry, (b) the British Roads Federation and (c) other industry bodies, in connection with the impact on the economy of acceptance of the principles of the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill; what was the thrust of those representations; what response he intends to make to them; and what plans he has to consult with industry bodies prior to proceeding with, or facilitating the progress of, any legislation to impose restrictions on road traffic. [16010]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: We have received representations from the CBI, BRF, other bodies and a large number of individuals. The vast majority of these representations have been in support of the principle underlying the Road Traffic (Reduction) Bill: that local authorities should have a clear vision of the pattern of road traffic growth in their areas, and establish targets as part of their strategy for addressing that growth. Our response to these representations is to
  494
  indicate the Government's position, which I explained in my speech on the Bill's Second Reading. Subject to the Bill completing its remaining stages we plan to consult a wide range of bodies on the mechanics and process of its implementation.

  Marine Pollution (Sea Empress Incident)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of the plans and inventories of equipment and (b) a list of the expertise which is currently available to the marine pollution control unit and the Coastguard Agency; and if he will indicate how the availability of equipment and expertise to those bodies has changed in the past five years; [16258]

  (2) what advice or guidance was given by the marine pollution control unit to Milford Haven Port Authority on its contingency plans for dealing with oil tanker casualties and major oil spillages prior to the Sea Empress disaster on 15 February 1996; [16257]

  (3) what (a) arrangements and (b) memoranda of understanding exist between the marine pollution control unit and other departments or public bodies in Wales; and if he will place copies in the Library; [16259]

  (4) how many staff were employed by the marine pollution control unit in each year from 1986 to 1996. [16261]

  Mr. Bowis
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Nick Ainger, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the Marine Pollution Control Unit.

  (16258)
  A broad outline of the expertise that can be called upon is contained in the National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping (NCP), a copy of which is in the House of Commons library. The NCP also contains summaries of the counter pollution equipment owned by the Marine Pollution Control Unit (MPCU), listed in an appendix. The equipment and expertise available to the MPCU is under continuous review and is frequently augmented. For example, in the last five years the Chemical Strike Team has been strengthened, new equipment has been purchased for at-sea and shoreline clean-up operations, a new aerial contract has come into operation, a new operations room in the Agency's headquarters in Southampton has been commissioned and call off contracts and framework agreements have been set up to facilitate speedy access to supplementary expertise and equipment during a major incident. A database of available equipment has also been set up and is regularly updated.

  (16257)
  Under the current voluntary arrangements, Milford Haven Port Authority sent the MPCU a copy of their 'Anti-oil Pollution Plan' revised in June 1992. The MPCU suggested a number of changes to the document. Following the grounding of the oil tanker BORGA at the entrance to Milford Haven in October 1995, the MPCU held a meeting with the Port Authority and suggested further amendments to the contingency plans.

  (16259)
  The current arrangements with public bodies in Wales are fully covered in the National Contingency Plan for Marine Pollution from Shipping. The MPCU and Environment Agency are currently discussing a Memorandum of Understanding to replace the present one which was agreed between the MPCU and the National Rivers Authority. The environmental agencies, including the Countryside Council for Wales, are involved in these discussions.
  495
  (16261)
  Staff in Post figures for MPCU from 1986 to 1996 are as follows:

  1986 to 1994: 13

  1994: 9.5

  1994: 10.5

  1996: 12.5.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if inspectors of the marine accident investigation branch have interviewed the staff of Smit Tak who were involved in or associated with the Sea Empress salvage operation. [16262]

  Mr. Bowis
  Yes.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish the marine accidents investigation branch inquiry report into the Sea Empress. [16260]

  Mr. Bowis
  Subject to the completion of the consultation process required by the accident investigation regulations, the chief inspector expects to submit his final report to the Secretary of State next month. The report will then be published as soon as possible.

  Trunk Roads (Land Use Planning)
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he has made on the proposal in the Transport Green Paper "Transport: The Way Forward," to integrate trunk road and land use planning. [16783]

  Sir George Young
  Following consultation with local authorities, business groups and environmental groups, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have decided together that trunk road planning in England will now be subject to review under the regional planning guidance—RPG—system, which sets out strategic policies for land use and development and gives guidance on the transport strategy and priorities for each region. Our Departments are publishing today a consultation draft of the planning policy guidance which will bring the new system into effect. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  There was strong support for our proposal. It is clear that increased regional input and local consultation at the outset of planning trunk roads will encourage a more focused approach and help to promote an agreed way forward. The proposed new guidance will allow local authorities, for the first time, to include trunk roads in their review of the transport strategy and priorities for their region when advising on RPG.

  My right hon. Friend and I shall expect the local authorities to consult widely in preparing their advice to us on RPG. This will give an opportunity for local authorities, business, transport industries, environmental groups and the general public to make fuller contributions to the development of the regional transport strategy, in keeping with our policy on sustainable development. The aim is to obtain as much consensus as possible.

  Through this process, the local authorities will be able to propose changes to the broad priorities for trunk road schemes, comment on the need for individual schemes
  496
  and propose that alternatives be considered, for example traffic management measures or public transport improvements.

  Trunk roads are an essential part of the country's infrastructure and final decisions on the DOT road programme will remain my responsibility. I shall continue to take account of vital national, commercial and economic interests alongside the regional advice.

  Buses (Wheelchair Access)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many new buses have been licensed in each of the last five years; and how many of these were imported. [16487]

  Mr. Bowis
  Investment by the bus industry in new vehicles has increased substantially in each of the last five years. The figures for newly registered buses and coaches' taxed for use as public service vehicles for the years in question are as follows:

  1992: 3,051

  1993: 3,643

  1994: 4,202

  1995: 5,214

  1996: 6,477.

  1Figures up to June 1995 are for all class 35—Hackney—vehicles with more than eight seats. Since June 1995 they are for all vehicles in class 34—buses.

  The figure for 1996 includes 3,411 imported vehicles. Information cannot be supplied on the number of imported vehicles in the figures for 1992–95 as the statistics available on registration of imported vehicles in those years do not distinguish between buses and taxis and hire cars for public use, which were also included in class 35—Hackney vehicles.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many new buses, licensed in each of the last five years, have allowed wheelchair users access in safety and without too much difficulty; [16485]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the (a) number and (b) proportion of buses currently being used by bus operators meet the criteria set out in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to ensure that public buses enable a wheelchair user to alight in safety and without too much difficulty; [16484]

  (3) which designs of buses currently under construction he has approved as providing access for disabled people such that a wheelchair user can get on a bus in safety and without too much difficulty. [16486]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about the accessibility of vehicles is not currently recorded.

  The detailed specification for the bus accessibility regulations that we are bringing forward under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 is under discussion with the bus industry and our statutory advisers the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. We intend to consult on our proposals shortly.

  A growing number of operators are already investing in low floor buses which provide much easier access to all passengers, including those with disabilities. Some are also fitting the buses with ramps to enable wheelchair users to gain easy access.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the cost to public funds of the attendance of(a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland since December 1994; and if he will list the meetings of the Committee which (a) and (b) have attended, indicating the cost of attendance and the names of those who attended. [16568]

  Sir George Young
  No Ministers or officials from my Department have attended meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland since December 1994.

  Bedford-Bletchley-Bicester Railway Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have been held with Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire city councils on the upgrading and passenger use of the Bedford-Bletchley-Bicester line; and if he will make a statement. [15994]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: Officials from the Government offices for the eastern region and the south-east are represented on the steering group running the feasibility study into the reopening of the Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Cambridge route to passenger traffic. My Department held discussions with the consultants advising the consortium of local authorities concerned in December 1996.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the volume of freight traffic on the Bletchley to Bicester line in each year since 1993; and if he will make a statement. [15995]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: Statistical records are not kept of the tonnages of freight traffic over individual sections of railway.

  The Bicester to Claydon Junction stretch of this line is currently used for the carriage of waste to a landfill site. Five trains a week operate in each direction on this section of the line.

  The Claydon Junction to Bletchley stretch of the line has not been used since before 1993.

  North London Railway Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received on breaches of the service agreement on the Barking to Gospel Oak branch of the North London line; and if he will make a statement. [15996]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 14 February 1997]: None. Services between Gospel Oak and Barking are provided by North London Railways Ltd. The Franchising Director announced on 7 February 1997 that he had awarded the NLR franchise to National Express Group plc but it has not yet started. Franchised services are expected to start soon, following which any breach of the franchise agreement would be a matter for the Franchising Director.

  Nuclear Waste Transport
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much nuclear waste was transported by 498
  (a) road and (b) rail in (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) 1996; and what estimate he has made of the amount in each case to be transported in 1997. [15948]

  Mr. Watts
  [holing answer 17 February 1997]: Information of the kind requested is not routinely held within the Department and could be collected only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Vaccine Damage (Compensation)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have received lump sum payments due to vaccine damage in each of the last]0 years. [15331]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is only available to the UK as a whole. The number of persons who have received lump sum payments due to vaccine damage for each of the last 10 years is as follows:

  1986–87: 17

  1987–88: 10

  1988–89: 3

  1989–90: 3

  1990–91: 1

  1991–92: 7

  1992–93: 13

  1993–94: 4

  1994–95: 6

  1995–96: 6.

  Queen's University (Student Intake)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many of the students beginning courses at Queen's University from Northern Ireland were perceived to be(a) Protestant, (b) Roman Catholic and (c) of other religions in each of the last three years. [15475]

  Mr. Ancram
  Reliable information is not available owing to the high level of non-response to the community background question.

  Livestock (Notifiable Diseases)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the number of cases of each notifiable disease in livestock reported in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years. [15493]

  Mr. Ancram
  The table lists the number of cases of each notifiable disease in livestock reported in Northern Ireland in each of the past five years:

  Disease

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  BSE

  333

  487

  363

  170

  82

  Sheep scab

  59

  48

  71

  57

  45

  Warble fly

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  499

  Disease

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Johnes disease

  13

  6

  11

  46

  32

  Scrapie

  5

  4

  5

  2

  8

  Aujesky's1

  —

  9

  8

  5

  8

  Transmissible gastro-enteritis/porcine respiratory corona virus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Porcine reproduction and respiratory syndrome

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Newcastle disease

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Salmonella (in breeding poultry)

  6

  1

  2

  6

  5

  Jaagiekte

  1

  —

  1

  4

  2

  1 Only became notifiable in Northern Ireland in February 1993.

  Union Flag
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the Union flag was not flown on 6 February at the offices of the Southern area health board, the Mall, Armagh city; what proposals there are to provide a new Union flag for this building; if the schedule of dates for flying the Union flag has been advised to the staff; if the person responsible was prepared to carry out this duty; and if he will make a statement. [15571]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Armagh and Dungannon health and social services trust has advised that failure to fly the Union flag on 6 February was an oversight on its part. Action has been taken to purchase a new Union flag. The schedule of the dates for flying the Union flag has been advised to staff and the person responsible for carrying out this duty has no difficulty in fulfilling it. However, there is no requirement for the trusts to fly the Union flag on these dates, and it is at the discretion of each organisation whether the flag should be flown on those buildings occupied by their staff.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons the Union flag was not flown on 6 February at the headquarters of the Southern area health board, Tower hill, Armagh city; if a Union flag has been provided for this public building; if the schedule of dates for flying the Union flag has been advised to the staff; if the person responsible was prepared to carry out this duty; and if he will make a statement. [15570]

  Mr. Moss
  A letter was sent to all health and social services boards on 18 November 1966 advising them of the days in 1997 on which the Union flag should be flown on central Government buildings. There is, however no requirement for the boards to fly the Union flag on these dates. It is at the discretion of each organisation whether the flag should be flown on those buildings occupied by their staff. A Union flag has been provided for the headquarters for the Southern health and social services board, Tower hill, Armagh. However, the Southern health 500
  and social services board decided to use its discretion and not fly the Union flag on its headquarters building at Tower hill on 6 February 1997.

  Integrated Schools
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, if he will list the integrated schools in Northern Ireland, with the pupil numbers and percentages of those pupils who are Roman Catholic and Protestant. [15820]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  School name

  Enrolment (1995–96)

  Roman Catholic per cent.

  Protestant per cent.

  A. Integrated Primary Schools

  Forge Integrated Primary School, Belfast

  205

  46

  33

  Carhill Integrated Primary, Garvagh

  49

  57

  43

  Portaferry Integrated Primary, Portaferry

  54

  33

  54

  All Children's Integrated Primary, Newcastle

  167

  65

  20

  Hazelwood Integrated Primary, Newtownabbey

  348

  47

  31

  Cranmore Integrated Primary, Belfast

  100

  38

  35

  Enniskillen Integrated Primary, Enniskillen

  191

  49

  35

  Omagh Integrated Primary, Omagh

  154

  58

  34

  Oakgrove Integrated Primary, Londonderry

  295

  53

  30

  Mill Strand Integrated Primary, Portrush

  192

  29

  31

  Braidside Integrated Primary, Ballymena

  171

  20

  27

  Corran Integrated Primary, Larne

  111

  48

  38

  Acorn Integrated Primary, Carrickfergus

  123

  37

  58

  Lough View Integrated Primary, Belfast

  93

  39

  48

  Cedar Integrated Primary, Crossgar

  26

  35

  42

  Bridge Integrated Primary, Banbridge

  277

  51

  42

  Portadown Integrated Primary, Portadown

  202

  51

  30

  Windmill Integrated Primary, Dungannon

  158

  47

  45

  Saints and Scholars Integrated Primary, Armagh

  117

  59

  38

  Hilden Integrated Primary, Lisburn2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Rathenraw Integrated Primary, Lisburn2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  B. Integrated Secondary Schools1

  Brownlow College, Craigavon

  302

  22

  68

  Hazelwood College, Newtownabbey

  639

  56

  21

  Oakgrove College, Londonderry

  404

  67

  30

  Erne Integrated College, Enniskillen

  155

  65

  26

  Drumragh Integrated College, Omagh

  85

  71

  29

  Lagan College, Belfast

  933

  44

  46

  Shimna Integrated College, Newcastle

  131

  76

  19

  Newbridge Integrated College, Loughbrickland

  74

  77

  23

  Armagh-South Tyrone Integrated College, Dungannon

  60

  70

  25

  Slemish Integrated College, Ballymena2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  North Coast Integrated College, Coleraine2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Percentages may not sum to 100 per cent. as the total enrolment includes pupils in other categories, ie "other Christian"; "Non-Christian" or "No Religion".

  2 These schools opened in 1996–97 and school census data for that year is not yet available.

  Civil Service
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of (i) Northern Ireland civil service and (ii) general service posts(a) requiring and (b) not requiring a degree were filled in each of the last five years. [15818]

  Year

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  (i) Northern Ireland civil service

  (a) Posts filled requiring a degree

  132 (8.5 per cent.)

  36(5.7 per cent.)

  40(7.4 per cent.)

  117(15.4 per cent.)

  110(12.5 per cent.)

  (b) Posts filled not requiring a degree

  1,422(91.5 per cent.)

  597(94.3 per cent.)

  500(92.6 per cent.)

  643(84.6 per cent.)

  768(87.5 per cent.)

  Total number of posts filled

  1,554

  633

  540

  760

  898

  (ii)General service

  (a) Posts filled requiring a degree

  1,422 (91.5 per cent.)

  597 (94.3 per cent.)

  500 (92.6 per cent.)

  643 (84.6 per cent.)

  768 (87.5 per cent.)

  Total number of posts filled

  1,554

  633

  540

  760

  898

  (ii) General service

  (a) Posts filled requiring a degree

  6 (0.5 per cent)

  6 (1.5 per cent.)

  1 (0.5 per cent.)

  6 (1 per cent.)

  33 (4.6 per cent.)

  (b) Posts filled requiring a degree

  1,114 (99.5 per cent.)

  405 (98.5 per cent.)

  196 (99.5 per cent.)

  545 (99.5 per cent.)

  677 (95.4 per cent.)

  Total number of posts filled

  1,120

  411

  197

  551

  710

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those planning applications, by type, which have been granted for building on green belt sites in the Lisburn district council area since 1 January 1990 and the reasons for the permissions; and if he will make a statement about his policy on residential development in the Aghanahough townland. [15822]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Planning Service under its chief executive, Mr. T. W. Stewart. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from T. W. Stewart to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 18 February 1997:
  Mr Moss has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of planning permissions granted on green belt sites in the Lisburn Borough Council area since 1990, and the Department's policy on residential development in the Aghanahough townland.
  A total of 750 planning permissions have been granted on green belt sites in the Lisburn Borough Council area since 1990. I hope you will appreciate that to, categorise these permissions by type and provide reasons for approval on each case, would involve a manual retrieval and scrutiny of each of the planning files involved and could only be carried out at disproportionate cost. If, however, there are any specific cases on which you require detailed reasons for approval, I would, of course, be happy to have these investigated.
  The townland of Aghanahough lies partly within the development limits of Lisburn, and partly within the green belt. As regards the Department's policy for residential development within the development limit, this is set out in the Lisburn Area Plan 1982–1997, adopted in 1985, and the Lisburn Area Plan Preliminary Proposals, published in March 1996. Detailed planning policies for housing development within the green belt, are set out in the area plans referred to, and also, in the
  502
  Sir John Wheeler
  The proportions of permanent, non-industrial posts filled in the Northern Ireland civil service and in the general service in each of the last five years, for which a degree was required, and for which a degree was not required, are set out in the following table:

  Department's publication "A Planning Strategy for Rural Northern Ireland" published in September 1993. A copy of each publication is available in the House of Commons Library.
  I do hope this is helpful.

  Cattle Slaughter Scheme
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of his Department's search for cattle associated with BSE cases to be culled under the terms of the Florence agreement; how many cattle have been identified so far; what is his latest estimate of the likely total; how many farms are involved; and what is his estimate of the time scale for completing this search and concluding the accelerated cull. [16319]

  Mr. Ancram
  At 7 February 1997 Department of Agriculture veterinary service staff had visited 121 natal herds, in which a confirmed case of BSE was born, and identified 721 animals to be culled. A further two natal herds remain to be visited. Approximately 700 animals born in the same cohort groups have moved out of the natal herds and at 10 February, 507 of these animals in 410 herds had been traced. It is anticipated that tracing and valuation of all such animals will be completed in four to six weeks. In total approximately 1,400 Northern Ireland cattle on 670 farms will be traced and identified under the selective cull. Slaughtering is expected to start at the beginning of March and it should take around six to eight weeks to complete the cull of home-bred cattle.

  There are about 5,400 cattle imported from Great Britain, some of which may have to be slaughtered under the cull. While these animals are separately identified on the Northern Ireland animal health computer, and their herds of origin known, manual tracing of their movements in Great Britain will be necessary.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Security Appeals
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the statutory basis of the statement in leaflet NI 246 that an appellant who has not opted for an oral hearing of a social security appeal within 10 days of being asked to decide has a right to change his or her mind at any time. [11088]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Regulation 22(1) of the adjudication regulations provides for the clerk to direct an appellant to notify him if he wishes an oral hearing of that appeal to be held. Regulation 22(1A) requires the appellant to provide his reply to this direction in writing within 10 days or such other period as the clerk or tribunal chairman may decide. Regulation 22(1B) requires an oral hearing to be held if the appellant has replied in accordance with Regulation 22(1A). Regulation 22(1C) allows the chairman to hold an oral hearing, whether the appellant or any other party to the appeal has so requested or not, if he is satisfied that an oral hearing is necessary to enable the tribunal to reach a decision.

  Regulation 22(1A) and 22(1B) therefore provide for an oral hearing in all cases where the appellant has requested one within 10 days. The clerk or the chairman may allow longer than 10 days. No end date is specified by the regulations and I am advised that this period may extend up to the point that the decision on the appeal is issued by the tribunal. Therefore, if an appellant has not elected in the first instance for an oral hearing, or opted to have his appeal heard on the papers, he may still request an oral hearing at any time up to the point that the decision is issued. In those circumstances, the chairman may order an oral hearing.

  Departmental leaflets, including the NI 246, are not a complete and authoritative statement of the law. They are written in plain English and are intended to provide sufficient information and advice in language that will be understood by the majority of the population. Some representations have been received about the content and format of the new NI 246, and these will be taken into account before the leaflet is next reprinted. Current plans are for a reprint during April 1997.

  Incomes
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the mean and (b) the median income for (i) single men aged 65 to 74, (ii) single men aged 75 and over, (iii) single women aged 65 to 74, (iv) single women aged 75 and over, (v) pensioner couples aged 65 to 74 and (vi) pensioner couples aged 75 years and over, (1) for 1979 in 1994–95 prices and (2) for 1994–95. [12991]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Mean income £

  Median income £

  Single men aged 65 to 74

  1979

  93.20

  76.90

  1994–95

  125.50

  103.40

  504

  Mean income £

  Median income £

  Single women aged 75 and over

  1979

  79.90

  70.20

  1994–95

  148.10

  103.80

  Single women aged 65–74

  1979

  73.40

  66.60

  1994–95

  122.10

  97.50

  Single women aged 75 and over

  1979

  71.10

  66.50

  1994–95

  108.40

  95.70

  Pensioner couples aged 65–74

  1979

  153.60

  127.00

  1994–95

  225.80

  185.00

  Pensioner couples aged 75 and over

  1979

  125.00

  107.00

  1994–95

  217.00

  169.00

  Notes:

  1. All figures are given in 1994–95 prices and rounded to the nearest 10p.

  2. A pensioner couple is defined as a couple where the man, defined as the head, is over the state pension age. The age ranges quoted for pensioner couples are for the age of the head of the couple.

  Source:

  Pensioners' Incomes Series 1979 and 1994–95.

  Benefit Upratings
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate the cost in 1997–98 of uprating (1) the £3,000 lower capital limit for income support for(a) pensioners and (b) all recipients of income support to (i) £8,000 and (ii) £16,000 and (2) the £8,000 upper capital limit for income support for (A) pensioners, (B) all recipients of income support to (x) £16,000 and (y) £20,000; [14288]

  (2) if he will estimate the number of pensioners who would become eligible for income support if (a) the £3,000 capital limit was increased to (i) £8,000, (ii) £16,000 and (iii) £10,000 and (b) the £8,000 upper capital limit was increased to (i) £16,000 and (ii) £20,000. [14290]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table. The table also shows the number of pensioners who would become eligible for income support if these changes were made.

  Cost in 1997–98 £ million

  Lower limit £

  Upper limit £

  If applied to all claimants

  If applied to all claimants aged 60 or over

  Number of claimants aged 60 or over becoming entitled to income support

  3,000

  16,000

  50

  40

  20,000

  3,000

  20,000

  50

  40

  20,000

  8,000

  16,000

  200

  170

  135,000

  8,000

  20,000

  210

  170

  135,000

  10,000

  16,000

  240

  200

  160,000

  505

  Cost in 1997–98 £ million

  Lower limit £

  Upper limit £

  If applied to all claimants

  If applied to all claimants aged 60 or over

  Number of claimants aged 60 or over becoming entitled to income support

  10,000

  20,000

  250

  210

  165,000

  16,000

  20,000

  310

  260

  210,000

  1. Estimated using the 1994–95 family resources survey, uprated to 1997–98 case loads and benefit levels.

  2. Estimates assume that the combinations will include an upper and lower capital limit.

  3. Estimates exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  4. Estimates include consequential costs in housing benefit and council tax benefit from new income support claimants being "passported" onto these benefits.

  5. Estimates for all claimants include the costs of introducing the same capital limits in jobseeker's allowance.

  6. Adjustments to these estimates are made using the May 1995 income support quarterly statistical inquiry and the May 1995 housing benefit-council tax benefit management information system.

  7. Cost estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million, claimants to the nearest 5,000.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1997–98 of reducing the assumed income from savings for(a) pensioners and (b) all recipients of income support, with savings between £3,000 and £8,000, to (i) £1 a week for every £500 over £3,000 and (ii) £1 a week for every £1,000 over £3,000. [14289]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table:

  cost in income support and jobseeker's allowance in 1997–98 (£ million)

  Tariff income rule

  Pensioners

  All claimants

  £1 for every £500 above the lower capital limit

  20

  30

  £1 for every £1,000 above the lower capital limit

  40

  50

  1. Estimated using the 1994–95 family resources survey, uprated to 1997–98 case loads and benefit levels.

  2. Estimates exclude cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  3. Estimates include consequential costs in housing benefit and council tax benefit from new income support claimants being "passported" onto these benefits.

  4. Estimates for all claimants include the costs of introducing the same capital limits in jobseeker's allowance.

  5. Adjustments to these estimates are made using the May 1995 income support quarterly statistical inquiry and the May 1995 housing benefit-council tax benefit management information system.

  6. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in 1997–98 of increasing all capital limits for income-related benefits for pensioner couples to one and a half times their current limits. [14291]

  Mr. Evans
  The estimated cost if all capital limits for income-related benefits for pensioner couples are 506
  increased to one and a half times their current limits is £30 million in 1997–98.

  Notes:

  1. This is estimated using the 1994–95 family resources survey, uprated to 1997–98 case loads and benefit levels.

  2. The estimate excludes cases in residential care and nursing homes.

  3. The estimate covers income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit and family credit.

  4. Adjustments to this estimate are made using the May 1995 income support quarterly statistical inquiry and the May 1995 housing benefit-council tax benefit management information system.

  5. The estimate is rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of benefit fraud in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what estimate he has made of the likely savings which will accrue from the initiative "Spotlight on Benefit Cheats". [14696]

  Mr. Heald
  The overall annual level of detected and undetected benefit fraud is currently estimated at approximately £4 billion.

  Phase I of the spotlight campaigns, which ran from April to September 1996, generated more than £44 million in benefit savings. Phase II, which ran during November 1996, has generated £40.4 million. Phase III began on 3 February 1997.

  Earnings Top-up
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of the earnings top-up during its piloting stage; and if he will estimate the annual costs of a national scheme. [15073]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The earnings top-up pilot is expected to cost a total of £65 million over three years. Two benefit rates—scheme A and scheme B—will test how different amounts of earnings top-up influence the decision to take up and remain in work. Present estimates indicate that the annual cost of a national scheme will be £265 million—scheme A—and £595 million—scheme B—at 1996–97 prices. These estimates would be subject to review as information on the effects of the benefit are collected and analysed during the pilot.

  Earnings Disregards
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the numbers gaining and (b) the cost of assessing, earnings and earnings limits over a quarterly period in respect of (i) the weekly disregards in income-related benefits, and (ii) the weekly earnings limits applicable to contributory and non-contributory benefits. [15076]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the numbers gaining and (b) the cost of treating a student loan as capital in claims for (i) income support and (ii) jobseeker's allowance. [15080]
  507
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security for what reasons the Child Support Agency has reduced the range of statistical information it makes available. [15120]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant CB. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Miss Liz Lynne, dated 17 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the provision by the Child Support Agency of statistical information.
  I am unclear why you should have the impression that the range of statistical information available has been reduced. If anything, the reverse is true, with more statistical information on the Agency's work now available than was previously the case, and with enhancements to the Child Support Computer System making more specific data available.
  Although now published quarterly rather than monthly, the House of Commons Library Report produced by the Agency carries the same data as before, The Quarterly Statistical Summary produced by the Analytical Services Department now draws information from a larger sample, thereby improving the quality of the results, and contains more information than earlier editions. Monthly statistics on the Agency's performance against Charter Standards are to be displayed in our offices.
  As you will be aware, the Government has published a code of practice on access to Government information. The Agency is committed to the principles of this code, and will make information readily available whenever this is possible.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what procedures are in place at the Child Support Agency to ensure that all complaints by clients are counted; and what instructions are given to staff regarding the definition, recognition, registration and counting of complaints. [15086]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant CB. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Miss Liz Lynne, dated 17 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about complaints tot he Child Support Agency.
  The new CSA Charter advises clients how to complain if they are dissatisfied with the service they have received from the Agency. Each of our offices has a Customer Service Manager to whom clients can speak or write to about a complaint.
  Systems are in place for defining, recording, recognising, registering and counting client's complaints across the Agency and the information is collated and monitored on a monthly basis. Where there have been vexatious complaint campaigns orchestrated by organisations who oppose the implementation of Child Support legislation, staff have been instructed not to register these as bona fide complaints.
  Improving the handling of client's complaints is one of the key priorities for the Child Support Agency. During 1996, the Agency set up a review of its internal procedures for dealing with complaints in order to bring them into line with the Citizen's Charter Complaints Taskforce recommendations.
  508
  As a result, a number of improvements have been identified including the revision of training for all staff involved in dealing with client's complaints and the introduction of a new Complaints Guide which sets out the Agency's policy and procedures for the speedy and effective handling of client's complaints. The revised arrangements are currently being piloted in one of our Agency business units and will be fully evaluated prior to adoption Agency-Wide.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of annual social security expenditure on each benefit. 1150741

  Mr. Burt
  Detailed breakdowns of total expenditure figures are made available in the Social Security departmental report. This will be published in March 1997.

  Income Support
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the number gaining and (b) the cost of extending payments of income support to those under age 19 years who qualify by virtue of being in relevant education to a period beyond their 19th birthday which is (i) the date of the end of the course and (ii) the terminal date. [15078]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Income Support (Child Maintenance)
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have lost entitlement to income support benefit as a result of child maintenance payments to them resulting from action taken by the Child Support Agency as recorded by form 646 during the months of October, November and December 1996; and if he will make a statement. [15942]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant CB. She will write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mrs. Margaret Beckett, dated 17 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding cessation of Income Support as a result of Child Support Agency action on form 646.
  The form used to notify the Benefits Agency of the amount and the commencement date of regular child maintenance is form CSA 676(A). This form has a tear-off facility to allow the Benefits Agency to inform the Child Support Agency of the outcome of the reassessment of Income Support, including cases where Income Support ceases.
  In such cases, where the absent parent is to make payments of maintenance via the Child Support Agency, the Benefits Agency contacts the Agency to ensure that maintenance payments have started before payments of Income Support cease. In cases where the absent parent is to pay maintenance directly to the parent with care any failure to pay the agreed amount of maintenance is reported to the Benefits Agency and the Child Support Agency.

  509
  The number of cases where the Benefits Agency has notified the Agency that Income Support has ceased is as follows:

  October 1996: 147

  November 1996: 153

  December 1996: 95

  I hope this is helpful.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, (1) pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 635–36, what steps he has taken to investigate the reasons for his Department's medical advisers' delay in providing advice relating to the additive nature of age-related hearing loss; and when sensorineural hearing loss was introduced for war pension purposes; [15857]

  (2) on what date the medical opinion on which his Department based its policy relating to sensorineural hearing loss for the purposes of war pensions prior to March 1996 was received; and from whom. [15862]

  Mr. Heald
  The war pensions scheme has no list of prescribed conditions. It has always been possible for a claim to be made for any disablement, including noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss.

  Prior to 1996, the assessment of noise-induced hearing loss claims was based on advice from departmental medical officers given in December 1992. The approach taken following that advice was investigated during 1995 and 1996. The medical adviser who undertook the investigation concluded that, from 1 March 1996, there could no longer be any doubt that the general medical opinion was that age and noise-related hearing loss were no more than additive.

  The 1995–96 investigation did not include an examination of whether the advice given by previous medical advisers in 1992 was reasonable at the time it was given. This question was investigated following the statement by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf s and the Royal British Legion's medical experts that the fact that noise and age-related hearing loss were no more than additive had been known for 30 years. That investigation has revealed that the advice given in 1992 was not scientifically based.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what medical conditions, in respect of which war pensions are payable, are not recompensed for deterioration; and what assessment he has made of the methods of evaluation of deterioration in respect of each such condition. [15858]

  Mr. Heald
  A war pension may be awarded for any condition which is attributable to or aggravated by service. Any subsequent deterioration of that condition may also be compensated, providing the deterioration is due to service. Deterioration wholly unconnected with service cannot be compensated for under the war pensions scheme. Each case is considered on its individual circumstances and merits.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the changes in medical opinion of which his Department's advisers informed Ministers relating to noise-induced hearing loss in the last five years. [15859]
  510
  Mr. Heald
  The only occasion in the past five years on which Ministers have been advised of a change in medical opinion on noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss was in October 1996 when Ministers were advised that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the effects of noise and age-related hearing loss were no more than additive.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 635, on the open letter sent to the Minister of State, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on sensorineural hearing loss and war pensions, what reply he has sent to the letter; if he will publish that reply; and if he will make a statement. [15861]

  Mr. Heald
  In response to the letter from Professors Lutman and Davies, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish the Minister of State, has arranged to meet the Royal British Legion and its medical advisors on 12 March to discuss any remaining differences.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to disregard income from a personal pension for people with reserved rights who have a spouse living in the family home. [16741]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Regulations are being amended with effect from 7 April 1997 so that 50 per cent. of the income from a personal pension or retirement annuity contract will be disregarded where a resident of a residential care or nursing home with preserved rights to income support, or income-based jobseeker's allowance, passes at least half of their pension or annuity income to a spouse living at home. A similar disregard for occupational pensions was introduced in April 1996.

  Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the implementation of the recommendations by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council concerning chronic bronchitis and emphysema. [16742]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced in November 1996 that the Government would implement, in full, the recommendations made by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to change the qualifying conditions for the award of disablement benefit for chronic bronchitis and emphysema—Cm 3240. Good progress has been made in the meantime, and I can now announce that we will be able to bring the changes into operation from 9 April. These changes will make it more straightforward for coal miners who are disabled by these diseases to qualify for benefit, and easier to administer the scheme.

  The Benefits Agency has undertaken extensive planning to implement these changes efficiently and as soon as practicable. Arrangements are in hand to publicise the change locally in a way that will target the communities most affected and use the means most likely to reach the people concerned.
  511
  People making claims under the new arrangements are advised to do so from the beginning of April, but not before. We expect a relatively small number of Benefits Agency offices to receive a large number of claims over a short period of time. Inevitably, this work will take some time to process, however, arrangements will be put in place to inform people who claim of progress from written acknowledgment of the claim through to decision and, where appropriate, payment. Successful claims made at the right time will be paid with effect from 9 April.

  A new edition of leaflet N 17 "People who have worked underground in a coal mine for 20 years" will be available in English and Welsh in social security offices from April. Revised claim forms will also be available.

  The Benefits Agency is contacting mining organisations, GPs and citizen advice bureaux in mining areas to ensure that everyone is informed. Administration of claims will be simplified wherever possible.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Farm Tenancies
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of farm business tenancies entered into to date. [15491]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  My Department is currently analysing data on the uptake of farm business tenancies under a new annual survey of tenanted land. This survey was launched in October last year and the results are expected to be published in March 1997.

  BSE
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost to public funds of the BSE crisis in Britain since 20 March 1996 broken down by category; and what proportion of this total he estimates will be recovered from the European Community. [15489]

  Mrs. Browning
  For details of the cost of the BSE crisis, I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 3 February 1997,Official Report, column 513. The proportion of this cost to be recovered from the EU is estimated at approximately 45 per cent.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total amount paid in compensation to the beef industry in Britain for price damage since 20 March 1996. [15488]

  Mr. Baldry
  Compensation is not paid to the beef industry for price damage. For details of expenditure on BSE eradication and compensation schemes, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my hon. Friend the Palriamentary Secretary on 3 February 1997,Official Report, column 513.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been slaughtered to date under the over-30 months scheme; and what is the average amount per cow paid in compensation to farmers. [15486]
  512
  Mr. Baldry
  More than 1.25 million cattle have now been slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme. For an average cull cow weighing 560 kg, the amount paid to producers, depending on the date on which the animal was slaughtered, is:

  £

  3 May 1996 to 30 June 1996

  479.64

  1 July 1996 to 20 October 1996

  466.93

  21 October 1996 to 31 October 1996

  420.22

  1 November 1996 to 31 January 1997

  408.18

  1 February 1997 to

  387.18

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) farmers' incomes and (b) the economy of rural areas of the European ban on beef exports. [15478]

  Mr. Boswell
  The European Union ban on exports of UK beef, together with the fall in consumption on the UK market, is estimated to have reduced the value of UK cattle sales by approximately £800 million in 1996. However, this reduction in revenue has been largely offset by measures put in place by the Government to assist the industry.

  The Ministry is commissioning an independent study to provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic impact of BSE across the whole UK economy and within particular regions.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has for a further selective cull based on the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's report on maternal transmission. [15882]

  Mr. Baldry
  SEAC has asked for more work to be done regarding the study on maternal transmission before making final recommendations to the Government. We shall consider the implications for the selective cull once we have SEAC's advice.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of confirmed cases of BSE in each month in 1995 to 1996. [15873]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table shows the monthly breakdown of confirmed BSE cases for 1995 to 1996:

  1995

  1996

  January

  1,720

  920

  February

  2,035

  1,192

  March

  1,629

  847

  April

  1,173

  592

  May

  1,403

  629

  June

  1,232

  1,026

  July

  1,266

  801

  August

  1,094

  541

  September

  956

  655

  October

  1,054

  673

  November

  1,107

  594

  December

  784

  268

  513
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the number of carcases of slaughtered cattle currently in container ships awaiting disposal. [16529]

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Rabies
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the reliability of blood tests for rabies antibodies subsequent to vaccination. [15639]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Under the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) Order 1974, as amended in particular by the Rabies (Importation of Dogs, Cats and Other Mammals) (Amendment) Order 1994, dogs and cats which are the subject of a commercial transaction may be imported into the United Kingdom from another EU member state provided that they have, inter alia, been tested for antibodies using a"serological test carried out in accordance with World Health Organisation specifications".

  The test commonly used by laboratories throughout the EU is the rapid fluorescent focus inhibition test. This test is based on a World Health Organisation specification, but has undergone a number of modifications over the years in different laboratories. A revised protocol which should overcome problems with test result variability has now been submitted for ratification following a detailed collaborative study between a number of EU laboratories.

  Waste Disposal at Sea
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his Department's definition of bulky waste in respect of disposal at sea. [15627]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him today in response to his question to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Newcastle Disease
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 10 February,Official Report, column 43, when he expects the information on birds involved in outbreaks of Newcastle disease and the total amount of compensation paid to be available. [15724]

  Mrs Browning
  The total amount of compensation to be paid as a result of the recent outbreaks of Newcastle disease is dependant on information to be supplied by the claimants involved and our consideration of their claims. The claims will be processed as quickly as possible.

  Sheep Annual Premium
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations his Department has received since 1 January 1996, relating to application forms allegedly 514
  completed and sent, but not received by his Department for (a) sheep annual premium and (b) other grants administered by his Department; and if he will make a statement. [16168]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be extracted locally only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Escort Services
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what procedures exist to monitor the number of hours worked in one session of work by drivers employed by firms contracted to carry out prison escort services; [15153]

  (2) what checks are carried out on the (a) health and (b) character of drivers employed by firms contracted to carry out prison escort services; and what procedures are used to monitor these factors; [15151]

  (3) what limits are placed on the number of hours worked per shift by drivers employed by firms contracted to carry out prison escort services. [15150]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about drivers employed by private sector companies who are responsible for escorting prisoners.
  Most prisoner movements under escort are to and from court and are now virtually all undertaken by specialist court escort contractors.
  The contracts require full compliance with the provisions of relevant Road Traffic and Road Safety legislation. Each company is required to hold an Operator's Licence and its procedures and records are subject to inspection by the Department of Transport. There is no additional routine inspection by court escort monitors of the hours worked by drivers or of their shift patterns although such records must be made available on request.
  The health of drivers is primarily a matter for the contractor, both on recruitment and subsequently, although again there is an overriding requirement to comply with all relevant legislation. Drivers of the larger vehicles must hold Passenger Carrying Vehicle Licences (PCVs).
  Drivers employed by companies contracted to provide a court escort service must be certificated as Prisoner Custody Officers under the Criminal Justice Act 1991. This involves such enquiries as are deemed necessary into the background and character of each applicant. Without such certification employment cannot commence. The provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act do not apply.
  There are also contracts issued for the provision of vehicles and drivers for the transportation of prisoners for other purposes. These too reflect the need to comply with all appropriate legislation.
  515
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each current contract for prison escort services indicating(a) the company, (b) the value of the contract, (c) its area of operation and (d) its duration. [15152]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Area

  Contractor

  Start

  Final phase

  End1

  Value2£ million

  1

  South Wales and south-west England

  Reliance custodial services

  1 April 1996

  1 October 1996

  30 September 2003

  60

  2

  South and south-east England

  Premier prison services

  6 May 1996

  1 November 1996

  31 October 2003

  61

  3

  London Metropolitan

  Securicor custodial services

  1 June 1994

  26 June 1995

  30 June 1999

  392

  4

  East Anglia

  Group 4 court services

  1 July 1995

  1 January 1996

  31 December 2000

  42

  5

  West Midlands and central Wales

  Group 4 court services

  3 June 1996

  2 December 1996

  1 December 2003

  51

  6

  North Wales and north-west England

  Group 4 court services

  7 August 1995

  5 February 1996

  4 February 2001

  65

  7

  East Midlands and Humberside

  Group 4 court services

  5 April 1993

  —4

  4 April 1998

  545

  8

  North England

  Group 4 court services

  7 April 1997

  7 July 1998

  6 July 2004

  649

  Notes:

  1 This is the end date for the contract, however, all contracts include options for an extension up to a maximum duration of 14 years.

  2 The value is the estimated total value for the initial duration of the contract based on first year prices.

  3 The value of the Securicor contract for area 3 takes account of a re-resourcing activity which took place before the end of phase 1.

  4 The area 7 contract was not phased in, full operation commenced on the start date.

  5 Area 7 was the first contract and included a facility for the resource levels to be reassessed after implementation. The value takes account of this re-resourcing exercise.

  6 The area 8 contract includes a non mandatory option for establishments to utilise the contract for external movements. The value detailed above includes an estimated cost for external movements.

  Criminal Records
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the voluntary sector regarding proposals in the Police Bill[Lords] to charge volunteers for access to criminal record checks; and if he will make a statement. [15149]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received many representations from the voluntary sector about the charging of fees for criminal record checks.

  In response to these representations, my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House, during Second Reading of the Police Bill [Lords] on 12 February, that we shall seek to amend the Bill to introduce an order-making power to enable free checks to be provided for specific groups, such as volunteers, when the money could be made available to cover the costs.

  Prison Medical Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the expenditure on the prison medical service from each year since 1990(a) in

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Estimated expenditure £ million (1994–95 prices)

  54.764

  58.217

  58.403

  58.215

  59.269

  Average per inmate

  0.00123

  0.00129

  0.00133

  0.00127

  0.00120

  516
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the costs and duration of contracts for prison escort services.
  The information requested is shown in the table attached. This relates only to those contracts for the movement of prisoners to and from court. Contracts for the provision of vehicles and drivers for other prisoner movements under the escort of prison officers are let locally by each establishment and details could only be collected at disproportionate cost.

  cash terms, (b) in standard price terms based on the current year and (c) in cash and standard prices per head of the prison population; and what is the planned expenditure for future years under the same headings. [15234]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about expenditure on the prison medical service each year since 1990 and how much we plan to spend in future years.
  Expenditure on health care has been devolved to prison establishments. Governors allocate appropriate resources from within their establishment budgets, to ensure that health care is delivered to prisoners in accordance with set standards. For this reason it is not possible accurately to differentiate health care staff costs from the overall Prison Service budget nor to forecast precise future expenditure. Estimated expenditure for health care for the years 1990/91–1994/95 (the last year for which such an estimate was made) are set out in the attached table. The figures given are at 1994/95 prices.

  Prison Deaths
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many self-inflicted deaths occurred in HM prisons in each year from 1990 to 1993(a) in total and (b) per head of the prison population. [15393]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter form Richard Tilt to Mr. Jim Cousins, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of self inflicted deaths at prison establishments in each year from 1990 to 1993.
  The figures on self inflicted deaths are given below. Self inflicted deaths do not necessarily conclude with a verdict of suicide.

  Calendar year

  Total self inflicted deaths

  Average population

  Rate of self inflicted deaths per 100,000 population

  1990

  50

  44,975

  111

  1991

  42

  44,809

  94

  1992

  41

  44,719

  92

  1993

  47

  44,552

  105

  Surveillance Equipment
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for warrants for the interception of telephone calls have been(a) submitted, (b) approved by officials in the Home Office, (c) signed by the Secretary of State and (d) cancelled or revoked after issue for each year since the introduction of the Interception of Communications Act 1985; and what other information he collects to assess (i) the extent and need for warrants and (ii) the time taken by officials and the Secretary of State to carry out these functions. [15436]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the annexes to the reports of the interception of communications commissioner for 1989 and 1995 Cm 1063 and 3254, copies of which are in the Library. Together, these provide figures for the number of warrants issued by the Secretary of State during each of the years from 1985 to 1995 and the number in force at the end of each year. Warrants are cancelled when they are no longer considered necessary. None have been quashed under section 7(5) of the Act. The information requested at(a) and (b) is not available.

  The extent and need for warrants is manifest in the detailed cases which are presented in support of the applications. One grade 7, one higher executive officer, two executive officers, one administrative officer and one typist are engaged on case work under the 1985 Act. Member of the senior civil service are also involved in the consideration of applications and I, or in my absence another Secretary of State, personally consider and decide upon applications submitted to my office.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about conditions in the special secure unit at Her Majesty's prison, Belmarsh; and if he will make a statement. [15242]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Chris Mullin, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what representations have been received about conditions in the Special Secure Unit (SSU) at Belmarsh.
  The Prison Service answers many queries from Members of Parliament, prisoners and the general public about conditions in the SSU at Belmarsh prison. The four main issues raised relate to time out of cell, alleged discrimination, visiting arrangements and medical treatment.

  Learmont Inquiry
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the implementation of the outstanding recommendations made in the report of the Learmont inquiry. [15970]

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 24 July 1996, I published an interim progress report which contained details of the conclusions reached and actions taken or planned by the Director General of the Prison Service in response to 100 of Sir John Learmont's recommendations.

  On 15 January 1997, the director general announced the implementation of a further 11 recommendations. Details were given in a report which was placed in the Library.

  Of the remaining 16 recommendations, 11 are the subject of a cost-benefit analysis to determine their operational effectiveness and value for money, and five are subject to further review or evaluation of pilot schemes.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) unconvicted remand prisoners and (b) convicted but unsentenced remand prisoners had been held for (i) less than six months; (ii) between six and 12 months, (iii) between one year and three years and (iv) over three years since first reception into the Prison Service for each month since January 1995. [15984]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many (a) unconvicted remand prisoners and (b) convicted but unsentenced remand prisoners had been held for (i) less than six months; (ii) between six and twelve months; (iii) between one year and three years and (iv) over three years since first reception into the Prison Service for each month since January 1995.

  519
  The information requested is not available on a monthly basis, nor at the level of detail requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of time spent in prison by(a) unconvicted remand prisoners and (b) convicted but unsentenced prisoners in each month since January 1995. [15985]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 February 1997:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the average amount of time spent in prison by (a) unconvicted remand prisoners and (b) convicted unsentenced prisoners in each month since January 1995.

  The information requested is contained in the attached table.

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  1995

  January

  58

  37

  February

  54

  34

  March

  53

  33

  April

  66

  37

  May

  55

  30

  June

  53

  34

  July

  54

  32

  August

  53

  32

  September

  53

  34

  October

  53

  34

  November

  51

  33

  December

  62

  37

  1996

  January

  50

  31

  February

  51

  33

  March

  58

  36

  April

  49

  34

  May

  47

  34

  June

  57

  35

  July

  48

  31

  August

  54

  37

  September

  51

  37

  October

  50

  40

  November

  54

  46

  December

  57

  57

  Average days in custody are subject to wide variation because of the small populations on which they are based. All values are provisional.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of CCTV schemes in each city in South Yorkshire which are currently in operation; and what assessment he has made of the effect of each scheme on crime rates. [15704]

  Mr. Maclean
  In the two Home Office closed circuit television challenge competitions which have so far been held, six schemes in South Yorkshire have been awarded grants. They are:Grimethorpe village, Barnsley (awarded £116,000);
  Scawsby community centre, Brodsworth (£4,250);
  The community and educational campus, Dinnington (£72,500);
  520
  Balby Street school, Doncaster (£5,000);
  Clifton Comprehensive and Coleridge junior and infant schools, Rotherham (£37,850); and
  Lower Don industrial area, Sheffield (£53,000).

  Grimethorpe village and the community and educational campus are not yet operational. The local police report that the other four schemes have all had a significant impact on crime.

  Although information about CCTV systems in which the Home Office has no involvement is not collected systematically, we are aware that town centre CCTV systems are operational in Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield. The local police report that these schemes have also resulted in significant reductions in crime.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the timetable of events, with dates, connected with the successful application for funding the installation of CCTV in Dartford town centre, by the Dartford borough council; what sums were awarded to the borough council; and when the project was completed. [15864]

  Mr. Maclean
  A bid from a partnership led by Dartford borough council for funds to install closed circuit television in Dartford town centre was submitted in the first CCTV challenge competition in January 1995. Some £50,000 was awarded in March 1995. The first phase of the system—12 cameras—became operational in July 1996. The second phase—a further nine cameras—became operational in September 1996.

  Court Adjournments
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve liaison between the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, defence solicitors, the courts and the probation service, with particular reference to reducing the number of court adjournments. [15788]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have taken many steps to improve liaison between all agencies within the criminal justice system, both nationally and locally. The work of the inter-agency trials issues group includes considering specific criminal justice system matters involving relations between the police, prosecution, courts and others. A total of 42 local inter-agency groups support the work of TIG.

  The Criminal Justice Consultative Council, chaired by Lord Justice Rose and comprising members of all criminal justice agencies and the legal professions, also promotes better understanding, co-operation and co-ordination in the criminal justice system. Its work is underpinned at local level by 23 area criminal justice liaison committees.

  Following discussion at a recent CJCC meeting, the Magistrates Association and the Justices Clerks Society issued a joint statement on speedier sentencing of young offenders. It deals specifically with multiple offending and guides that courts should sentence for the offences before it rather than wait for all further alleged offences to come to trial.

  Prison Population
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average yearly prison population since 1987. [15982]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to HM Prison Service dated 18 February 1997:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what was the average yearly population since 1987.

  The average prison population in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for each year since 1987 was as follows:

  1987: 48,426

  1988: 48,872

  1989: 48,500

  1990: 44,975

  1991: 44,809

  1992: 44,719

  1993: 44,552

  1994: 48,621

  1995: 50,962

  1996: 55,281.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the prison population for each month since January 1995; [15981]

  (2) how many (a) unconvicted remand prisoners and (b) convicted but unsentenced remand prisoners there were in each month since January 1995. [15983]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr George Howarth, dated 18 February 1997:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions asking if he will list the prison population for each month since January 1995: and also, how many (a) unconvicted remand prisoners and (b) convicted but unsentenced remand prisoners there were in each months since January 1995.

  The information requested is contained in the attached table.

  Prison population in England and Wales1, each month since January 1995

  Total

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  995

  January

  49,542

  9,025

  3,498

  February

  50,571

  8,666

  3,180

  March

  51,594

  8,239

  3,009

  April

  50,787

  8,259

  2,671

  May

  50,643

  8,455

  2,727

  June

  51,084

  7,950

  3,106

  July

  51,279

  8,147

  2,793

  August

  51,265

  8,396

  2,912

  September

  52,286

  8,162

  3,016

  October

  52,027

  8,433

  3,068

  November

  52,540

  8,337

  3,047

  December

  49,949

  8,155

  2,421

  1996

  January

  51,947

  8,345

  3,196

  February

  53,178

  8,223

  3,228

  522

  Prison population in England and Wales1, each month since January 1995

  Total

  Untried

  Convicted unsentenced

  March

  53.740

  7,933

  3,079

  April

  54,202

  8,153

  3,266

  May

  54,513

  8,209

  3,110

  June

  55,256

  8,432

  3,136

  July

  56,141

  8,379

  3,182

  August

  55,537

  8,398

  3,280

  September

  56,628

  8,523

  3,440

  October

  57,764

  8,630

  3,524

  November

  58,126

  8,687

  3,460

  December

  56,351

  8,579

  2,956

  1Figures include those held in police cells. This ended in June 1995.

  Fire Service (Lancashire)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were working in the fire service in Lancashire in(a) 1996 and (b) 1979. [16155]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the staffing of fire brigades is published in the annual reports of Her Majesty's chief inspector of fire services. The reports in question are for 1978 (Cm 7605, page 55) and 1995–96 (Cm 3493, page 14) —copies of which are in the Library.

  Police Computer Systems
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to harmonise computer systems throughout police forces in England and Wales. [15786]

  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend launched the national strategy for police information systems—NSPIS—in November 1994. A principal aim of this blueprint agreed with the police service is the development of common, compatible computer systems for use by all police forces. Such systems will make a significant contribution to operational effectiveness, reduce police paperwork and provide better value for money. The first NSPIS application—vehicle procedures—is now available. Other systems currently being developed within the strategy are for:

  Custody

  Case preparation

  Command and control

  Crime reporting

  Management information

  Large major inquiries (HOLMES)

  National legal database.

  Mandatory Drug Tests
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mandatory drug tests were carried out on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays; and how many tests were performed in total in each month since weekend testing began. [15975]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  523
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 February 1997:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of mandatory drug tests carried out on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.

  Mandatory drug testing (MDT) data are not held in a form which allows us readily to provide the information requested.

  In addition, a number of errors have come to light concerning the MDT data. Independent research has been commissioned to investigate these errors and it may take a little while before we are able to provide detailed figures, in which we have full confidence.

  However, I should like to stress that we do not anticipate the effect of these errors to be particularly large on the overall statistics. Bearing in mind these commetns we can give an estimate for random mandatory drug tests carried out on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Around 6,100 such tests were conducted in the period between 1 April 1996 and 31 October 1996, out of an estimated total of 32,000 random tests undertaken.

  Court Cases (Bail)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to ensure that if a person appears before a court in England or Wales(a) the police and (b) the court will be made aware of outstanding (i) bail and (ii) breaches of bail in another court. [15785]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government recognise the importance of accurate and timely information about bail to enable the police and the courts to make appropriate decisions. The inter-agency bail issues steering group, which we reconvened last summer, is examining what practical steps can be taken to improve information flows. Under the group's direction, work is nearing completion on an assessment of the impact of the changes made by the bail process project, which we set up to assess and enhance the flow of information between the criminal justice agencies. The results will be published in due course.

  A30-A303 Roadworks
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the costs to date to(a) the Devon and Cornwall police and (b) other police authorities of policing the road construction on the A30-A303 between Exeter and Honiton. [15927]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the chief constable that Devon and Cornwall constabulary's costs to date are estimated to be in the region of £750,000. No costs have been incurred by other police authorities.

  Mr. Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received reporting trespass on(a) privately owned land and (b) publicly owned land in the vicinity of the A30-A303 Exeter-Honiton road works. [15929]

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Police (Information Technology)
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve the efficiency of the police through the use of information technology. [15787]

  Mr. Maclean
  Part IV of the Police Bill contains provisions to establish the police information technology organisation as an executive non-departmental public 524
  body. This new independent tripartite framework will lead to the improved delivery of cost-effective, responsive and timely information technology services to the police.

  PITO is responsible for promoting the delivery of national police information services and taking forward the national strategy for police information systems—NSPIS—by co-ordinating the development of local information technology systems. Local computer applications being developed under NSPIS, enhancements to the police national computer and major projects to provide the next generation of automated fingerprint identification and radio systems are amongst the PITO programmes which will improve efficiency and ensure that information technology is fully harnessed in the fight against crime.

  Serious Criminal Offences
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the average number of people each week involved for the first time in a serious criminal offence; and what was the equivalent figure in 1987. [15839]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information routinely available centrally relates to the number convicted of a standard list offence for the first time.

  The latest available figures are for 1994, when the estimated weekly average for such convictions was 2,300. The equivalent figure for 1987 was 2,900.

  Offences included in the "standard list" are given in appendices 4 and 5 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1995" (Cm 3421).

  These include all indictable and some of the more serious summary offences.

  Prisoners (Report and Health)
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the report by Sir Donald Acheson on the health of prisoners to be published. [15702]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 18 February 1997:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the report by Sir Donald Acheson on the health of prisoners.

  The Prison Service asked Sir Donald Acheson to examine what effect, if any, the regime in the Special Secure Units at Belmarsh, Full Sutton and Whitemoor, might have on the health of prisoners held there and to report any findings to the Director of Security. Sir Donald presented his report in June 1996.

  The report was commissioned internally and was not intended for publication. We have however provided copies on request and I attach a copy for your information.

  The Prison Service has considered the report and taken careful note of its findings and recommendations (which are essentially based on what might result from a prolonged period of detention in an SSU rather than findings of present harm). We have made a number of amendments to procedures and will ensure that the general health of prisoners detained in SSUs is reviewed at regular intervals.

  Crime Prevention (Lancashire)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures of crime prevention have been initiated by his Department in Lancashire since 1992. [16148]

  Mr. Maclean
  Apart from the benefit it has derived from the wide variety of national initiatives designed to promote crime prevention, Lancashire has received £464,000 in specific funding for closed circuit television systems.

  Police Numbers (West Yorkshire)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of police officers per thousand people in each of the last two years in West Yorkshire. [16042]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information, based on police strengths as at 30 September and the latest population figure (June 1995), is as follows:

  Police officers per 1,000 of population

  1995

  2.43

  1996

  2.45

  Prevention of Terrorism Legislation
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to publish the report from Mr. J. J. Rowe QC on the operation in 1996 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [16841]

  Mr. Howard
  I have today arranged for copies of Mr. Rowe's report to be placed in the Library. Mr. Rowe recommends that the legislation should be renewed in its entirety for a further 12 months. This is also the Government's view and a draft order to give effect to this is being laid before the House today.

  Data Protection
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has in respect of enforced subject access under the Data Protection Act 1984. [16853]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government recognise the objections in principle to enforced subject access. However, this problem cannot be resolved through the Police Bill because the practice affects not only police records but many social security records and possibly others. Therefore, we intend to include a general solution in the legislation giving effect to the data protection directive. We will first consult employers' organisations and others likely to be affected.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of convictions for(a) violent crime, (b) car crime, (c) serious crime and (d) in total, in each year since 1979 for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [13202]
  526
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 January 1997]: The information is given in the table.

  Number of offenders convicted, at all courts, for certain crimes 1979 to 1995

  England and Wales

  Offence description

  Year

  Violent Crime1

  Car Crime2

  Serious Crime3

  Total Crime4

  1979

  60,581

  45,739

  412,346

  1,898,152

  1980

  65,123

  48,330

  455,425

  2,211,707

  1981

  62,901

  47,067

  464,562

  2,104,629

  1982

  63,876

  46,661

  475,131

  2,031,043

  1983

  62,833

  41,280

  461,023

  2,095,529

  1984

  58,496

  37,651

  449,449

  1,962,996

  1985

  58,564

  37,821

  443,936

  1,910,917

  1986

  53,201

  35,048

  384,209

  1,894,209

  1987

  58,925

  35,214

  5397,053

  51,605,281

  1988

  65,450

  32,735

  5396,694

  51,604,903

  1989

  70,890

  29,836

  5348,833

  51,583,530

  1990

  69,215

  30,252

  5352,057

  51,562,663

  1991

  63,599

  30,472

  5346,808

  5519,904

  1992

  61,596

  24,914

  5330,710

  51,528,419

  1993

  57,335

  22,091

  307,584

  1,425,314

  1994

  58,408

  21,612

  314,148

  51,424,623

  1995

  57,464

  20,149

  302,177

  51,429,709

  1 Includes the indictable offence groups of violence against the person, sexual offences and robbery and the summary offences of common assault.

  2 Includes the indictable offences of theft from a vehicle. theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle, aggravated vehicle taking and the summary offences of stealing and unauthorised taking of a conveyance and aggravated vehicle taking.

  3 Taken as all indictable offences.

  4 Taken as all indictable, summary non motoring and summary motoring offences.

  5 Includes allowance for known shortfalls in the data. It is not possible to produce estimates for the more detailed offence categories.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers on hunger strike at Her Majesty's prison, Rochester have been detained longer than two months. [15580]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 February 1977]: On 14 February 1997, the total number of detainees taking part in the protest at Rochester was six, of whom five have sought asylum at some stage. All have been detained for longer than two months.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hunger strikers at Her Majesty's prison, Rochester have alleged torture in their applications for asylum; and how many of these have had access to independent medical assessment of their allegations. [15581]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: Such information is not readily available but any such allegations would have been considered very carefully by both the Home Office and, if an appeal had been heard, by independent adjudicators. The Prison Service affords detainees at Rochester and their legal advisers the facilities to obtain independent medical assessments and advice.

  Prison Service Annual Report
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to publish the annual report of the Prison Service agency for 1995–96. [15507]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the publication date of the Annual Report of the Prison Service Agency 1995–96.
  The preparation of the Annual Report is now in its final stages. Arrangements for printing and distributing will be made soon and I expect it to be published shortly.

  Prison Service Capacity
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes have taken place to the Prison Service agency's month by month forecast of planned(a) in-use certified normal accommodation and (b) operational capacity for 12 months ahead, as it existed in October 1996; and to what extent each such change has been due to (i) cancellations or delays of projects because of difficulties in obtaining planning consents and (ii) other reasons, indicating the reasons in each case. [15509]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning what changes have taken place to the Prison Service Agency's month by month forecast of planned (a) in-use certified normal accommodation (b) operational capacity for 12 months ahead, as it existed in October 1996; and to what extent each such change has been due to (i) cancellations or delays of projects because of difficulties in obtaining planning consents and (ii) other reasons, indicating the reasons in each case.
  The Prison Service building and refurbishment programme at existing prisons is running to plan and not being held up by planning delays. We are also looking for sites for temporary prisons to provide about 800 places as a short term measure.
  Our preferred option was to use RAF Finningley, near Doncaster. A notice of the proposed development was lodged with Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council but the council has objected to the proposal. I am therefore looking at other possible options.

  Table 2: Establishments where main changes have occurred

  Establishment

  Planned date of change

  In use change

  Operational capacity change

  Reason for change

  Chelmsford

  October 1996 (actual)

  198

  None

  New wings

  Kirkham

  December 1996 (actual)

  80

  80

  New RTUs

  Swansea

  December 1996 (actual)

  99

  120

  Return from refurbishment

  Haverigg

  December 1996 (actual)

  80

  80

  New RTUs

  Doncaster

  December 1996 (actual)

  None

  100

  Contingency Increase

  Hull

  January 1997 (actual)

  113

  113

  New wing

  Stocken

  February 1997

  40

  40

  New RTUs

  Ashwell

  February 1997

  40

  40

  New RTUs

  Littlehey

  February 1997

  40

  40

  New RTUs

  Lewes

  February 1997

  174

  162

  Return from refurbishment

  Nottingham

  February 1997

  177

  177

  New building

  528
  The Prison Service took possession of a floating prison, which is currently berthed in New York. on 31 January 1997. An application for planning consent was considered by Weymouth and Portland Borough Council on 6 February. The council rejected the application which has now been referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment and it is hoped that a decision will be reached by mid-March.

  A proposed development for a former leisure facility at Heysham, was submitted on 20 December 1996 under Environment Circular Instruction 18/84, for a change of use to a prison. The planning application has yet to be determined.

  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the outturn or planned(a) in-use certified normal accommodation and (b) operational capacity for the prison estate for each month from October 1996 to September 1997; and if he will list the establishments in which the main changes have occurred or are planned to occur over that period, with the number of places involved in each case. [15508]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the outturn and planned in-use certified normal accommodation (CNA) and operational capacity for the prison estate, indicating at which establishment main changes have or are expected to occur.
  The monthly in-use CNA and operational capacity figures for the whole prison estate are listed in the attached table 1. The figures from October 1996 to January 1997 are recorded actuals with subsequent months being forecasted figures.
  The reasons for the main changes to in-use CNA and operational capacity are detailed in the attached table 2.

  Table 1: In use CNA and operation capacity for the prison estate

  Date

  In-use CAN

  Operational capacity

  October 1996

  53,500

  59,000

  November 1996

  54,000

  59,600

  December 1996

  54,000

  59,800

  January 1997

  54,200

  60,000

  February 1997

  55,000

  60,300

  March 997

  55,200

  60,500

  April 1997

  56,000

  61,200

  May 1997

  56,500

  61,300

  June 1997

  57,100

  61,900

  July 1997

  57,200

  62,100

  August 1997

  57,600

  62,400

  September 1997

  57,900

  62,600

  529

  Table 2: Establishments where main changes have occurred

  Establishment

  Planned date of change

  In use change

  Operational capacity change

  Reason for change

  Kirklevington

  March/April 1997

  80

  80

  New RTUs

  Temporary accommodation

  April 1997

  400

  400

  —

  Glen Parva

  April 1997

  120

  None

  Return from refurbishment

  Preston

  May 1997

  156

  220

  Return from refurbishment

  Liverpool

  May 1997

  111

  182

  Return from refurbishment

  Holme House

  June 1997

  120

  120

  New houseblocks

  Garth

  June 1997

  120

  120

  New houseblocks

  Temporary accommodation

  July 1997

  400

  400

  —

  Wetherby

  July/August 1997

  120

  120

  New houseblocks

  Elmley

  July/August 1997

  120

  120

  New houseblocks

  Brixton

  August 1997

  150

  150

  Return from refurbishment

  New Hall

  August 1997

  120

  120

  New houseblocks

  Prison Service Funding
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the overall target reduction in operating costs for the Prison Service agency per baseline certified normal accommodation place over the four years 1995–96 to 1999–2000 implicit in the November 1996 announcements on funding for the Prison Service(a) excluding extra funds for implementing the Woodcock report and for mandatory drug testing and (b) including such funds. [15510]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question asking about target reductions in cost per place.
  The figures are in real terms, i.e. adjusted for inflation and are also adjusted to ensure like for like comparison over a period of years, by stripping out the funds transferred to the Prison Service previously held elsewhere (e.g. payments to local authorities under Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act) and also by stripping out both the cost and the places associated with design, construct, manage and finance (DCMF) contract prisons (because payments to contractors include a capital element, and they are therefore not comparable with the current cost per place of public sector prisons).
  On this basis, the reduction in real terms of cost per place, comparing provision for 1999–2000 and outturn for 1995–96, is 5.5% excluding new money to complete implementation of the Woodcock proposals. Including this money the comparison becomes 5.9%.
  The figures for the period 1996–97 to 1999–2000 are the ones which we will now be using in our future plans. Comparing provision for 1999–2000 with provision for 1996–97, the reduction is 4.9% or excluding new money for Woodcock, 5.3%.

  Absconding Prisoners
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the numbers of(a) absconds from open conditions and (b) temporary leave failures for the Prison Service for 1992–93, and for each subsequent year. [15512]

  Miss Widdeombe
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  530
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what were the numbers of (a) absconds from open conditions and (b) temporary leave failures for the Prison Service for 1992–93, and for each subsequent year.
  The information requested is attached.

  Absconds from open conditions1

  Number

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  1,432

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  1,403

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  1,192

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  947

  1 April 1996 to 31 March 1997

  886

  1The above figures include absconds from establishments which have both an open and closed element.

  Temporary release failures1

  Number

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  3,378

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  2,740

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  1,825

  1 April 1995 to 31 March 1996

  438

  1 April 1996 to 31 January 1997

  220

  1The above are prisoners who failed to return and were reported to the police as unlawfully at large.

  Prison Service (Early Retirement)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons are now expected to leave the Prison Service as a result of the voluntary early retirement and severance scheme. [15513]

  Miss Widdecome
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the Prison Service voluntary early retirement and severance scheme.
  1090 members of staff have accepted offers of early retirement or severance. We are awaiting replies to offers that have been made to a further 57 staff.

  Prisons (Staffing Levels)
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the staff to inmate ratio for the Prison Service in 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990 and in each subsequent year. [15514]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Ivan Lawrence, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about Prison Service staff: prisoner ratios.
  The ratios are as follows:

  Year

  Staff

  Prisoner

  1970

  1

  2.47

  1975

  1

  2.02

  1980

  1

  2.30

  1985

  1

  2.02

  19901

  1

  1.40

  1991

  1

  1.40

  1992

  1

  1.31

  1993

  1

  1.17

  1994

  1

  1.24

  1995

  1

  1.26

  1996

  1

  1.33

  1 The fall reflects the change in prison officer working practices and the reduction in their hours worked.

  Prison Officer Kettleborough (Injuries)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Prison Officer Kettleborough has applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation in respect of injuries during the Whitemoor escape. [15594]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: It is not the practice of either the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or the new Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to disclose details about individual applications.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the nature of the gunshot wound suffered by Prison Officer Kettleborough at the time of the Whitemoor escape; and for how long he remained in hospital. [15595]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 18 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the gun shot wound suffered by a prison officer during the escape from Whitemoor in September 1994.
  The officer received a graze and severe bruising to his lower abdomen. He was treated at hospital, but not admitted.

  Crime Clear-up Rates
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the crime clear-up rates for each police force in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. [16220]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The latest information relates to 1995 and is published in table 2.11 of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, 1995" (Cm 3421), a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Policing (London)
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much an average band D council tax payer in London paid towards policing costs in 1996–97; and if he will estimate(a) the cost for 1997–98 and (b) the percentage change. [16218]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: For 1996–97, the receiver for the Metropolitan police district issued a precept of £49.84 per property in council tax band D for Metropolitan police purposes. The budget proposals for 1997–98, which the receiver has submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for approval, would require a precept of £57.00 per property in council tax band D. This would be an increase of 14.4 per cent.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police constables there were in London in each division and area in each of the years from 1992 to 1997. [16219]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The information requested is given in the following two tables. Owing to restructuring in the Metropolitan police in 1994, when the number of areas was reduced from eight to five, valid comparisons of area police strength cannot be made between the two tables. Figures for January 1995 appear in both tables as some officers were still in the process of being transferred from the old to the new restructured areas.

  The number of constables in the Metropolitan police will increase during 1997 as a result of the 3.4 per cent. funding increase for the Metropolitan police for 1997–98 over their 1996–97 allocation.

  Metropolitan police constable strength

  7 January 1992 total

  4 January 1993 total

  7 January 1994 total

  3 January 1995 total

  1. Area HQ

  388

  398

  403.6

  3

  Tottenham

  232

  229

  228

  —

  Hornsey

  219

  206.6

  213.6

  —

  Ponders End

  222

  218

  232

  —

  Enfield

  192

  202

  202.46

  —

  Holloway

  211

  200

  212.6

  —

  Islington

  256

  224

  235.5

  —

  Leyton

  180

  179.4

  180.4

  —

  Ilford

  202

  192

  201

  —

  Chingford

  192

  184.4

  189.4

  —

  Barkingside

  218

  202

  210.4

  —

  Total

  2,512

  2,435.4

  2,508.96

  3

  2. Area HQ

  368

  362

  310.4

  289

  Hackney

  277

  260

  258

  —

  Stoke Newington

  242

  223

  247

  —

  Bethnal Green

  156

  138

  136

  —

  Leman Street

  155

  148

  149

  —

  Limehouse

  245

  220

  239

  —

  533

  Metropolitan police constable strength

  7 January 1992 total

  4 January 1993 total

  7 January 1994 total

  3 January 1995 total

  Havering

  293

  283

  293.01

  —

  Dagenham

  222

  231

  232

  —

  Plaistow

  233

  226

  242.8

  —

  West Ham

  241

  227

  214.68

  —

  Total

  2,432

  2,318

  2,321.89

  289

  3 .Area HQ

  357

  345.6

  340.5

  10

  Southwark

  248

  224

  239.53

  —

  Peckham

  239

  232.9

  245.5

  —

  Walworth

  212

  189

  199

  —

  Catford

  211

  223

  204.6

  —

  Lewisham

  266

  249.6

  264.8

  —

  Orpington

  187

  164.44

  165.58

  —

  Bromley

  225

  205

  203

  —

  Greenwich

  223

  208

  197.8

  —

  Plumstead

  224

  223

  211

  —

  Bexleyheath

  227

  216.5

  214.6

  —

  Total

  2,619

  2,481.04

  2,485.91

  10

  4. Area HQ

  296

  286

  275

  184

  Brixton

  231

  232

  240

  —

  Kennington

  132

  130

  130.6

  —

  Clapham

  175

  177.5

  155.9

  —

  Streatham

  222

  208

  204.8

  —

  Wimbledon

  249

  229.4

  251

  —

  Croydon

  250

  222

  221

  —

  South

  Norwood

  239

  246.6

  236.19

  —

  Epsom

  319

  292.5

  303.5

  —

  Total

  2,113

  2,024

  2,017.99

  184

  5. Area HQ

  378

  373.4

  371.68

  60

  Wandsworth

  173

  157

  165

  —

  Battersea

  195

  167

  167.8

  —

  Tooting

  177

  179

  192.5

  —

  Hounslow

  215

  202

  214.2

  —

  Chiswick

  152

  141.4

  158.7

  —

  Twickenham

  251

  218

  244.95

  —

  Spelthorne

  151

  140.4

  158.2

  —

  Kingston

  319

  294.4

  312.7

  —

  Total

  2,011

  1,872.6

  1,985.73

  60

  6. Area HQ

  311

  287.6

  281.1

  270

  Heathrow

  366

  362.55

  348.94

  —

  Ealing

  274

  260.58

  281.23

  —

  Southall

  200

  215.7

  219.78

  —

  Hayes

  161

  —

  —

  —

  Uxbridge

  193

  —

  —

  —

  Hillingdon

  —

  347.9

  347.98

  —

  Chelsea

  149

  135

  153

  —

  Kensington

  179

  163

  168.1

  —

  Notting Hill

  174

  172

  181

  —

  Hammersmith

  273

  266

  261.33

  —

  Fulham

  139

  147

  158

  —

  Total

  2,419

  2,357.33

  2,400.46

  270

  7. Area HQ

  368

  362.4

  350.1

  310

  West Hendon

  188

  184

  193.6

  —

  Hampstead

  206

  196

  174

  —

  Kentish

  Town

  220

  203

  199

  —

  Holborn

  161

  156.7

  150.7

  —

  Harrow

  223

  207.2

  220.2

  —

  Wembley

  204

  181.91

  197.7

  —

  Kilbum

  313

  298

  286

  —

  Barnet

  219

  226

  239.4

  —

  Golders Green

  160

  160.3

  162.6

  —

  Total

  2,262

  2,175.51

  2,173.3

  310

  8. Area HQ

  355

  383

  376

  355

  West End Central

  175

  270

  249

  —

  Vine Street

  106

  —

  —

  —

  Charing Cross

  275

  313.4

  347.3

  —

  534

  Metropolitan police constable strength

  7 January 1992 total

  4 January 1993 total

  7 January 1994 total

  3 January 1995 total

  Paddington

  219

  217

  219

  —

  Maryleborne

  192

  204

  204.4

  —

  Harrow Road

  173

  172

  174

  —

  Belgravia

  258

  254.8

  261.5

  —

  Total

  1,753

  1,814.2

  1,831.2

  355

  Total areas

  18,121

  17,478.08

  17,725.44

  1,481

  Metropolitan police constable strength

  3 January 1995

  8 January 1996

  2 January 1997

  1. Area Central HQ

  15

  543

  449.6

  Belgravia

  252.55

  249.15

  248.26

  Notting Hill

  192

  184

  199.6

  Brompton

  290.83

  302.4

  313.2

  West End Central

  246

  247

  239

  Charing Cross

  318.9

  317.1

  324.7

  Marylebone

  200.1

  265.9

  260.7

  Paddington Green

  367.6

  280.6

  279

  Fulham

  167

  170.73

  179.73

  Hammersmith

  258.2

  251.4

  270.66

  Total

  2,308.18

  2,811.28

  2,764.45

  2. Area NW HQ

  42

  504.98

  522.18

  Hampstead

  170

  172

  165.15

  Kentish Town

  211.7

  220.86

  221

  Holborn

  170.2

  166.1

  157.8

  Holloway

  212.6

  211.9

  200.9

  Islington

  238.5

  234.1

  250.7

  Harrow

  218.2

  233.8

  225.4

  Wembley

  209.7

  208.6

  218.6

  Kilburn

  307.88

  289.14

  294.26

  Barnet

  250

  235.3

  220.26

  Golders Green

  163.1

  169.9

  172.15

  West Hendon

  198

  196.6

  183.9

  Ealing

  276.93

  289.68

  283.28

  Southall

  226.68

  231.96

  228.3

  Hornsey

  224.95

  218.6

  208.3

  Tottenham

  232

  217

  215.1

  Total

  3,352.44

  3,800.52

  3,767.28

  3. Area NE HQ

  323.8

  685

  651.5

  Shoreditch and Hackney

  268.68

  260.6

  257.8

  Stoke Newington

  283.5

  269.94

  271.24

  Limehouse

  230

  220.4

  216.4

  Whitechapel

  265.7

  265.7

  264.4

  Barkingside

  234.4

  230.5

  232.8

  Chingford

  193.8

  188.3

  189.5

  Ilford

  202.49

  203

  203.6

  Leyton

  195.4

  185

  193.92

  Havering

  297.57

  287.09

  287.05

  Forest Gate

  247.28

  255.68

  253.48

  Dagenham

  243.6

  244.2

  243.45

  Plaistow

  256.8

  250

  257.4

  Edmonton

  213.2

  208.38

  210.78

  Enfield

  222

  222.7

  232.7

  Total

  3,678.22

  3,976.49

  3,966.02

  4. Area SE HQ

  362

  509

  488.75

  Southwark

  228.12

  246.08

  245.88

  Peckham

  242.6

  259.63

  247.03

  Walworth

  219

  227.4

  212.5

  Catford

  205.7

  240.8

  239.7

  Lewi sham

  271.8

  279.8

  264.6

  Bromley and Orpington

  396.43

  395.44

  374.44

  Plumstead

  249.5

  276.95

  261.35

  Greenwich

  213.7

  235.96

  249.1

  Bexleyheath

  228

  238.5

  228.3

  Croydon

  237.5

  231.3

  230.36

  535

  Metropolitan police constable strength

  3 January 1995

  8 January 1996

  2 January 1997

  South Norwood

  260.8

  274.78

  263.58

  Epsom

  345.3

  348.78

  324.63

  Total

  3460.45

  3764.42

  3630.22

  5. Area SW HQ

  344.4

  573.2

  569.56

  Heathrow

  346.39

  335.19

  313.99

  Brixton

  254.75

  249.1

  257.9

  Streatham

  215.9

  221.01

  221.61

  Vauxhall

  332.1

  300.9

  297.24

  Chiswick

  152.7

  155.5

  152.5

  Hounslow

  204.6

  209.7

  209.7

  Spelthome

  148.2

  152.2

  151.6

  Twickenham

  228.65

  251.65

  234.85

  Kingston

  293.44

  311.94

  285.84

  Battersea

  228.8

  227.8

  243.9

  Wandsworth

  269.98

  283.48

  283.48

  Hillingdon

  351

  352.5

  335.2

  Wimbledon

  288.45

  265.85

  259.25

  Total

  3659.36

  3890.02

  3816.62

  Total areas

  16458.65

  18242.73

  17944.59

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Travel and Accommodation Expenses
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what were the total costs, in respect of hon. members' (i) travel and (ii) accommodation(a) between Parliament and home or constituency, (b) on approved visits to the European Parliament, (c) on Select Committee visits and (d) on visits associated with other parliamentary duties in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [16255]

  Mr. Newton
  This information as provided by the Fees Office is set out in the table below. There is no specific provision for accommodation costs when travelling between Parliament and home or constituency. Costs of visits to the European Parliament are recorded in total, and are not differentiated as between travel and subsistence. Information in respect of Select Committees, parliamentary delegations, and other Committee costs, is a matter for the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed (Mr. Beith) on behalf of the House of Commons Commission.

  Year

  Cost of travel between Parliament, home, and constituency (a)

  Cost of approved visits European Parliament (b)

  Visits associated with other parliamentary duties (d)

  1992–93

  6,865,405

  29,939

  146,220

  1993–94

  7,422,321

  50,503

  166,732

  1994–95

  7,693,378

  45,704

  187,914

  1995–96

  7,544,154

  54,428

  207,574

  1996–971

  5,796,850

  38,147

  195,828

  1 Part-year-April to December inclusive.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, of the written parliamentary questions in the past 12 years for which the costs of answering have already been 536
  calculated, which were the 10 questions which cost most to answer; and which hon. Members asked those questions. [16250]

  Mr. Newton
  Records are not kept in a form which makes it practicable to provide the information requested.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Equal Opportunities
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many people are employed by his Department to provide advice on the application of equal opportunities; and at what cost in the last year for which figures are available. [14475]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council Office has a staff of fewer than 40. None is exclusively devoted to personnel management duties, and no meaningful cost figure can be calculated for staff effort devoted to equal opportunities issues.

HEALTH

  Private Beds
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of private beds currently available in national health trust hospitals. [14737]

  Mr. Horam
  This information has not been collected since 1991.

  Projected Deficits (Cornwall)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the projected deficits of the NHS in Cornwall in the coming financial year. [14738]

  Mr. Malone
  National health service bodies are currently developing their financial plans for 1997–98 and will submit these to the NHS executive in April.

  Worcester District General Hospital
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of the private finance initiative scheme to build a new Worcester district general hospital. [14739]

  Mr. Horam
  Worcester Royal Infirmary NHS trust is currently negotiating with their preferred private sector partner prior to submitting the full business case for the proposed private finance initiative scheme.

  New Hospitals
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospitals have opened in the last three years. [14740]

  Mr. Horam
  Twenty-five major hospital developments have been completed in the NHS during the last three years at a total cost of nearly £700 million.

  New Hospitals and Hospital Extensions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new hospitals or hospital extensions have been considered under the private finance initiative; for how many of these private finance has been forthcoming; and what is his estimate of the average delay caused for those hospitals considered under the private finance initiative but which subsequently go ahead on the basis of public funds alone. [14741]

  Mr. Horam
  Full business cases recommending the use of private finance have been submitted for the provision of 25 new hospitals or hospital extensions each with a capital value of more than £1 million. Fourteen of these private finance schemes have reached contract signature. None of these 25 new hospitals or hospital extensions has subsequently gone ahead on the basis of public funding alone.

  Health Service Administrators
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the number of administrators in the health service since the abolition of the regional health authorities. [14742]

  Mr. Malone
  This information will not be centrally available until later this year. The Government are determined to tackle unnecessary bureaucracy and to secure maximum improvements in health care. The simplification and streamlining of national health service management through the merger of district health authorities and family health services authorities, the abolition of regional health authorities, the reduction in the running costs of the Department of Health and the measures announced in October 1995 to reduce trust management costs and health authority running costs reflect the Government's determination to achieve this aim. In all these measures will release some £300 million for direct patient care.

  Hospital and Community Services (Normanton)
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the effects of the revised funding formulae for the Wakefield health authority on provision of hospital and community services in 1997–98 in the Normanton constituency. [14743]

  Mr. Horam
  Wakefield health authority, which includes the hon. Member's constituency, has a net increase in its allocation targets.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many complaints he has received in the last 12 months about operations being cancelled within 24 hours of appointment. [14745]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not available centrally.

  Social Respite for Carers
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to promote the provision of social respite for carers. [14746]
  538
  Mr. Burns
  Informal carers make a key contribution to the aims of community care by enabling many people to be cared for in their own homes. Promoting effective support for carers is one of our major priorities.

  Local authorities receive very substantial resources for community care provision. They are expected to provide an appropriate range of respite and other support services to meet local needs. They have a built-in incentive to do so: failure to support carers in this way would be likely to lead to greater demand for more costly long-term residential care placements.

  Our commitment to promoting effective support for carers is underwritten by on-going monitoring and development work, in particular by the social services inspectorate. This has enabled us to provide authorities with informed, practical guidance on assessing and meeting the needs for local respite care services in the most effective way.

  Health Service Managers
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many managers there were in the NHS(a) in 1989 and (b) at the latest available date. [14747]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) on 3 December 1996,Official Report column 787. Information for 1996 will be centrally available later this year.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next plans to meet the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. [14748]

  Mr. Horam
  We have no plans to meet the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, but look forward to continuing to receive regular advice from it.

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to modify the rules, regulations and guidelines concerning the use of electro-convulsive therapy in the treatment of persons suffering from mental illness. [14749]

  Mr. Burns
  There are no current proposals to make any changes to the rules or regulations concerning the use of electro-convulsive therapy. The question of guidelines on the use of ECT is a matter for professional clinicians who administer it. In 1995 the Royal College of Psychiatrists' special committee on ECT published a practical set of guidelines for psychiatrists who prescribe and administer ECT.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for how many appointments to boards, trusts and other guangos he is responsible. [14751]

  Mr. Malone
  The Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1996" lists health bodies to which appointments are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. Copies are available in the Library. In
  539
  addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also makes 138 appointments to boards of hospital special trustees.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the South and West region in the past 12 months have had their operations cancelled(a) on the day they were due to go into hospital and (b) after admission. [14752]

  Mr. Horam
  Information is available in the Library on operations cancelled for non-medical reasons on the day a patient is due to be admitted, or after admission, and who are not given a new date within one month of the cancellation.

  Heart Attack Deaths
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made towards reaching the "Health of the Nation" target relating to deaths from heart attack. [14753]

  Mr. Horam
  Progress towards the "Health of the Nation" targets to reduce deaths from coronary heart disease is encouraging. The latest data show that between 1989–90–91 and 1993–94–95, death rates fell by 19.2 per cent. for people aged under 65 and by 12.5 per cent. for people aged 65 to 74.

  Health Service Internal Market
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost of the internal market in the NHS. [14754]

  Mr. Horam
  The national health service internal market has greatly increased the responsiveness of the NHS, fostering innovation, responsiveness and efficiency. The introduction of the NHS internal market has consequently yielded a substantial net benefit both to patients and to taxpayers.

  Prescribable Products
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received as a result of his consultation on products prescribable by general practitioners. [14755]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received about 200 representations in response to consultation on recommended changes to the list of products which general practitioners may not prescribe at national health service expense.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the British Dental Association concerning(a) the effectiveness of its oversight of the profession and (b) its protection of patients from extensive and unnecessary treatment. [14756]

  Mr. Malone
  None. These are matters for the General Dental Council.

  NHS Staff Salaries
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department issues to NHS trusts about limits on staff salaries. [14736]

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  NHS Supplies
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department takes to ensure that the contract price for a specific product or service quoted to an individual hospital trust is the same price as that tendered and successfully accepted for a national contract with NHS Supplies. [15699]

  Mr. Horam
  Individual national health service trusts make their own purchasing decisions and are responsible for ensuring that they achieve maximum value for money from their procurement. These decisions are not monitored centrally but are subject to audit scrutiny.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures NHS Supplies are required to follow before accepting a tender for contract; and on what grounds they may award a contract to an offer which is not the lowest tendered price. [15700]

  Mr. Horam
  The procedures followed by National Health Service Supplies staff are laid down in its standing orders and other supplementary guidance. It is also subject to all normal public procurement rules, as well as relevant European Community directives and World Trade Organisation agreements.

  NHS supplies aim is to ensure that the NHS receives the best possible value for money from supplies contracts. NHS Supplies awards a contract to the lowest bidder unless this demonstrably offers inferior value for money when compared to other bids.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost savings generated by NHS Supplies. [15701]

  Mr. Horam
  Between October 1992 and April 1996 National Health Service Supplies achieved purchasing savings of some £264 million for the NHS.

  Smoking and Conception Terminations
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his current estimate of the average numbers of people each week involved in(a) taking up smoking and (b) contributing to a conception that is terminated; and what were the equivalent figures in 1987. [15840]

  Mr. Horam
  No returns are made centrally which would provide the information required.

  Junior Doctors
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the additional cost of the payment of 100 per cent. rather than 50 per cent. of the basic salary for junior doctors by the regional postgraduate dean. [15906]
  541
  Mr. Malone
  There would be no additional cost. Junior doctors' basic salaries are paid in full from national health service funds.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the additional cost would be of paying junior doctors on part-time contracts or in flexible training posts the standard hourly rate for the first 40 hours of work in the week, rather than the first 20 hours. [15909]

  Mr. Malone
  Given the diverse range of working patterns junior doctors on part-time contracts undertake, it is not possible to identify the additional cost that would be incurred by paying the standard hourly rate for additional hours worked.

  Arachnoiditis
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to commission research into arachnoiditis; and if he will make a statement. [15979]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no plans to commission research into arachnoiditis centrally.

  Prescription Drugs
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to the NHS of abolishing charges currently made for prescription drugs used to treat(a) epilepsy and (b) long-term depression. [15791]

  Mr. Malone
  People suffering from epilepsy who require continuous anti-convulsive therapy are exempt from prescription charges.

  On the basis of a charge for a prescription item of £5.50 and the number of prescription items dispensed in 1995 for preparations in the British National Formulary, issue 28, September 1994, therapeutic group 4.3.1–4.3.3, some of which may have been prescribed for conditions other than long-term depression, it is estimated that about £8 million in charges would be lost annually in England to the national health service.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many asylum seekers have been given assistance under the National Assistance Act 1948 or Children Act 1989 by local authorities in each month since October 1996; and how much money has been allocated to local authorities for each month since October 1996 for this assistance. [15805]

  Mr. Burns
  Information on numbers being supported is not collected centrally.

  The 1996–97 special grants for unaccompanied children and families with children will be allocated and paid to individual local authorities by the end of March. A special grant for adults being supported under the National Assistance Act was laid before Parliament on 11 February.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholders there are in(a) the north-west and (b) England. [16192]
  542
  Mr. Malone
  There are currently 1,857 general practitioner fundholders in the north-west region and 13,423 in England as a whole, with more preparing to join next year.

  Dentures
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the entitlement of denturists and clinical dental technicians to practise legally in the United Kingdom in the direct supply of dentures to patients. [16021]

  Mr. Malone
  On 12 June last year, I announced in the House the Government's proposal to amend the Dentists Act 1984 following the General Dental Council's recommendation to set up new classes of dental auxiliaries and expand the range of work that they can do, including the legalisation of clinical dental technicians. As a first step it is intended to publish a consultation Bill on amendments to the Dentists Act.

  Hospital Wards
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his forecast of when there will be more single-sex than mixed-sex wards; what cost is involved; and if he will make a statement. [15115]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the number of single-sex and mixed-sex wards is not collected centrally. As announced last month, we are taking forward a programme of work to ensure that patients charter standards on this issue are fully met. As a first step, we have asked health authorities to agree challenging local targets with trusts for achieving charter objectives on privacy and dignity and to report back to the national health service executive by the end of February.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the progress of research funded by the Government into Alzheimer's disease and on his plans for extending it. [15863]

  Mr. Burns
  The Government's commitment to the health and well-being of all mentally ill people is set out by the inclusion of mental health as one of five key areas in our Health of the Nation strategy. The Medical Research Council, the Department's policy research programme and the national health service research and development programme are all undertaking work into dementia, including Alzheimer's disease. For example, the policy research programme is contributing almost £1 million to the Medical Research Council's cognitive and aging study. Results of Government-funded research are made freely and widely available.

  Bradford Hospitals Trust (Accidents to Patients)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many falls of elderly patients in the care of Bradford Hospitals Trust have been recorded. [16046]

  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Bradford Hospitals national health service trust.

  NHS Funding (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the allocation that Yorkshire health authorities would have received from the national health service under the previous funding formula; and what is the current allocation. [16041]

  Mr. Horam
  The national weighted capitation formula is used to provide a calculation of each health authority's fair share of available resources, known as its weighted capitation target. Changes in the calculated target inform the allocations process, they do not direct it. Changes in targets do not lead to immediate and corresponding changes in actual allocations.

  The table shows the effect of the new formula on targets for health authorities in Yorkshire in 1997–98.

  Health authority

  Total formula changes 1997–98 £000s

  Bradford

  +2,043

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  +1,234

  East Riding

  +620

  NHS Hospital community health services (HCHS) nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding agency and learners1) by age in England as at 30 September 1987 to 19952

  whole-time equivalents

  Under 30 years

  30 to 39 years

  40 to 49 years

  50 years and over

  Age not known

  Total

  1987

  All NMHV staff

  106,280

  80,840

  84,180

  57,270

  4,770

  333,340

  Qualified

  80,490

  63,460

  56,210

  35,450

  3,740

  239,360

  Unqualified

  25,790

  17,370

  27,970

  21,810

  1,030

  93,980

  1988

  All NMHV staff

  104,150

  81,900

  85,360

  59,420

  4,070

  334,910

  Qualified

  79,460

  65,070

  57,600

  36,670

  3,130

  241,920

  Unqualified

  24,690

  16,830

  27,760

  22,760

  950

  92,980

  1989

  All NMHV staff

  100,080

  84,100

  86,060

  61,850

  4,400

  336,500

  Qualified

  76,830

  67,440

  59,340

  38,210

  3,270

  244,610

  Unqualified

  23,250

  16,670

  27,190

  23,640

  8,950

  91,890

  1990

  All NMHV staff

  95,550

  86,370

  86,380

  63,630

  4,590

  336,520

  Qualified

  71,550

  69,130

  59,340

  39,030

  3,280

  242,340

  Unqualified

  21,580

  16,500

  28,700

  24,430

  1,190

  90,400

  Other

  2,420

  740

  340

  160

  120

  3,780

  1991

  All NMHV staff

  95,440

  89,370

  86,520

  62,470

  11,070

  344,860

  Qualified

  69,380

  70,960

  59,530

  37,860

  5,530

  243,250

  Unqualified

  20,640

  16,840

  26,200

  24,330

  2,530

  90,550

  Other

  5,420

  1,570

  780

  280

  3,010

  11,050

  1992

  All NMHV staff

  88,410

  93,830

  87,900

  63,600

  10,310

  344,050

  Qualified

  66,170

  75,360

  61,260

  38,300

  5,490

  246,570

  Unqualified

  19,600

  17,400

  25,970

  24,960

  2,920

  90,850

  Other

  2,640

  1,070

  670

  340

  1,910

  6,630

  1993

  All NMHV staff

  80,120

  95,830

  86,440

  62,610

  15,420

  340,420

  Qualified

  59,320

  76,680

  60,170

  36,840

  8,840

  241,850

  Unqualified

  18,790

  17,760

  25,150

  25,160

  5,090

  91,950

  Other

  2,000

  1,400

  1,120

  610

  1,490

  6,620

  1994

  All NMHV staff

  76,720

  100,170

  85,650

  61,970

  13,090

  337,600

  Qualified

  55,870

  79,610

  59,610

  35,840

  7,860

  238,780

  544

  Health authority

  Total formula changes 1997–98 £000s

  Leeds

  +1,597

  North Yorkshire

  -2,970

  Wakefield

  +351

  Barnsley

  +475

  Doncaster

  +171

  Rotherham

  +161

  Sheffield

  +1,605

  Total

  +5,287

  Nurses
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses in England were aged(a) between 20 and 30, (b) between 31 and 40, (c) between 41 and 50, and (d) over 50 years in each year from 1987–88 to 1995–96. [12690]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 27 January 1997]: The information is not available in the form requested. The ages of nurses employed by the national health service in England are shown in the table.
  545

  NHS Hospital community health services (HCHS) nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding agency and learners1) by age in England as at 30 September 1987 to 19952

  whole-time equivalents

  Under 30 years

  30 to 39 years

  40 to 49 years

  50 years and over

  Age not known

  Total

  Unqualified

  18,790

  18,740

  24,680

  25,340

  5,010

  92,550

  Other

  2,060

  1,820

  1,370

  800

  220

  6,270

  19952

  All NMHV staff

  70,430

  102,050

  82,940

  58,890

  16,130

  330,440

  Qualified

  54,380

  84,170

  61,730

  36,860

  9,690

  246,820

  Unqualified

  15,870

  17,660

  21,020

  21,930

  6,440

  82,910

  Other

  180

  220

  190

  100

  10

  710

  Learners' not included in the above

  1987

  64,570

  1990

  58,840

  1993

  21,040

  1988

  62,940

  1991

  47,340

  1994

  11,080

  1989

  62,100

  1992

  34,740

  21995

  7,180

  Notes:

  1 Learners are nurses on traditional nurse training courses and are directly employed by the NHS HCHS. Project 2000 training was introduced in 1989 and has gradually replaced traditional pre-registration nurse training. Project 2000 students are funded by bursaries, they are supernumary not employees and thus excluded from the count of NHS HCHS nursing staff. There were about 33,000 Project 2000 students in September 1995.

  2 Figures for 1995 are based on a new classification for non-medical staff known as "new occupation codes". These codes replaced the old "payscale" based classification used in earlier years. Figures for 1995 are, therefore, not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Figures exclude General Medical Service practice nurses—numbering 9,970 in 1995.

  Source:

  Department of Health's annual non-medical workforce census.

  Anaesthetics (Organophosphate Exposure)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the possible dangers arising out of the use of Suxamethonium and similar anaesthetics on patients who have been exposed to orgnaophosphates, with particular reference to (i) agricultural workers, (ii) pet owners and (iii) Gulf war veterans: and if he will make a statement. [14152]

  Mr. Horam
  [holding answer 5 February 1997]: The Department of Health has not commissioned research into the use of Suxamethonium use in agricultural workers, pet owners or Gulf war veterans exposed to organophosphate pesticides.

  The available research into the side-effects of Suxamethonium and related anaesthetics, as for all
  546
  marketed medicines, was assessed at the time of granting the marketing authorisation and continues to be evaluated by the Medicines Control Agency whenever new information emerges.

  Suxamethonium and related anaesthetics are contra-indicated for use in patients known to have low serum levels of pseudocholinesterase—the enzyme which breaks down this type of medicine. Most often low levels of pseudocholinesterase are due to an inherited structural abnormality of the enzyme but another cause of low pseudocholinesterase activity is acute organophosphorus insecticide poisoning. There is a specific warning in the product information, produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the licensing authority, which contra-indicates use in those patients who have poisoning with an organophosphorus insecticide.

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

Unemployment
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they expect the level of unemployment to reach that of 1979.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the Government do not forecast future levels of unemployment. We shall continue with the policies which have seen unemployment fall by over 1 million, and almost 900,000 more people in jobs, than when recovery in the labour market began.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the admission last week by the Minister of State for Employment in another place that the last unemployment figures were substantially inaccurate comes as no surprise to these Benches, especially as the method of calculating such figures has changed so many times since 1979? Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many times. Indeed, the electorate simply do not believe the figures which are being published by the Government. The Government always refer to what they consider to be their successes by comparing the situation with 1979—the time of the last Labour Government. Why can they not do the same with unemployment? Surely to goodness 18 years is long enough to have done something about that particular question.
Lord Henley: My Lords, first, and most important, I should point out that my right honourable friend did not say that the figures were wrong or inaccurate. He made it quite clear that the unemployment figures are always very difficult to interpret. That task is not made easier by mischievous claims by the noble Lord, and others, that such figures are fiddled. My right honourable friend also made clear that the figures had been coming down steadily for 36 months. Since the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance last October, we have seen a further steady fall month by month. My right honourable friend also pointed out that two things had happened: first, we have seen many more people come off the register and go into work; and, secondly, we have seen many people come off the register because they should never have been on it in the first place. In other words, JSA is getting rid of the people who should not have been on the register at all. For that reason, I think that the noble Lord should welcome what my right honourable friend said.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the economic policy of
546
this Government has resulted in a decrease in unemployment month after month after month? Will my noble friend also agree that that compares very favourably with the position in Germany, in France, and among our other partners in the European Union? Does my noble friend agree that the competitive position of this country would be impaired if we ever joined the social chapter or agreed to a minimum wage?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers of a minimum wage and, indeed, of the social chapter. Perhaps I may add to that the dangers of the so-called "windfall tax", which would certainly cost jobs and investment and lead to an increase in unemployment should the party opposite come into power.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government had no difficulty in 1979 in interpreting the figures when they took over, which were approximately 1.25 million? Is the Minister also aware that, according to an impartial report by the Royal Statistical Society about a year ago, the 32 changes this Government have made in defining unemployment, so that "unemployment" becomes "claimant unemployment", have resulted in the existing figures regarding real unemployment being understated by 1.5 million?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is simply not the case. The noble Lord knows that there are two methods of counting unemployment. First, there is the claimant count, which, quite rightly, counts those who are out of work, looking for work and receiving benefit. Secondly, there is the Labour Force Survey, which, as the noble Lord knows, works on the internationally accepted ILO rules and which shows broadly the same pattern as the claimant count. It shows that unemployment has been coming down steadily since 1992. At the same time it has been rising in Europe; namely, in Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that we should really relish discussion of the subject on this side of the House? However, we must take inflation as well as unemployment together because both are crucial factors in managing the economy. Does my noble friend recall that in the five years up to May 1979 retail prices increased by 91 per cent., and that in the five years up to January 1997 retail prices increased by 14 per cent? When talking about figures, does my noble friend further agree that the very interesting figures on unemployment by constituency, which are published monthly, show that in January there were only 129 constituencies where unemployment was 10 per cent. or higher; that 199 constituencies had unemployment of under 5 per cent.; and that there were actually 39 constituencies where unemployment was under 3 per cent., which is full employment in Beveridge terms?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing those figures to the House and also

547
for reminding the House of the important link between unemployment and inflation. I also remind my noble friend that under the previous Labour government unemployment doubled from half a million to 1 million.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to a Written Answer given to me by his noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on 23rd January 1996 the number of people over 50 and under 65 who have not worked for 10 years is 2,594,000? The Minister will doubtless be aware that these people do not appear in the unemployment figures because they are excluded from the actively seeking work rules. I would not for one minute maintain that they should all be included in the unemployment figures. However, would the Minister be equally unwilling to say that none of them should?
Lord Henley: My Lords, if people are not seeking work I do not believe that they should be counted in the unemployment count.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, before the Opposition get too complacent about the figures from 1979, does my noble friend agree that in the late 70s the UK average unemployment figure was above the European average and rising, whereas now it is below the European average and falling?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct. For example, the figures for 1975 show unemployment of about 4.3 per cent., which was higher than in Germany, France and Spain. When one looks at the figures for 1995–96 one finds that they are considerably lower than those of France, Spain, Germany and Italy, which are all high and rising.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, how does the Minister square the answers he is giving today with the Government Statistical Service's Labour Market Trends, which has stated in the past two months' editions that the service does not know what is happening as regards unemployment? The January edition of Labour Market Trends states that the statistical service does not know how much of the recent fall in claimant unemployment is due to JSA and how much is due to job growth and therefore it does not know whether the downward trend has accelerated. Surely we have come to a point where the Government should get rid of the discredited claimant count and publish the Labour Force Survey month by month. The only reason they do not want to do that is because, contrary to what the noble Lord said, the survey shows that unemployment is still 2.2 million; still 8 per cent.; and falling at a far lower rate than the Government suggest.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am interested in the new party policy that will abolish the count and rely solely on the monthly Labour Force Survey. I make it quite clear, as I did earlier, that the figures are obviously difficult to interpret. We never know precisely how many have come off and gone into jobs and how many
548
have come off because they should not have been on the count in the first place. I think what the noble Lord can accept is that unemployment has fallen by over 1 million but employment—that is, real jobs—has risen by 900,000. So there are many new jobs as a result of the economic policies we are pursuing.

UK Economy: Inward Investment
2.47 p.m.
Lord Hooson Lord Hooson asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the total capital value of inward industrial investment to the United Kingdom from non-European Union countries during the past decade and what is the estimated value of its annual contribution to the United Kingdom economy.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie):: My Lords, the stock of inward investment into the United Kingdom from non-European Union countries rose from £42 billion in 1987 to £81 billion in 1994 (the latest year for which figures are available). Although not all of them are quantifiable, we gain a wide range of economic benefits from inward investment including increased exports, the creation of new jobs, the introduction of new products and processes and the creation of local supply chains.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is a significant contribution to the well-being of our economy which has largely come about because we are a fully participating member of the European Union? How seriously have the Government taken on board the suggestion by Toyota that, in the event of our ceasing to be what can be described as a fully participating member of the European Union, it might withdraw its investment and transfer to another part of the European Union? How significant a factor would that be if other companies followed that suggestion?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I must say immediately to the noble Lord I am grateful that he, if no one else on the Opposition Benches, has recognised the enormous success of this Government in securing this extraordinary rate of inward investment into the United Kingdom. There are many reasons other than exchange rates for that inward investment locating in the United Kingdom—there is our low corporation tax, our established industrial infrastructure, our established enterprise culture and, I am pleased to say, a skilled and adaptable workforce. Joining the EMU would not of itself give rise to more inward investment. I understand that following the remarks of a member of the management of Toyota, which were widely publicised and which were delivered off the cuff, Toyota has spent a considerable amount of time indicating that what he said was taken out of context and that the significant investment it has in this country will continue.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend give us some indication of how many new jobs have been created directly or indirectly by this inward investment to which this Question refers?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, at a rough estimate over the past five years it is estimated that 352,432 jobs stemmed from inward investment.
Lord Paul: My Lords, how much inward investment shall we lose because of the high level of the pound at present? What money incentives have we given to bring in that inward investment which were not available to the domestic industry?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, clearly there is always some concern when the pound rises. However, it would appear that British industry, including those industries which located here as a result of inward investment, has become more sophisticated as regards hedging against movements in exchange rates.
A point well worth raising is that sometimes there is the misapprehension that most of the inward investment is attracted to this country because of grants in one form or another. In fact only about 26 per cent. of inward investment projects in the United Kingdom receive any grant from the Government.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that over 40 per cent. of all the inward investment into the European Union comes to this country because of our competitive position? Does he also agree that, if one takes into account the benefit of inward investment, last year our invisibles rose to over £12 billion? That must be a help to the economy.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. We are the number one location in the European Union not only for United States and Canadian investment but also for Japanese and Korean investment. We are doing extremely well in that regard. It clearly makes a significant improvement to our economic performance. It is equally important that something like 42 per cent. of our exports are from companies which originally located in this country as a result of inward investment.
Lord Penton: My Lords, will the Minister ask his noble friends whether they will let me have the planted Questions so that I can look up the answers at the same time? I should be terribly sympathetic, as he is, to their needs.
I assume that the Minister saw a report in yesterday's Financial Times—his officials would have advised him of it—saying that Britain is now no longer the most favoured destination for non-European Union countries to invest in but that France is. Research seems to indicate overwhelmingly that that is precisely because we are members of the European Union and for none of the other reasons that the Minister put forward. Without prejudging what will be in the national interest in a few weeks time, while joining the EMU might not be helpful
550
to inward investment, surely the evidence indicates fairly strongly that not joining the EMU will be immensely deleterious to this country.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not accept that. As I acknowledged in answer to an earlier question, our presence within the European Union is clearly a factor that makes us an attractive place in which to invest inwardly.
If there were a planted question, I have to say to the noble Lord that it would be the one that he put to me. I saw the report that France was receiving more inward investment than the United Kingdom. I understand that that calculation is based on flow figures and does not represent the value of the stock at the plant established within the United Kingdom. In our view it would be preferable to look to the investment stock in this country. In the figures that I gave to your Lordships—the noble Lord may have noted that—I gave 1994 as the most recent figure. The reason is that we take our data from the governments of the countries investing here. We believe that that is a far more reliable basis. If anything, those flow figures demonstrate one rather interesting feature of our inward investment that we had not realised; namely, capital being so readily raised in the United Kingdom may be a further reason for people investing here. That would certainly seem to be the case in relation to the Siemens project in the north east of England.

A.30 Road Improvement: Obstruction
2.54 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the additional cost to the public purse arising from obstruction by protesters to work on the route of the A.30 road improvement in Devon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, police costs to date amount to some £750,000. Under the terms of the privately financed contract, all other costs for the protester action are borne by the contractor, with the exception of guarding costs above an agreed threshold, which are shared with the Highways Agency. That threshold has not been reached.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his clarifying Answer. Is he aware that residents in the Exeter area have been looking forward to this significant road improvement, knowing that our system of planning and inquiries, created and supported by the political parties, is fully adequate to consider objections and can lead to cancellation or changes? Are such protesters in their tunnels and trees included in the national statistics of homeless and persons living rough?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is considerable support for this road improvement scheme. There is much congestion in that area. The road safety record for the existing road is not good.
My noble friend is right. A full statutory process was followed. The inspector recommended in favour of the published proposals but with modifications. That process is surely the forum for making objections to a road scheme.
My noble friend asked about the national statistics for the homeless and those sleeping rough. I understand that it is unlikely that those people are counted. Counts of the homeless are undertaken only in London and the major cities.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, can my noble friend give any assurance that similar costs and delays will not be incurred during the building of the extra runway at Manchester Airport?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not able to give that assurance. It is for the promoters of the application to build the second runway to manage their construction process. They will liaise carefully with the police. It is quite clear that the appropriate forum for making objections, whether it be to a runway or a road scheme, is through the public inquiry. The second runway at Manchester has been given the go-ahead from the application that was called in by the two Secretaries of State. Where illegal action is taken, I am confident that the police will deal thoroughly with it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does my noble friend have the figures for the costs involved in the obstruction to the building of the Newbury bypass?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not have those figures with me. However, I can tell my noble friend that, despite the high level of illegal action there, good progress is now being made on that important road scheme.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, as there is considerable concern about the roads programme, would it not be more desirable to invest greater amounts of money in the railways? Does the Minister agree that what has been experienced in this part of the world in the past few days does not justify the optimistic responses that we have had from time to time? On Thursday my train was two hours late; on Friday it was three-and-a-half hours late; and the following day it was an hour late. With the troubles experienced in London, does this really represent the triumph that the noble Viscount mentioned?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord's ingenuity in going from those who tunnel under prospective road schemes to rail privatisation is to be commended. The House is probably familiar with the arguments on rail privatisation. We believe that it has been a tremendous success. We have seen huge levels
552
of investment. As we have heard from previous Questions on unemployment, the party opposite cannot cope with good news.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I have a more relevant question on railways. Does my noble friend appreciate that had such protesters existed in the past century, the epic engineering and construction of the Great Western Railway by I.K. Brunel, which also greatly improved communications with the West Country, might have been seriously delayed or probably killed?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in those days the robust official response to illegal action probably involved less consideration of the rights of the individual. It would probably have proceeded without the statutory safeguards that we now have. We have statutory safeguards. Where people are acting illegally, clearly it is for the police and relevant authorities to ensure that they do not obstruct the legal way.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that moles do it, rabbits do it and now Ministers are doing it? They are burrowing for false impressions in a world of their own—the world of illusion.
Leaving that aside, does the Minister agree that the chief constable of the area affected, Chief Constable John Evans, has said that the police have spent £750,000 on these exercises? Is it right that the cost of the evictions has caused initiatives against drugs and car theft to be put on hold? Is that correct?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it certainly shows that the money would have been much better spent on policing costs in pursuing exactly the considerations mentioned by the noble Lord. Money has been diverted to deal with illegal action which has very little support within the country. What is clear is that the road scheme has tremendous support locally. The police are obliged to keep the peace, and that is exactly what they have done.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, why will the Government not accept a degree of responsibility for the direct action—which we do not condone from these Benches? They have created the attitude that transport in this country is a competition between market forces. Is the Minister aware that even the RAC today acknowledged the need for a properly integrated transport system? Do the Government accept responsibility for the fact that people despair of their lack of acceptance of the need to plan?
Viscount Goschen: Absolutely not, my Lords. In election after election, voters have put this party in power with a stated manifesto and stated transport policies. That is the forum. If one wants to change transport policies, it should be done through the ballot box, not through direct action.

The London Art Market
3.2 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the reputation of London as an international art market of probity may be damaged by evidence of the public sale of looted antiquities smuggled from their country of origin, and whether they will take steps to monitor the scale of this illicit trade in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Government believe that London's standing in the international art market should survive the recent allegations. We believe the trade should monitor its own activities, regulate itself and take appropriate steps against those who do not abide by its code of practice. Doing this effectively ensures its reputation. In addition, where the criminal law has been broken sanctions are available and when international instruments are broken appropriate steps will be taken in accordance with them.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he recall the words in the Written Answer that he gave yesterday, in which he observed,
"It is not an offence to import into this country antiquities which have been illegally excavated in and exported from their countries of origin"?—[Official Report, 17/2/97; col. WA 34.]
Is my noble friend entirely happy with that circumstance? Does he feel that it is to the credit of London as an international art market that it should become the clearing-house for looted antiquities from India, Turkey, west Africa and Europe? Does he not feel that his Answer perhaps verges on the complacent?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we believe that the London art market is important to this country and wish to maintain its position. Perhaps the greatest reason for this country's reputation is the fact that it is a place where fair and proper dealing has been the basis of the trade. The most effective way to maintain that in the future is through proper self-regulation. That is the most effective way to deal with the mischiefs about which everyone is concerned. Experience in other countries where it is illegal to do all kinds of things with antiquities has not stopped such trade taking place. Therefore we believe the right way to approach the matter is through a system under which rigorous action is taken when the self-regulating code is broken.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the international art market always has been a bit of a posh racket? Is he further aware that the trade in this country is probably cleaner than in most others, and that the recent exposure which took place will perhaps make people a little more aware of what was going on and help those of us who want to, to clean it up a little more easily than has hitherto been possible?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord says, the response of the art market in the face of an abuse is what will determine whether or not its reputation for probity survives. In the context of the recent allegations, it is relevant to note that Sotheby's, which was implicated, took steps straight away to endeavour to put matters right.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, will the Minister also consider the other side of the coin; namely, keeping a watch on antiquities that may be leaving this country—more especially until the Treasure Bill and the code of practice become operative? Will the Minister tell the House when that might happen?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we share the noble Earl's desire to see the Treasure Act in operation as soon as is reasonably possible. As we explained, our aim is that it should come into effect this September. The consultation period on the draft code closed only last Friday. We have received over 150 responses, some of which are very detailed. We shall need to take full account of those when revising the draft code. We believe it is important to get it right. Nonetheless, we understand the noble Earl's concern that the code should be approved by Parliament before the election. While, as he will appreciate, we can give no guarantees, I assure him that we are doing our best to achieve that.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, following the noble Earl's question, will the Minister ensure that the code is tabled as soon as possible in order to help curb any illegal trade in treasures found in this country? Will he bear in mind that, when he does so, he will have the full support of this side of the House?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his continuing support for the Bill and the measures proposed under it. As I explained, we shall endeavour to bring forward the code as soon as we responsibly can.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is the newly acquired antiquities in circulation about which we should be worried, not the old ones? What practical steps are being taken in the countries from where they are pillaged? Do those countries provide any help to us to stop that trade?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is right. Items that are being illegally exported and pillaged are our principal concern now. The difficulties that other countries have are self-evident. We are essentially in the position of trying to organise our market to make sure that it is arranged most effectively in the interests of the market-place and to ensure that those items that come into the hands of dealers in this country, when they are identified as having been illegally exported from their country of origin or looted from sites, are returned, if they are of appropriate quality, to the countries of origin.

Succession to the Crown Bill [H.L.]
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to remove any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Throne. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
3.7 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Time to be served]:
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I rise to oppose the Question that Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill. We now move away from the emotive issues relating to mandatory sentences which we debated under Part I of the Bill and turn to Part II dealing with the effectiveness and effect of sentences passed by the courts. It raises a question as to what proportion of the length of any sentence should be spent in prison, how much on supervision in the community, and how best to achieve the twin aims of punishment for the individual and the protection of the public. I oppose Clause 7 in order to raise the issue of whether we are wise to move in the way that the Bill proposes.
Our present sentencing system has been in existence only since October 1992. I ask the Committee to consider three questions. Why are we changing the system at this stage? What are we attempting to achieve? And how will the new scheme work in practice?
I believe that it is a mistake to change the system at this time and that what is proposed will prove to be far more complicated. It will have a serious effect on the prison population; it will increase tensions within prisons; it will be found to be largely unworkable; and it will reduce rather than increase the safety of society.
I believe that we would all agree in principle that real-time sentencing sounds very good sense. If one were starting from scratch to devise a penal system, clearly a system under which, when a sentence of three years is passed on a prisoner, that prisoner serves three years makes sense and is simple and understandable. The fact is that we do not start from scratch but have to consider the existing system.
556
We have had a system of early release from all forms of imprisonment since the middle of the last century. As long ago as 1837 the Select Committee on Transportation referred to the fact that those who were transported to Australia were given a ticket of leave which allowed them to be released from prison on licence approximately halfway through their sentences. When transportation ended, the penal servitude system in this country again provided that those sentenced to penal servitude should be released on licence at a period during their sentences.
As long ago as 1895 the Gladstone Committee, recognising the absurdity of a system whereby those who had committed the worst crimes were released from prison early while other prisoners served their sentences in full, recommended that all prisoners should gain a period of remission provided they behaved themselves while in prison.
Since 1948 and the abolition of penal servitude we have had a system under which, whatever the length of the sentence passed by the court, a prisoner obtains one-third remission of that sentence provided he behaves while he is in prison.
In 1967, a system of parole was introduced whereby not only were prisoners released automatically after serving two-thirds of their sentences, the rest of the sentence being completely ignored, but any prisoner serving a sentence of more than 12 months was free to be released on parole after serving merely one-third of the sentence. That system was accepted and agreed to by all parties and all sections of society until 1983 when the system was changed to make parole available to any prisoner who had served six months in prison. The decision on parole was removed from the Parole Board to the local review committee, and there was a presumption that prisoners would be released on parole. The effect was that almost all prisoners serving sentences of between nine and 18 months, irrespective of the difference in sentence, were released on the same day after having served six months in prison. That brought the parole system as it then existed into disrepute.
Against that background the then Home Secretary Douglas Hurd set up a committee, which I had the honour to chair, to consider the issue of parole and early release. I do not pretend that we necessarily got it right, but would suggest that it was a wide-ranging committee including, among others, a High Court judge, a chief constable, a principal probation officer, a senior criminologist and others. We took a year to complete our report. We considered a great deal of evidence and evaluated a great deal of research carried out by the Home Office. We made unanimous recommendations which were accepted by the Government. The Government said of our proposals at paragraph 6.6 of their White Paper:
"The recommendations … propose a coherent new scheme for supervised early release from prison. The Government is grateful to the Committee for its work and believes that most of its recommendations should be implemented".
What were those recommendations? Their purpose was simple. For all sentences up to four years, the first half, 50 per cent., should be spent in prison, after which

557
people should be automatically released, subject to good behaviour, the next 25 per cent. of their sentences being spent under supervision in society. During the last 25 per cent., although no longer under supervision, they would be at risk of being recalled and serving the rest of their sentences should they commit any further offence. The recommendations for those serving sentences of over four years were that parole should continue but, rather than starting at a third, it should start at 50 per cent.; that it should go on until three-quarters of the sentence—a longer period—and that, again, people should stand the risk of being recalled if they reoffended during the time of the original sentence.
The objects were to ensure that prisoners served at least 50 per cent. of their sentences as against the third that most were serving at that time; to restore proportionality to all forms of sentence; to provide supervision when prisoners receiving a sentence of longer than 12 months returned to society; and to give a meaning to the sentence as a whole. That system was introduced in October 1992.
Why is it now intended to change the system fundamentally? I have seen no evidence that it has failed. Indeed, it would be difficult to obtain such evidence in a period of three to four years. No suggestion has been made. We are told that prison works, and I accept that. We are told that crime has fallen during the time that the system has been in existence. The only reason given in the White Paper for changing it is that it is said to be a complicated statutory system. Out of the blue at the 1995 Conservative Party conference the Home Secretary announced that he intended to abolish the system of early release and that prisoners should serve the whole of their sentences.
What does that mean in effect? It is not intended that the sentences should be the same and that prisoners should serve the whole of them in prison. What is proposed in the Bill is that all sentences should now be reduced by one-third and that prisoners should serve 84 per cent. of the two-thirds' length of sentence passed.
The White Paper stated that the aim of turning to what I call real-time sentences and what the Home Secretary calls honesty in sentencing was not that the length of period served by prisoners should be increased. The Bill proposes that sentences should be reduced in length by one-third to two-thirds to equate more with the sentences served. It does not put an end to early release. Although we were told that the system of early release was to end, what is proposed in its place is a system whereby every two months a prisoner will be assessed and will have the chance of receiving 12 days' reduction of his sentence every two months, six days if his behaviour meets the prescribed minimum behaviour of a prisoner, whatever that may be, and six further days if he has exceeded that standard.
What does that mean in practice? Let me take three simple examples. Today, when an offender gets a sentence of four years, he serves two years in prison, one under supervision and one at risk of recall. In future, under this Bill, for the same offence he would receive a
558
sentence of two years eight months, serve two years two months and 24 days in prison and be on supervision for eight months (rather than 12), with no period at risk of recall should he reoffend. At present, for a sentence of three years, an offender serves 18 months in prison, nine months on supervision and nine months at risk of recall. That is to be replaced by a sentence of two years, with 20 months in prison, six months on supervision and, as I said, no further period at risk. Finally, at the top end of the scale, the armed robber who receives 18 years at the moment serves between nine years and 12 years, depending on the risk assessed by the Parole Board, is on supervision until the end of 13½ years and at risk of return for the whole of the 18 years if he commits a further offence. Under the new provisions, he would get a sentence of 12 years, serve 10 years and then be released—not on risk but depending on whether he had behaved himself in prison—and be on supervision for a period of three years.
With great respect, it is said that that system is simpler, more honest and gives greater protection. I do not believe that it meets or achieves any one of those aims. Therefore, I ask what its effect will be on the prison population.
I apologise for speaking at length but I want to take up three points. The White Paper states in terms that the inventions are that sentences should in no way be increased—the length of time that people spend in prison should not be increased as a result of the changes in sentencing policy. Indeed, in the chapter summarising the resource implications of the White Paper, the key assumption is that when imposing a sentence other than a mandatory sentence, courts will take full account of the changes in early release arrangements. It is not, therefore, intended that there should be a general increase in sentences following the introduction of honesty in sentencing.
Therefore, I take it that when the White Paper says that the provisions overall will lead to an increase of over 10,000 in the prison population and the need for 12 new prisons, it is assumed that its proposals in that area will be neutral. In fact, they will not be neutral. If all sentences are reduced by 66 per cent. of the present sentence, it means that everybody, even if they receive full remission for early release, will serve 11 per cent. more time in prison than they do at the moment. What does that mean? If all those sentenced up to four years automatically serve at least 11 per cent. longer, the daily prison population goes up by 1,900. What does that involve? It means £40 million extra a year and three new prisons.
But will that figure be achieved? It is on the basis that all of them will get early release. Yet, as I understand from the White Paper and the speeches that have been made, the intention is that most prisoners should serve their sentence in full and only model prisoners would get a short period of early release. Therefore, one must assume that not every prisoner will get his 12 days every two months early release. So, to the extent that that fails, so the prison population will become greater, as people spend longer in prison. We all know of the tremendous pressures with 60,000 people in prison today.

559
Finally on that matter, will sentences in fact be reduced by one-third? I do not want to sound cynical about the judges, whose case I attempted to argue last week, but I am bound to say that when we wrote our report we wondered whether, even in the climate of nine years ago, it would be easy to have sentences passed in courts reduced by one-third. I suggest that in the climate of 1997 it may be considerably more difficult to have sentences reduced by one-third, even more difficult than it would have been in 1988. To the extent that they are not reduced, the increase in the prison population could rise by anything up to 20,000 people, which means some 30 new prisons, and could cost heaven knows how many billion pounds.
My other concern relates to how the system of early release will work. Is it practical to assess every individual prisoner on a two-month basis? Do we have the resources to do it? Is it the wisest use of those resources?
In conclusion, there is my question to the Minister about the effect on the protection of society. The vast majority of prisoners will receive a shorter period of supervision than they have at the moment. However, I agree with her entirely—I agree with the Government—that one of the faults of the present system can fairly be said to be that those who are the most serious prisoners at the moment receive the least supervision. If they are refused parole, they have supervision only from the 66 per cent. point to the 75 per cent. point, whereas the Government's proposal, which I wholly support, is that there should be a supervision period of at least a quarter of the length of the total sentence.
I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider carefully whether a system which, on the face of it, appears to remove risk as the criterion for release and replaces it by a criterion of being a model prisoner—many of the worst people in society are very well behaved in prison—would in fact improve rather than reduce the protection of society. Should we at least consider putting back the test of risk into the release of those prisoners. I ask her to look again at the effect that the proposals as a whole will have on the prison population. I ask her to say, in view of the numerous criticisms that have been made—totally well intentioned—about the effectiveness of what is proposed compared with the effectiveness of the present system, that she will examine its effect on the population, on protection and on tensions within prisons. I hope she will say that the Government will at least take time to reflect and that before moving in such a direction they have met the various concerns that I have expressed.
3.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, made a thoroughly Conservative speech. Those who think of themselves as Conservative ought to support him. I rise to try to persuade my noble friends and others in the Committee who do not think of themselves as Conservative, that he is right and ought to be supported in this matter.
560
Clause 7 of the Bill is a declaratory clause. It declares in advance of Clauses 8 to 33, which constitute Chapter I of Part II of the Bill, that the principle behind the effect of custodial sentences should be that prisoners should serve the term to which they have been sentenced and that there should only be the exceptions which are set out in subsequent clauses of that chapter.
Looking at the principles on which imprisonment is justified—not just in the public mind but in penal theory for hundreds of years—it is true that retribution and the immediate protection of society by the removal of offenders from society is reflected and only reflected in the length of their sentences. But there are other issues to be considered when deciding on the length of sentences and the length of the part of sentences to be spent in custody. The other considerations which are generally agreed by all concerned include rehabilitation and therefore the risk of re-offending.
Clause 7 is included in the Bill specifically and openly to put retribution over and above all other considerations in sentencing theory and practice. It is based on the statement in paragraph 9.3 of last year's White Paper which said that the existing system provides for prisoners to be released automatically after a certain proportion of their sentence has been served. That statement contains two major errors of fact. First, prisoners are not released automatically after they have served a certain proportion of their sentence. Provision exists in the current system for additional days to be served in custody because of misconduct in prison. That will be continued in Chapter I of the Bill.
It is also wrong to say that prisoners are released automatically. When prisoners are released from custody their sentence is suspended rather than remitted. If they are serving a sentence of more than 12 months, their supervision by the Probation Service continues to three-quarters of the original sentence and even after that they are still considered to be at risk. When they are released under those circumstances, they are released subject to specific conditions which include not just supervision by the Probation Service, but also more precise conditions as to where they should live, what their behaviour should be, reporting conditions and so forth. If they breach those conditions, they can be returned to prison on the authority of a supervising probation officer far more readily than is provided for under the Bill. Under Clause 13 of the Bill it is necessary to go to a court to secure a return to prison. I ask the Committee to think about what that means in terms of the protection of the public.
A sentence now is a determinate sentence just like a life sentence; it is a combination of custody and supervision. It is, or should be, a pragmatic question as to what the balance should be between custody and subsequent supervision. The evidence has shown, even in the short time since these arrangements were introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, that the combination of custody and supervision—the Parole Board carrying out the supervision—has provided greater protection for the public than it had before or than it would have under the provisions of this Bill.

561
Parole reduces re-offending rates. Despite what was said in Committee in another place by the Minister of State, it reduces them against a profile of prediction of the rate at which re-offending would otherwise have taken place. That is the official view of the Home Office Research Department and cannot be overturned simply by saying, as Mr. Maclean unfortunately did, that that is the view of a sociologist.
I come back to the issue of recall. It is important that we concern ourselves with the protection of the public and the need for recall to be immediate if that is deemed to be necessary. This Bill does not provide for that. I come back to the question of supervision. It is true that in a small number of cases the amount of time spent under supervision will increase under the Bill; but in the vast majority of cases there will be a reduction in the amount of supervision and therefore in the protection of the public.
I emphasise the issue of the protection of the public because it is important that we understand it. It contains two elements. One is that it is, of course, dependent on good behaviour in prison. The Bill provides for a reflection of good behaviour in prison in the length of time spent in custody. But the other element which, as we have seen, actually works, is the element of supervision. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said, and as Sir Peter Lloyd said in another place, the worst villains are often those who behave best in prison. They are therefore able to get out sooner and resume offending after their release.
If we have two workable measures which determine the release date—one being behaviour in prison and the other the possibility of supervision—why is the Bill throwing one of them away? Even the measure of good behaviour in prison is proposed in the Bill in a way that is, frankly, unworkable. It is proposed that every two months there should be two sorts of assessment; that is, one as to whether the prisoner has attained a minimum standard and the second as to whether he has exceeded a minimum standard. That means that around 80,000 assessments will need to be carried out every two months by the Prison Service. In practice, unless the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is carried, those assessments would be carried out by prison officers; not just centrally; not by prison governors; but by prison officers from the wings. One can imagine what that will mean in terms of discipline in prisons and the possibility of aggravation between prisoners and prison staff when they learn that they are not being given the same consideration as other prisoners on the wing. It is impossible for prison staff to implement the provisions proposed in the Bill.
I said when I began that this was a declaratory clause. Opposing the clause is a declaratory position for this Chamber to take. The Committee needs to declare this afternoon—I hope we will have an opportunity to do so, if necessary in the Division Lobbies—that we put the interests of society and the interests of a system, relatively recently introduced by this Government with widespread support, above the doctrinal statements of this particular Conservative Home Secretary at a conference. By refusing to accept that Clause 7 should
562
stand part of the Bill, we would be declaring—perhaps a Conservative position—that penal reform is still a live concern of Parliament and of this country.
Lord Belstead: Perhaps I may intervene briefly. I shall not follow my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in their detailed comments on Part II of the Bill. My noble friend is justified in asking, as he did in his speech, the simple, single question: why this major change in the early release system in this country? It was my noble friend Lord Carlisle who chaired the committee which recommended major changes in the parole system only some five years ago, including incidentally the tightening up of the release date of a prisoner. I hope I do not misconstrue my noble friend but I think that he, arid certainly I, would very much understand if the Government wished to tighten up release dates further. However, Part II of the Bill, on which we are just embarking, does something very different. It abolishes the existing system of early release in this country and substitutes a new system of remission based on a test of good behaviour, and only good behaviour, leaving, as both noble Lords have said, a risk assessment of letting prisoners out into the community entirely aside.
So, declaring an interest as chairman of the Parole Board, I join the two noble Lords who have spoken in saying that I think this is an important clause. It makes a statement that full-time sentencing is the guiding principle of this part of the Bill, but following the line of thought of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I say that it omits curiously any mention of the early release scheme to which we shall come in Clause 10. I join those noble Lords who I know believe that the way to make clear the exact meaning of what a sentence of the court is to the general public is for the judge to state in open court the time that will be spent in prison as retribution and the periods when it will be possible for a prisoner to be awarded early release into the community, making clear of course that this will be dependent upon a prisoner's positive efforts while in custody. However, instead of explaining in that way what full-time sentencing together with an early release system means in practical terms, the philosophy of honesty in sentencing seems to assume that the sentence of the court is almost entirely retributive.
In saying that, I am not forgetting that, within a full-time sentence, a prisoner should seek to tackle the causes of his or her offending behaviour. But it is clear from the Bill that the time to be served is looked on by the Government as being mainly retributive, with early release for good behaviour, and only for good behaviour, in prison, and not for the difficult test of success or failure of rehabilitative and risk reduction work. That of course is the inevitable consequence of abolishing parole.
I speak entirely as a layman so far as concerns sentencing; but my understanding is that if retribution, deterrence, prevention and rehabilitation—the well known foundations even to me—are the principles of sentencing, then prevention and rehabilitation cannot be achieved once and for all, rather like taking a snapshot, at the moment of sentencing. Decisions on the reduction

563
and management of risk and on progress towards rehabilitation can only be taken, and judged to be taken, later on in a sentence. That is the whole reason for having parole.
I am sure, if I am sure of anything, that people want clarity concerning the meaning of a sentence. People want the retributive time to be clear; people want the time which can be awarded for early release to be clear. But, if they stop to think about it, people also want prisoners to be encouraged to reform. And that makes good, sound sense in terms of public protection, borne out by Home Office research which proves a very much lower reconviction rate for parolees compared with non-parolees.
I recognise that retribution and deterrence are essential principles of sentencing. But surely variation in the time to be served, according to the progress which a prisoner makes in risk reduction and rehabilitation, are also ingredients of a sentence which we should not lightly cast aside. Rather than the exact drafting of Clause 7, I must say that I am more interested this afternoon in the Government's intentions for Part II of the Bill. I shall listen very closely to the Minister's reply in the hope that the Government recognise that the principles of sentencing, along with retribution and deterrence, include whenever possible prevention and rehabilitation. If I hear that that is part of the Government's response, then I shall be very much heartened, and I believe many other noble Lords will be as well; for at the end of the day that is the road to the protection of the public, and that, I believe, should be our major concern as we start on Part II of the Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The mandatory sentences which we discussed in Committee last week were justified on the basis that judges were not sentencing adequately. It is a very curious thing that the provisions of Part II are justified on the principle of honesty in sentencing when that principle is immediately qualified by a direction to judges to reduce their sentences by one-third; so that with Part I of the Bill judges are being told, "You are not being tough enough" and with Part II of the Bill they are being told to reduce their sentences. That is a paradox which perhaps the Minister can help to explain.
I direct my remarks to the provisions for early release. The framework of the present system is that prisoners should be entitled to be released at a fixed point in their sentence subject to a loss of remission due to misbehaviour. We consider that the framework now proposed by the Government for early release is not simply unworkable but, from a practical point of view, is positively dangerous. David Roddan, the general secretary of the Prison Governors Association, wrote in an article in the Guardian on 11th February this year:
"Any system that determines when a prisoner is released will need to be in accord with the rules of natural justice. The riots of 1990 caused Lord Woolf to remind us of the need for fairness and justice if grievances are not to fester. Under the Bill's proposals, governors will have to assess 80,000 prisoners every two months. This work will have to be pushed down the line, possibly to the level of wing staff. The dangers are obvious. Prisoners will intimidate or threaten
564
action if they are rewarded less than their fellows. Staff will inevitably be accused of bias. Millions of pounds will be ploughed into defending appeals against differential awards. Alternatively, staff will allocate maximum remission automatically for a quiet life".
That is the view of the general secretary of the Prison Governors Association. One assumes that he is speaking for a general view among prison governors. The problems that he outlines cannot be over-emphasised.
Under the Government's proposals in this part of the Bill, for the first 12 months of a prisoner's imprisonment the prescribed person may award up to 12 early release days in each two-month period as he may determine. Who is this prescribed person? He is defined in the Bill simply as the person prescribed by prison rules. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has put down amendments which will at least ensure that the prescribed person is a person of governor grade. But even if his amendments were to succeed, upon whose recommendations or advice would this prescribed person—a governor shall we say—be acting? It is only on the advice of a prison warder on a landing, who can assess whether the prisoner's behaviour has attained the prescribed minimum standard.
According to the Bill, after 12 months of the sentence have been served, the discretion of the prescribed person is widened still further. He may award up to six days in each two-month period if the prisoner's behaviour attains the minimum standard. But he has in his discretion the power to award a further six days if he decides that it exceeds that minimum standard.
In theory, an individual assessment of each and every prisoner is admirable, but consider the requirements every two months of assessing between 60,000 and 80,000 prisoners in a shifting prison population. Records would have to be maintained of each and every one of the 60,000 decisions taken every two months. If the decision cannot be appealed, the prisoner would be at the mercy of the prison warder on the landing or, alternatively, the prison warder would be at the mercy of the prisoner whose conduct he has to assess. If there were a system of appeals introduced against individual two-monthly assessments, that would completely overwhelm the system. One can imagine an assessment every two months of 60,000 people if a substantial proportion of those prisoners decided to appeal. Inconsistencies are bound to occur between prisons depending on the inclinations and the temper of the prison staff.
The present system has been operating successfully. A prisoner is given a fixed release date, subject to supervision, but he may forfeit remission by being given additional days of imprisonment for misconduct at properly convened disciplinary hearings. The strength of the current system—I find myself, along with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, defending it, which is a somewhat unusual position for a Liberal to be in—is that the disciplinary proceedings follow a properly laid down procedure in which evidence of the disciplinary offence is presented. The prisoner knows the charge and he can challenge it and the governor must give his reasons. A proper record of those proceedings is made.

565
If that seems to be too formalistic, giving too many rights to prisoners, it is a system which is open and fair and avoids grievances. The decisions which are taken currently may be made subject to outside scrutiny. It is not a case of the prison warder on the landing taking a decision, but a governor considering the charge that has been brought. By way of analogy, consider the disastrous effect on Army morale if punishment of the private soldier were placed at the discretion of the corporal and not dealt with through the hearing of a formal charge before the CO. One can imagine what effect that would have in a military context.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that the public have a right to expect that retribution follows sentencing but that it is very important to encourage the prisoner to reform. That is where the greatest protection of the public lies—that a prisoner is treated humanely, does not suffer grievances through the system which he is in and is encouraged to come out and play his part in society.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, we want to know from the Minister why the present system is deemed not to be working satisfactorily. We are entitled to know that. We want to know what merits the government proposals are supposed to have. I for one will not be satisfied with an explanation that the public—the people on top of the Minister's bus—do not understand what is going on. It is the responsibility of government to explain what sentencing means and, if necessary, judges will take their lead from government and spell out in detail what the current system entails. What we do not want is change simply as a public relations exercise. I have looked at my thesaurus, because I know the Minister objects to my using the expression "an election gimmick". We do not want a public relations exercise; what we want is a system that is working fairly and honestly to continue.
Lord Ackner: The principal purpose of a sentence of imprisonment is obviously to punish—that is, retribution—but that punishment provides a possibility for the protection of the public in two ways. First, it disables the prisoner for as long as he is in prison from committing further offences, that is obvious. Secondly, there could be an element of deterrence in relation to that particular prisoner. He may learn, by loss of liberty, that crime does not pay. But excepting the life sentence, with which we are not concerned, the prisoner is going to come out of prison at the end of his sentence. If the public are to be properly protected, every well run prison system will contain facilities for the education and training of the prisoner so that when he comes out at the end of his sentence he will be better equipped for leading an honest life.
But the rehabilitation prospects and possibilities in prison should not end there. There should be rehabilitation prospects out of prison under supervision, that is where the parole system comes in. The person, having left prison—one hopes better equipped—is then supervised in order that he may better settle down to the difficult situation after a period of imprisonment of earning his livelihood.
566
The present system of parole has the following obvious strengths. First, it is clear and intelligible; secondly, it ensures that every day of the sentence pronounced by the court has practical content—one half in prison, one quarter thereafter under supervision and one quarter at risk of recall if there is an offence. Thirdly, it enables offenders to be reintroduced into the community conditionally. Fourthly, it enables decisions on the release of more serious offenders to be based on the experienced judgment of an independent body of experts. Fifthly, it enables offenders whose behaviour in the community causes concern to be recalled quickly and with the minimum of legal formality and delay. Sixthly, it avoids the prolonged incarceration of those whom it is judged are safe to release. Penultimately, it is a regime which has worked well in practice. Finally, the validity of the research that has led to its adoption has not been in any way impugned.
All of the factors that I have spelt out in numbers were included in one paragraph in the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice at Second Reading. He ended by asking,
"One asks why such a system so recently instituted is to be cast aside".—[Official Report. 27/1/97; col. 984.]
We have been given no reason. I can therefore only venture to suggest that the answer is to be found in one of the soundbites in one of the Minister's speeches to the party faithful; namely,
"no more half time sentences for full time crimes".
That sounded very much as though the four-year sentence in future would involve four years' imprisonment, but that has been totally cast to one side. The Minister, so to speak, having been hoist with his own petard—half-time sentences are to continue—had to do something to satisfy what he perceived to be public indignation. This is the way he achieves it. In my respectful submission, he achieves it at the risk of considerable prejudice to public safety.
4 p.m.
Lord Elton: This has been called a declaratory clause and the speeches so far have all been declaratory of position. Like my noble friend Lord Belstead, I await with great interest the declaration of the Government's position by my noble friend on the Front Bench.
I rise to ask only three short questions. The first is technical. What would be the effect on the whole of Chapter I of Part II of the Bill of deleting this clause from the Bill at this stage? If it would render it inoperable or ineffective, then it is proper to ask the next question; namely, how is the recall system going to work? We are told that we are looking for greater protection of the public. At present, under licence or parole, a prisoner can be taken straight back to prison on breach of his terms. In Clause 14 I see that breach of the terms is elevated to a criminal offence which is triable. What will happen to the ex-prisoner who has demonstrated himself to be a risk to the public by breaching his terms between the breach and the trial? Either we shall have a lot of people on remand, adding to overcrowding, or we shall have a lot of people at large adding to public risk.

567
I suppose that my final question should be addressed to my noble friend Lord Carlisle. I listened carefully but I may have missed a reference in his speech to Clause 22 on continuity of sentencing. That clause begins:
"This section has effect for the purpose of securing that, where a person is sentenced to a term of imprisonment in respect of an offence … to which this section applies; and … which is committed after the commencement of this Chapter, he serves approximately the same time in prison as he would have served if the offence had been committed immediately before that commencement".
If anything is declaratory, that is. It declares that the Government's intention is that the prison population shall not be affected and that the courts shall take care to see that it is not so affected. My noble friend is going to illuminate this matter in a moment, for which I am profoundly thankful. As I shall not rise again after he has sat down, I merely say to the Minister that the question of recall is one of many matters about which I am anxious and I very much look forward to her reply.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that recall is operative not only for a breach of a condition but if there is good reason to anticipate that a condition will be breached?
Lord Elton: I was anxious not to become involved in a debate on the merits of the Probation Service, which I should do happily if I had longer. The noble and learned Lord has added a dimension to what I asked.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: welcome the declaratory nature of Clause 22. I thought that I had made that clear. My concern is that there is reference to 66 per cent., which means a built-in 11 per cent. increase. My further concern is as to whether it can be achieved. But the declaration that sentences should not increase automatically if one moves to real-time sentencing is a view which I certainly share.
Baroness Blatch: have heard a series of Second Reading debates on what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has described as a declaratory clause. Moreover, we have had a good deal of debate which impinges on the next group of amendments, because Clause 7 relates to the measures which follow. As has been said, it is an introductory clause. Clause 7 is straightforward and self-explanatory. It provides for the release of prisoners when they have served their sentence. However, it paves the way also for the group of proposals which go under the heading "Honesty in sentencing". It may therefore be helpful if I outline the thinking behind those provisions.
We believe that the public, victims and offenders should know that the sentence passed by the court is the term that the offender can expect to serve. That simple concept is reflected in Clause 7, but it is certainly not what happens at present. The present arrangements are complicated and difficult to understand. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, said, the present arrangements have the appearance of a charade, with everyone engaged in a calculation of how much
568
less than the announced sentence will actually be served. It is common knowledge in court that that creates a sort of sport. First one hears what is the sentence and then there is almost a calculator under the Bench which works out how little of the sentence needs to be served in custody.
The present arrangements mean also that the vast majority of prisoners can walk away from prison after serving only half of the sentence. The public and in particular the victims are understandably confused and outraged when that happens.
It has been pointed out that the present arrangements for parole and automatic early release were introduced as recently as 1992. Of course, that is true. They were a substantial improvement on the previous system which in substance dated back to 1967, as my noble friend said. However, we believe now that it is time for a more radical overhaul of early release arrangements and that our proposals offer real advantages over the present system.
Perhaps I may explain why that is so. First, the new arrangements mean that the time which prisoners serve matches more closely the sentence imposed by the court. Much has been said—and I think wrongly said—about that being the be-all and end-all of the matter. As the courts sentence now, the custodial part of the sentence will be only up to half the sentence. There is then automatic release at the two-thirds point. That is reflected in the custodial sentence which would be awarded under the present arrangements. But that goes hand in hand with a much better supervision provision which follows sentence.
It will also avoid the current uncertainty which surrounds likely release dates. Prisoners will serve their full sentence, subject to a small discount. The remand time to be credited against sentence will be decided at the point of sentence in open court.
I was interested in the notion that simply spelling out the sentence in court would allay all people's fears and remove confusion. I have taken a simple four-year sentence under the present system and, if I may be so bold, I shall be the judge on this occasion talking to the offender who has been given four years.
I as the judge would say, "I sentence you to four years' imprisonment. You are eligible to be released on parole at the half-way point of the sentence, which is two years, and entitled to be released at the two-thirds point, which is two years and eight months. However, all of those periods will be reduced by whatever time you have already spent on remand, which the Prison Service will determine. You may serve longer if you are awarded additional days for offences against prison discipline. When you are released, you will then remain under the supervision of a probation officer until the three-quarter point of the original sentence, which means that you will be supervised for a maximum of one year and a minimum of four months, although those figures may also alter if you are awarded additional days for disciplinary offences. During the supervision period, you will be liable to be returned to prison if you fail to comply with the terms of your licence or commit an imprisonable offence. For one year you will remain at risk of being returned to prison to serve the

569
balance of your sentence if you are convicted of an imprisonable offence. And it is fortunate that you are not already serving a sentence for another offence because the position would become even more complicated". I do not believe that spelling out the present system in court would help to allay people's concerns and confusion about the system.
Secondly, the provisions in the Bill ensure that there is no automatic release from prison. At present, 94 per cent. of those who go to prison are released automatically, subject only to any additional days awarded for disciplinary offences at the 50 per cent. point of sentence. The provisions in the Bill ensure that early release is earned. There has been concern that the earned early release schemes will be costly and difficult to operate, but they will build on and develop the existing earned privileges scheme which is bedding down very well in the Prison Service.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that all the horrors he predicted in terms of the relationship between prison officers and prisoners have not been borne out in practice by the earned privileges scheme. The details of the scheme will be decided in consultation with those who will have to operate it—prison governors. The earned release scheme will provide a positive incentive for good behaviour that does not exist at present. Prison governors will retain the power to award additional days as punishment for disciplinary offences. They will be set against any earned early release days. The system will be more easily understood. For example, a person who is sentenced will be told that he is expected to serve that sentence unless by his own behaviour he earns up to 16 per cent. of earned early release. It is as simple as that.
The arrangements in the Bill will vastly improve the arrangements for post-release supervision. No longer will the length of the supervision period be determined by the point of release, as under the present system. Long term prisoners who receive no parole and are therefore deemed to be the greatest risk to the public are supervised for at most 8 per cent. of sentence under the present system. Under the provisions of the Bill all prisoners who serve sentences of 12 months or more will be supervised for a period equal to 25 per cent. of sentence whenever they are released. This means that high risk offenders who are currently refused parole will be supervised for substantially longer than at present.
In Clause 17 the Bill provides for the extended supervision of sex offenders. It will normally be for 50 per cent. of the sentence or at least for 12 months but it will be extendable to a maximum of 10 years at the discretion of the court. Breach of the conditions of supervision will in future be an arrestable offence. This will enable quick intervention to detain a person who has breached his conditions of supervision and bring him before the court. The court will be able to impose a range of penalties that is not now available. That will include imprisonment for the whole of the outstanding period of supervision. It will also be possible to attach a range of conditions to the release supervising order, in exactly the same way as now when an offender is released on licence. Risk assessments will continue to
570
be carried out as part of the process of sentence planning and setting the terms of the release supervision order. We believe that this adds up to a coherent and comprehensive package of proposals that offers real improvements on the present arrangements for early release and post-release supervision. We believe that these proposals are more honest and open than the present system and that they provide better protection for the public from potentially dangerous offenders after they are released.
Since our deliberations on Thursday of last week I have gone back to the Second Reading debates. I have re-read the deliberations of last Thursday. I have had two very constructive meetings with my noble friend Lord Belstead. I have had a rather shorter meeting with my noble friend Lord Carlisle. I have had discussions with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. My noble friends have made a point that I believe requires further consideration. As a result of the discussions with my noble friends, I should like to take away the particular point that they make: the value of risk assessment by the Parole Board in determining the release of long-term prisoners. I understand their concerns about the absence of this matter from the present proposals which may not provide the best possible protection for the public.
I am not able to give details because I would like to think about it and possibly table amendments at the next stage of the Bill. However, perhaps I may indicate the kinds of things that I am thinking about. In the case of those who are subject to Parole Board risk assessment under the present system, it is possible at the 84 per cent. point of the sentence for short-term prisoners to be released on the basis of good behaviour. But for those who are considered to be long-term prisoners there would be Parole Board involvement in risk assessment and the determination of the supervision conditions. Therefore, the Parole Board would have an influence on the supervision period that followed a sentence.
However, the very important point is that everything that is contained in the proposals of the Government is post-sentence. All of the supervision arrangements are post-sentence. We believe it is wrong for the Parole Board, the Secretary of State or anybody to re-commit anyone to prison or to impose a sentence of any kind without the involvement of the court. For that reason we want to look at ways of retaining court involvement post-sentence for returning people during prolonged periods of supervision. That would address two issues. First, it would address the particular concerns of my noble friends about the risk that is presented to the public post-release and therefore the involvement of the Parole Board in the question of the safety of releasing someone into the community. Secondly, although I want to think about it further, I believe that it would have some impact on the two-monthly review of those who fall into that category in terms of continuous assessment over what may be a longer term sentence. Nevertheless, I hope that both my noble friends agree, given their experience in these matters, that the behaviour of a prisoner in prison must be material to any risk assessment post-release. Therefore, one cannot ignore behaviour in prison.

571
I shall look more closely at the particular areas of concern. But I still believe that a more transparent system is one in which a court says to an offender, "This is your sentence. On your behaviour your release will depend. On your possible risk to the public your release will depend". That will depend on the work that is done between this stage and the next stage of the Bill. This Bill exists precisely because of the interests of the public. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that in a moment he wanted to invite the Committee to consider the interests of society. I believe that the interests of society are reflected by the Government. The rationale for this Bill is the interests of society. The sentencing system appears confusing to the public, especially when the length of sentence is announced in court and they see prisoners coming out of prison as early as halfway through their sentences. The public simply do not understand that. We believe that the interests of the public will be better served by a more honest and transparent system in which the sentence served matches more closely the sentence that is imposed and release will be effected only on the basis of good behaviour. I hope that I shall be able to meet the concerns of my noble friends Lord Belstead and Lord Carlisle that others will be released on the basis of risk assessment, followed by effective periods of supervision, with strong and carefully thought out conditions which will influence their behaviour post-release and mechanisms to return them to custody or impose a range of sentences that can be administered by the courts.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to put a short question. If one assumes that Clause 7 does not stand part, does she agree that that will not have any real effect on Part II? Clause 7 is purely declaratory, is it not?
Baroness Blatch: Clause 7 is an introduction to the measures that follow. It is the declared intention of those who propose that Clause 7 does not stand part of the Bill that the measures which follow shall be very different from those that are proposed by the Government in the Bill and those that they may want to modify in the light of the concerns of my noble friends Lord Carlisle and Lord Belstead. If the introduction goes, as sure as night follows day those who vote for the Motion, if successful, will vote for the next group of amendments which will completely wreck the Government's proposals in the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I accept what my noble friend has said on the substance of the amendments. However, does she agree that if one construes Clause 7 its removal from the Bill will not affect the substantive clauses?
Baroness Blatch: Part II of the Bill would not work without Clause 7. That was certainly the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Elton. Clause 7 needs to be in the Bill in some form, whether or not it is the
572
intention of noble Lords to produce another declaratory statement which introduces other provisions that they plan to substitute for the Government's proposals.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: It has been said by several Members of the Committee that of course Clause 7 is largely a declaratory clause. I made it clear that my purpose was to try to seek an explanation as to the reason for the changes that were being made and to express my concerns that, on balance, they were steps in the wrong direction. I am bound to say to my noble friend the Minister that, with the greatest respect, I still do not believe that we have really been given an answer as to why it is necessary to change the present system at all. I remain of the view that "if it ain't broke, don't mend it" applies to this part of the Bill.
The Minister said that we had had a short meeting. I hope that by use of the word "short" as related to the meeting she had with my noble friend Lord Belstead she was not implying that it was in any way acrimonious. It was short because we only had about five minutes when the Minister was able to speak to me and she started to put to me during that time certain proposals which she is prepared to look at again on this part of the Bill. I hope that I have that right.
I repeat that I have three major concerns. I am not against the idea that there should be clarity in what is said by the court. Indeed, our report recommended that the court should spell out what is the effect of a sentence when it passes it. My concerns are whether what is proposed will lead to an undue increase in the prison population, which my noble friend says she does not intend; whether it will lead to people being released without risk assessment for whom risk assessment should be made; and whether the system of early release is workable.
As I understand what my noble friend said—I would be grateful to have confirmation, even by silence—she is prepared to look again at the question of the terms on which people are released and she is prepared to look, as we did, at the division between short-term and longer-term prisoners and say that those who are over a certain stage of imprisonment—and I suggest that in this case it will have to be less than the present four years—should be reviewed by the Parole Board as at present and released under supervision to society for the greatest protection of society. I understand that that is one of the matters the Minister has said she will consider.
I understood the Minister also to say that she accepted and would look at possible concern over the mechanism of early release.
Although I am unhappy at the way it is achieved, the Minister also reiterated her view that it is not the intention of the Government that greater periods in prison should be spent than are being spent at the moment. If I am right in those three understandings, then, since I do not wish to be seen to be wrecking this part of the Bill and since a declarative statement and declarations of views have been expressed and the clause or that which follows will, I understand, probably have to be re-written to meet some of the matters to which my noble friend the Minister referred, I am

573
willing to withdraw my objection at this stage and to consider what my noble friend proposes before Report. However, I would ask her to confirm that those are the sort of matters which at least in general terms can be discussed.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may touch on the three points my noble friend raised. First, I can tell him that we have made no secret that there will be a small increase in the prison population as a result of honesty in sentencing. We have accepted that some people will spend more time in prison; indeed, it is an answer to one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for those shorter-term prisoners would be supervised for less time and would in fact be in custody for a longer time. There is a balance because they would spend slightly longer in prison. The extent of the increase has been fully taken into account in the assessment and is part of the financial memorandum for providing the additional prison places.
It is true that I want to address the other concern my noble friend invited me to consider—the involvement of the Parole Board in risk assessment for the release of long-term prisoners and the Parole Board's involvement in setting conditions. I give him an absolute assurance that I would wish to do that. I have to add the caveat that we do not intend to contemplate earlier release than that provided for in the Bill. In other words, it would be the 84 per cent. point, that point when the maximum amount of remission could be gained from good behaviour. For short-term prisoners it would be on the basis of good behaviour. For the longer-term prisoners it would be subject to assessment of risk to the public, which is the lacuna which has been identified by my noble friends. My noble friend asked whether people would spend longer in prison. I have just answered that question in relation to the prison places. We believe there will be some marginally longer periods of time spent in prison as a result of honesty in sentencing because we are doing away with the much earlier release at the 50 per cent. and the two-thirds points.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one matter. Do I understand from the second question she answered that she is prepared at least to listen to representations over the viability of the method of deciding on earlier release? I believe it requires investigation.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I can give my noble friend the assurance that I will discuss the matters with him and start to flesh out in more detail the proposals that we have in mind to address the concerns of my noble friends on this matter.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. In those circumstances, I do not believe there would be any advantage, on a declaratory clause of this nature, in testing the opinion of the Committee, because the opinion of the Committee is clearly a desire to see a method of release which achieves the punishment of the individual and the greatest protection to society. In those circumstances,
574
I beg leave to withdraw my Motion at this time, but I shall come back to it if necessary at Report stage when I have seen my noble friend's proposals.
Clause 7 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
HONESTY IN SENTENCING
(". Where a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term, it, shall state in open court—

(a) the minimum and maximum periods which the offender will spend in custody, taking into account the duties and powers of the Secretary of State under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;

(b) the maximum and minimum periods during which the offender will be under the supervision of a probation officer after release; and

(c) the maximum and minimum periods during which the offender will be liable after release to be returned to prison under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.").

The noble Lord said: In rising to move Amendment No. 33, I speak to Amendments Nos. 40, 48 and 50 in Clause 10, and to Amendment No. 51, which is a new clause to be inserted after Clause 10.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is entirely within his rights not to pursue his opposition on the Motion that Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said and I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord said. I rather think that he is reading more into the Minister's undertakings than is justified, but we need not pursue that matter because that will be resolved by the time we come to Report stage.
If the three undertakings which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle was seeking were indeed to be reflected in government amendments or government agreement to other amendments at Report stage, the result would be, at least for Chapter I of Part II, a very different Bill from that which is before the Committee, and an even more different Bill from that which was presaged by the Home Secretary in his Blackpool speech to the Conservative Party Conference in 1995. The essence of what he was saying to the party faithful was that a sentence of four years means a sentence of four years in custody, or a sentence of two years, or whatever the case may be. If the parole board is to be brought back into the equation and if there is going to be effective reflection of the risk to the community in release, then we are moving a long way back to the parole board system. It leads us to ask the question whether there is any sense whatever in pursuing Chapter I of Part II of the Bill at all, or whether, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, it has been a public relations exercise.
Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that we should move on to Amendment No. 33, which seeks to set out for the benefit of public understanding exactly what is meant and what should be meant by honesty in sentencing. The principle on which we are working, and with which the Government appear to agree, is not that

575
either on balance or in many particular cases there should be any difference in the amount of time which prisoners spend in custody, because the Minister is now virtually saying that there will be no significant difference and therefore there will be no significant increase in the number of people held in prison. The principle is that it should be stated at the time of sentencing, which is the important time, what the implications of a custodial sentence are.
The Minister in her speech sought to make fun of the complication of the existing system. Her argument was quite amusing but it was not realistic. For example, in her mock-up—perhaps that is the way to describe it—of what the judge might say she included comments on what might happen if the prisoner were already serving the non-custodial part of an existing sentence. Of course, such complications will exist in whatever system we adopt. Perhaps in view of the Minister's undertaking she is not able to agree to my request, but I ask her to play the same game—it was only a game—in relation to what a judge would say not under the existing system but under that proposed in Part II of the Bill. We might find that what is proposed will result in at least as complicated a statement from the Bench as is required under the existing parole system. In any event, it is not all that complicated.
Amendment No. 33 provides that there should be a statement about:
"the minimum and maximum periods which the offender will spend in custody, taking into account the duties and powers of the Secretary of State under Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991"—
in other words, Sections 33 to 51 of the 1991 Act, which are repealed under Schedule 6. The amendment also provides that a statement shall be made about:
"the minimum and maximum periods during which the offender will be under the supervision of a probation officer after release".
Is that complicated? Is it so difficult to understand? I do not believe so. It also provides for a statement about:
"the maximum and minimum periods during which the offender will be liable after release to be returned to prison under section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991".
All the Minister did was to embroider on that proposal. However, it is clear, it is definite, it preserves the conditions of the 1991 Act, which is what we seek to preserve, and it would be of benefit even if the Minister were to make significant concessions in negotiations with the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Carlisle. I hasten to say that if it seems appropriate I shall be willing to join in any discussions. That has always been my position; I do not hold myself apart from discussions which might lead to constructive results.
We still have the opportunity offered by the new clause to take the existing situation, with modifications which might be called for by any changes that the Minister might wish to make between now and Report, and say clearly what the provisions on honesty in sentencing should be and answer the only valid point which the Home Secretary addressed in his conference speech—that the public generally should be able to understand what is meant by reality in sentencing.
I hasten to say that honesty in sentencing is not the only issue. There is the whole question of progression in sentencing to which we must return later in Committee and, if necessary, on Report. The two are inextricably linked and I do not believe that in Part I of the Bill, even as amended, the Government have provided for proper progression in sentencing.
Amendment No. 33, and the consequential amendments to Clause 10 and afterwards, are a blow for transparency, a blow for clarity and a blow for greater public understanding of what is meant by sentencing practice. I commend them to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry that the noble Lord thought fit to respond as he did to my reply to my noble friend's concerns about the risk assessment for the release of certain prisoners. Either we are a revising Chamber or we are not. I often face accusations, I believe wrongly, that the Government are immovable and will not consider change. I hope that the Committee will accept that between last Thursday and today I have done a great deal of footwork in discussing some of the anxieties which emerged from the debates and have made some progress. I should like to think that the noble Lord believes that that is the House doing its job and welcomes that.
A key theme of this group of amendments, standing in the name of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn, is to retain automatic early release. Amendment No. 33 seeks to retain the present system of automatic release at the half-way point or two-thirds point with just a requirement for that to be spelt out in court. Amendments Nos. 40, 48 and 50 seek to introduce automatic release to the new early release provisions set out in the Bill.
As regards Amendment No. 33, we fully endorse the principle of introducing greater clarity and transparency in sentencing. This is the aim of Part II of the Bill and the new arrangements for honesty in sentencing which it introduces. It is also perhaps worth noting that there is nothing to prevent the court when passing sentence from explaining what is the effect of the sentence—either at present or in the future. However, we believe that honesty and transparency are best achieved by ensuring that the sentence served equates more closely to the sentence imposed in court. This is the purpose of the Bill as it stands but is certainly not the result of the new clause before us.
We believe that public confidence in the criminal justice system is undermined when offenders are automatically released from prison after serving as little as half their sentence. I repeat that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, described the present arrangements as:
"a charade, with everyone engaged in a calculation of how much less than the announced sentence will actually be served".
This is exactly what Part II of the Bill is designed to avoid. In future, everyone—the court, victim and offenders alike—will know what the court's sentence means. The term imposed will match more closely the

577
time served; any time off will have to be earned, rather than granted as of right; and the offender will be supervised on release for a sufficient period to allow him to re-integrate into society and to provide adequate protection for the public. That period of supervision will be confirmed at the point of sentence.
All the above are achieved by the Bill as it stands. However, the new clause appears to envisage that the present arrangements would continue to apply, which means that 94 per cent. of those who go to prison would continue to be released automatically after serving just half their sentence. I do not believe that that would restore public confidence in the sentence of the court.
Part II of the Bill constitutes a radical and important overhaul of the current early release arrangements which are set out in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. I know that those arrangements continue to have their champions in this House. However, I believe that our proposals offer real advantages over the present system. Simply explaining the effect of the court's sentence, which is what this clause proposes, would not go nearly far enough to restore public confidence. It would not, in practice, make the effect of the sentence any better understood by either the victim or the public at large. The public at large are not present in court when the sentence is spelt out. I have given an example of what it would sound like to have a sentence spelt out. If the defendant in court understood it, that would be one thing; but I doubt whether the public outside would understand.
It is a straightforward case which does not involve either consecutive or concurrent sentences like the example I gave of the four-year sentence. Is that what the Opposition really mean by that almost garbled explanation which did not take into account the one complexity that I mentioned earlier; namely, where the person concerned had already been serving a sentence? Moreover, it did not deal with consecutive or concurrent sentences with which we are dealing in our proposals.
Is this what the trial judge is supposed to say each and every time he passes sentence? It is easy to see why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Taylor, described the present arrangements as a charade. Amendment No. 33 would simply perpetuate that charade. Our proposals are designed to replace the present arrangements with a far simpler, more straightforward and more honest approach.
Amendment No. 51, combined with Amendments Nos. 40, 48 and 50, seeks to remove the requirement that prisoners should earn any early release, and to substitute automatic awards. The amendments to Clause 10 would provide for automatic release at the maximum level that we are proposing for good behaviour by prisoners for those prisoners serving sentences of two months or more. That is 12 days for every completed two months of sentence. Amendment No. 51 would mean that prisoners serving sentences of two months or less would receive automatically up to three days early release for every completed two weeks of their sentence. Incidentally, as an aside, the noble Lord suggests up to three days, having abolished it being assessed on the basis of behaviour. However, the noble
578
Lord did not say how those three days would be determined in each two-week period. For example, will it be one, two or three, and on what basis will the "up to three days" be granted if it is not to he based on behaviour?
The amendments to Clause 10 introduce a further requirement that the court passing sentence informs the prisoner of the number of early release days to which he is entitled. That entitlement could be reduced if the prisoner was subsequently found guilty of a disciplinary offence and the reduction would be allowed to exceed the number of early release days already notionally awarded. There is also a provision permitting prison rules to set a maximum on the number of early release days a prisoner could lose.
The amendments would enshrine the principle of automatic rather than earned early release in the new early release arrangements in the Bill. That would significantly weaken the new arrangements in the Bill for the release of prisoners. It would certainly undermine a central element of the honesty in sentencing proposals which is that there should be no automatic release, irrespective of behaviour, before the end of the term of imprisonment that is imposed by the sentencing court.
The present automatic early release provisions provide no incentive for prisoners to behave well: they merely discourage prisoners from behaving so badly by awarding additional days for disciplinary offences. Automatic early release is neither understood nor supported by the public. That is why the proposals in the Bill provide for prisoners to earn early release. That is why the proposals provide for the earning of early release to be based on continual assessment.
The Bill's provisions provide a powerful incentive for prisoners to behave well throughout their prison sentence. Those that do so will be awarded the maximum early release. In practice this is about one-sixth of sentence length earned at a rate of 12 days for each two-month assessment period. Those that do not behave well will remain in prison to the end of their sentence. The Prison Service has already taken a step in this direction by recently introducing a new scheme under which prisoners must earn their privileges. Earned early release will be in line with one of the recommendations made in the Learmont Report on prison security. In that report General Sir John Learmont says that,
"if every day by which release was brought forward had to be earned … a cornerstone of good behaviour throughout the period of sentence would be laid. This is fundamental to the security of our prisons".
I know that there has been some concern, particularly among prison governors, that prison staff will not be able to cope with the new assessment system. I do not share those fears. It is our intention that this new assessment be integrated into existing prison procedures wherever that is practicable. Prisons have already introduced arrangements for assessing the behaviour and performance level of privileges earned. Prisons are at this moment introducing an improved system for the planning and management of prisoners' sentences, which aims to regularise and unify present assessment

579
arrangements. I would expect the new assessment arrangements to be linked with or form a part of those procedures.
When one thinks of nurses, one realises that they are recording the state of a patient by the hour; indeed, they are doing so in the morning, in the afternoon and in the evening on a 24-hour basis. Moreover, if one takes the case of a teacher, he or she is recording the behaviour of the children on a daily basis. Why should it be any different for people who are managing prisoners? Why should they not be reminded that it is an important feature of management to be recording the behaviour of the prisoners in their care? For those reasons, I cannot recommend this group of amendments to the Committee. I very much hope that Members of the Committee will not follow the noble Lord into the Division Lobby should he decide to press the amendment.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It was significant that the Minister went straight back in her response to the claim that I had already dealt with—although perhaps at excessive length when considering the earlier debate—that the existing system represents automatic early release. That is not the case. It is not the case that it is automatic because there is still the provision for additional days to be served under certain circumstances. Moreover, it is not the case, as the Minister implied, that release is unconditional. Early release of any kind under the existing system is a suspension of the custodial part of a sentence rather than the remission of that sentence. It is always accompanied by a specific period of supervision with specific conditions which the person released has to comply with, and is always accompanied by the threat of a return to prison if necessary either when the period of supervision is still in force or, at the end of that, when the prisoner is still at risk. In those circumstances, it is simply a misrepresentation of the facts to return to the catchphrase of "automatic early release" as, I am afraid, the Home Secretary wished it to be understood when he made his statement about, "You don't serve half the time if you have done the whole of the crime". I have probably got the wording wrong, but the implication is still the same.
The second claim that the Minister made in her reply was that somehow by retaining the existing system—with whatever amendments she is prepared to discuss and negotiate, which would in turn mean that this amendment may be amended by any changes that the Government are able or willing to make—we would abolish any consideration for the behaviour of a prisoner while in prison; that could not be further from the truth. Under the Government's present proposals, only behaviour while in prison will affect the length of the custodial sentence and the length of the period to be served in custody. However, as I believe has been made very clear by those sitting behind the Minister, good behaviour in prison is not the only consideration. Indeed, the risk to the public is at least as great a consideration. If there is any advance to be made in
580
discussions between now and the Report stage, so much the better. That, in turn, could also be reflected in my amendment.
I simply do not see the analogy with teachers and nurses which the Minister made. Prison officers, like teachers and nurses, are always making assessments: sometimes they make informal assessments, and occasionally even formal assessments, of the prisoners in their charge. There is no doubting that fact. But if such assessments are to be turned into decisions about the time spent in custody, that would be decentralisation of decision making to a degree which the Government have never admitted before and perhaps ought to spell out in a little more detail.
Amendment No. 33 and the consequential amendments provide for the kind of discussions which could be undertaken. If the Minister is serious in the undertakings that she has given, or in the indications that she has given—I think she would probably shrink from calling them undertakings—some version of Part II of the 1991 Criminal Justice Act will survive. It is worth preserving that in the wording of this amendment. Therefore I have no hesitation in commending Amendment No. 33 to the Committee.
4.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 33) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 164.

Division No.1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Dubs, L.

Acton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Alderdice, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Ezra, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Falkender, B.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bath, M.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fitt, L.

Berkeley, L.

Freyberg, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gallacher, L.

Blease, L.

Geraint, L.

Borrie, L.

Gerard, L.

Bridges, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Broadbridge, L.

[Teller.]

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gregson, L.

Calverley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Grey, E.

Carter, L.

Hampton, L.

Chandos, V.

Hamwee, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hanworth, V.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Crook, L.

Haskel, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Hayman, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

David, B.

Hoffmann, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Hollick, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Desai, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Diamond, L.

Hooson, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Howell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hughes, L.

581

Hylton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Rochester, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Judd, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Kennet, L.

Russell, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Serota, B.

Lawrence, L.

Sewel, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

simon of Glaisdale, L.

Listowel, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, E.

Southwark, Bp.

Lockwood, B.

Stallard, L.

Longford, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

McCarthy, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Taverne, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Taylor of Blackburn L.

McNair, L.

Taylor of Gosforth, L.

McNally, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Tenby, V.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mason of Barsley, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L

Molloy, L.

Thurlow, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Thurso, V.

Monkswell, L.

Tope, L.

Monson, L.

Tordoff, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Varley, L.

Nicol, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ogmore, L.

Walpole, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Wharton, B.

Palmer, L.

White, B.

Paul, L.

Whitty, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Winston, L.

Rea, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L

Ailsa, M.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Aldington, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Carnock, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Annaly, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Arran, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Cochrane of Culls, L.

Attlee, E.

Colwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Courtown, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Beloff, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Berners, B.

Cuckney, L.

Biddulph, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Blaker, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blatch, B.

Davidson, V.

Boardman, L.

De Freyne, L.

Bowness, L.

De Ramsey, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Denbigh, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Denham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Bruntisfield, L.

Derwent, L.

Burnham, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Byford, B.

Elles, B.

582

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Milverton, L.

Elton, L.

Minto, E.

Erne, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Feldman, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Mountevans, L.

Gainford, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Geddes, L.

Nelson, E.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Nickson, L.

Goschen, V.

Norfolk, D.

Gray of Contin, L.

Northesk, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Haddington, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peel, E.

Hanson, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Pike, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Haslam L

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Prior, L.

Hemphill, L.

Quinton, L.

Henley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Holderness, L.

Rawlings, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Reay, L.

Hood, V.

Rees, L.

Howe, E.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Howe, E.

Inglewood, L.

Renwick, L.

Keyes, L.

Romney, E.

Rotherwick, L.

Kimball, L.

Rowallan, L.

Kinnoull, E

St. Davids, V.

Knollys, V.

Sandford, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Seccombe, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Lindsay, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lucas, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Sudeley, L.

McConnell, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Terrington, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Teynham, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Trumpington, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marlesford, L

Westbury, L.

Marsh, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mersey, V.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Middleton, L.

Wise, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): I call Amendment No. 34. If Amendment No. 34 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 35.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 27, leave outfrom ("concurrent") to end of line 29.
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 34 relates to the backdating of sentences after a period of remand. I move the amendment because the Bill introduces the idea of refusing to backdate on the grounds of wasting time. I bring the amendment before the Committee because

583
I believe that not to do so would cause injustice and the possibility of unnecessary appeals against that injustice; and because I am interested in reducing friction in prisons and in young offender institutions. That belief is based on having worked in such an institution. I apologise to the Committee for not bringing forward a consequential amendment: the deletion of paragraph (d) of subsection (6).
In the context of deciding how much of the time spent on remand should be credited to the convicted prisoner, the Bill gives the court the power to decide whether the remand credit or "backdater", as it is known in gaol, would be just. That is presumably aimed at offenders who may appear to be slowing up the proceedings in an allegedly unnecessary way. At present, time on remand in England and Wales is automatically credited to the prisoner and, after a lengthy period of remand, may lead to the immediate release, or substantial reduction of time served after conviction.
Time spent on remand as an untried prisoner is probably worse than being on the convicted side. Not only is there a restricted programme for the untried or remand prisoner, leading to boredom, based on the dubious privilege of not having to work, there is also the constant movement of remand prisoners. Their collective anxieties on the remand wing far exceed those on the convicted wings. That is because the outcome of the trial and conviction is already known, is being worked out, or slept through, with a release or lib date on the horizon. The automatic crediting of the remand period is extended to all periods of remand. That contrasts with the Scottish practice where the backdating is decided by the sheriff or High Court judge, often at the prompting of the defence agent. The usual Scottish practice is that when the remand period has been interspersed by a period of bail, only the latter part of the remand forms part of the backdating. There is no requirement to explain the formula used.
As regards the proposed practice for England and Wales, it seems to me that the frequent use of the power in Clause 8(3)(b) could be unjust in a number of ways. First, the fault could lie with dilatory or incompetent lawyers both for the defence and the Crown Prosecution Service. Secondly, the fault could lie with other co-accused and/or their lawyers. Cases with multiple co-accused are notorious for their delays. Thirdly, should a co-accused be on bail, only the accused on remand would be required to serve extra time for time wasting. Fourthly, it might wrongly encourage an accused person to plead guilty and not to opt for trial, which is his right, for fear of being accused of unnecessarily delaying the proceedings. That could also lead to a compound punishment. The accused can already be punished by loss of a discount for a timely plea of guilt.
In its response to the White Paper, the Magistrates' Association states:
"The Association sees great difficulties in assessing how much time on remand is attributable to time wasting, and regards this part of the proposal as unworkable".
584
That is a view from the sharp end about a new, controversial, onerous and marginally useful task. It may ultimately lead to appeals against this element of sentence. It certainly poses problems of uniformity between courts and 28,000 lay magistrates on the bench as it is based on subjective criteria.
I conclude with the suggestion that the rigorous application of time limits at each stage of the pre-trial process would be more helpful. I cite the scrupulously observed Scottish 110 day rule as an example of an achievable working practice in this respect. The amendment would prevent injustice and subsequent appeals, and reduce whingeing and complaining in prison. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: As Bishop of Southwark, I minister through my chaplains to several prisons. One of them, Brixton, which I have visited twice in recent months, endures conditions of great overcrowding. I am told that last week up to 150 prisoners were admitted into the induction wing for people who had never been in prison before. Some had received their sentence but many were on remand. Despite the exemplary work of prison officers and governors, conditions are very bad. Prisoners spend their time banged up for all but two or three hours each day. Even food is eaten while locked up in cells.
Some spend many months in prison on remand, and as more cases become drug related and the complexity of evidence delays the date of trial, periods of remand get longer. Virtually no periods of employment or education are provided for those on remand in prisons such as Brixton. That is not the fault of the prison staff, who suffer from shortage of numbers. Where bail cannot be obtained, prisoners sit and wait.
However, Clause 8 of the Bill allows the court not to count time on remand as part of the sentence if it seems "just in all the circumstances". The White Paper Protecting the Public suggested that courts should leave out of the sentence any period attributable to time wasting spent on remand. I cannot imagine anyone on remand in Brixton Prison choosing to waste time in such conditions. As the noble Earl reminded us, less competent lawyers may delay a case. Nevertheless, the Magistrates' Association regard the Bill as unworkable. I believe that out of a sense of natural justice this part of the clause should be deleted. I support the amendment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether I understand correctly the purpose of this part of the clause. It gives a wide discretion to the judge to decide whether or not time spent on remand should count towards the sentence. If that is so, surely common justice requires that the representations of the individual or his counsel should be heard before that decision is made. Perhaps I have misunderstood the point.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord. He refers to the next amendment, which I shall move.
Earl Russell: There is in this part of the Bill, which my noble friend's amendment seeks to delete, a discrepancy between the words in the Bill and the purpose which we are told by the White Paper those words are intended to serve. The words in the Bill are that the court in all the circumstances may not give a direction if it is in the interests of justice. But we are told that the purpose of the provision is to prevent time-wasting.
I think that we in this Committee know perfectly well that time-wasting is something that the other side does. The notion is inherently subjective. In sentencing a prisoner, we shall be judging whether the prisoner's conduct was time-wasting on an assumption that the prisoner is guilty. That is an assumption which the prisoner may be continuing to contest and which may even in future be tested on appeal. In giving an extra sentence for time-wasting, because we believe the prisoner, being guilty, was prolonging and evading the inevitable, we may be subjecting the prisoner to something that has at least a faint resemblance to double jeopardy.
There have been cases of this sort before. Cases have been tried in this House where it was said that the offender had made his offence worse by defending himself. It is the sort of thinking to which this approach gives a very dangerous opening. While I do not suggest that anything like that is in the mind of the Home Secretary, if we leave a power like this on the books to be used in the time of future Home Secretaries, I do not know where it may lead.
We should also always bear in mind, in extending power to detain people on remand, that the procedure of bail contains within itself an inherent social bias. It is perfectly obvious that it is very much easier for those who are propertied and well-connected to obtain bail than it is for those who are not so. Imprisonment on remand always bites more severely on one part of the population than it does on another.
When I was young I used in my folly to believe that if we thought hard enough we should soon think of an alternative to bail. I am a great deal less confident of that than I was 30 years ago. But, just for that reason, I become rather more wary of powers to extend time spent on remand. Imprisonment is a penalty. I do not want to subject people to a penalty for defending themselves.
5.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): In seeking to respond to the amendment, I should perhaps confess an interest, having had throughout my experience of the criminal courts in Scotland a similar, albeit not identical, provision there. Periods spent on remand have always been taken regard of. Sometimes they are allowed in full in backdating the sentence; sometimes the sentence starts from the date when it is imposed. On the basis of my experience both as a defence lawyer and a prosecutor, I have never been conscious of any of the concerns raised by noble Lords in speaking to this amendment.
586
The clause as drafted requires the court to direct that the number of days spent by an offender on remand in custody for an offence shall count as time served as part of the sentence. Two exceptions are proposed to this general approach. First, remand time may not be counted if and to the extent that rules governing the counting of remand time towards consecutive or concurrent sentences provide that no such direction shall be made. I shall draw attention to those rules in a little more detail in a moment. Secondly, it is provided that remand time shall not be counted if the court's view is that it is just not to do so in all the circumstances.
It is important to bear in mind the precise terminology of subsection (4)(b) of Clause 8:
"it is in the opinion of the court just in all the circumstances not to give a direction under that subsection".
That means just not simply to the offender (the defendant) but just to the wider public. The court is required to have regard to both those matters in addressing the issue of whether or not it is just in all the circumstances.
We believe that such a discretion is fundamental to the justice and good administration of the new provisions set out in Clause 8 for more honest sentence calculation by the courts. Clause 8 simplifies the existing law governing the calculation of remand time against sentence. But there is the potential for anomalies in sentence calculation to arise whatever system is adopted. It is impossible for the clause to cater for all the possible permutations that may arise when sentence calculations having regard to periods of remand are carried out. It is impossible for the calculations to anticipate all the specific factors that may be of relevance in particular cases. It is for that reason that this discretion is set out on the face of the Bill.
The clause as drafted reflects the fact that it will be the exception rather than the rule where the court does not give full credit for remand time against sentence. A discretionary power is, however, necessary to allow the court to take account, as it considers appropriate, of all the circumstances where the outcome of counting total remand time towards sentence is patently unjust or anomalous.
Perhaps one or two examples may illustrate the point I seek to make. Let us take the case of an offender on remand in custody for two offences which are tried on separate occasions for good reason. The defendant might be given a prison sentence in respect of one of them, against which the remand time would be counted. Some time later he would fall to be dealt with in connection with the other matter whether or not he had been released from any initial period of imprisonment and would be required to be sentenced separately for that separate offence. In those circumstances, clearly the remand time that had already been credited towards the first sentence should not also be counted towards the latter sentence. The courts should have the right to exercise judicial discretion to ensure that the remand time would not be credited twice. Other circumstances in which discretion not to credit the full remand time might come into play would be where an offender was serving a term of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine at the same time as being on remand in custody

587
for an untried offence. Discretion would be needed if the court's view was that the period of time which he had served in respect of the fine default should not be credited towards his sentence in respect of the offence for which he was simultaneously remanded in custody.
A further example of the need for discretion, highlighted in the White Paper, arises in the question of time-wasting. Experience in Scotland has shown that it is perfectly possible not only for professional judges but for lay justices to work out when an accused person, as opposed to his solicitor or counsel, falls to be blamed for any delay which may have arisen. As I said at the outset, I am not conscious of any of the prejudice remarked upon by noble Lords who spoke in support of the amendment.
It is important to bear in mind that two safeguards will ensure that such discretion does not result in injustice. First, where the court decides not to credit the full remand time, Clause 8 requires the judge or magistrate to state reasons for not doing so in open court. Secondly, an offender will have a right of appeal against the overall length of his sentence. That should help to ensure judicial consistency. It is clearly an area where in the fullness of time the Appeal Court could exercise its power to issue guidelines if that proved necessary to put these provisions into practice.
I have already mentioned the rule-making power set out in Clause 8(4)(a) of the Bill. Many Members of the Committee will have seen the report of the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers which invites the House to consider whether Clause 8 should either be amended to ensure that the Secretary of State consults on the draft rules or that there should be a formal ministerial undertaking that such consultation will be conducted.
I am happy to be in a position to give such an undertaking. I fully appreciate the significance of these rules which, as the Committee pointed out, can affect the liberty of the defendant. These rules are necessary because the crediting of remand time towards consecutive and concurrent sentences can be a complex and technical matter and the courts will need to know what principles to follow in making the calculations.
In view of the complexity and importance of the issues which arise from putting these provisions on the face of the Bill, the Government fully accept the need for consultation on the detailed contents of the rules prior to their being laid before Parliament. I remind Members of the Committee that the rules will be subject to affirmative resolution.
I hope that, on the basis of that explanation and the undertaking given in connection with the rules, it will prove possible for the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, not to press his amendment.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate one question before he leaves this matter. It was with great pleasure that I heard a Minister of the Crown defend the exercise of judicial discretion. The argument was powerful and persuasive. However, suppose all the judges should decide that days
588
on remand should not count towards sentence; or suppose one judge should always take that decision. Would the Home Secretary accuse such a judge of flying in the face of the will of Parliament?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am not sure that it is helpful to anticipate what the Home Secretary would do in the extreme hypothetical situations on which the noble Earl focuses. I detect in his question a certain chiding of the Government for relying on the existence of judicial discretion to ensure that justice is done. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, with the greatest respect, that that chiding may have issued because he overestimates the extent to which the Bill interferes with judicial discretion. To elaborate on that might take us back to the discussions of last week. As we have many other amendments to address, I decline to become too involved at this stage.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: There is a certain irony in someone from these Benches rooted in the Scottish criminal justice system being answered by someone else who is also so rooted. However, that is one of the merits of an international assembly such as this Committee.
I was keen to put forward this amendment because it addresses a matter introduced into a system of automatic backdating, unlike the Scottish system which is not automatic but discretionary. Prisoners do not like it when a change occurs. I am always concerned about keeping the atmosphere in prison fairly light; I am also concerned that we keep the roof on the prison. I know that an upset prisoner requires a lot of assistance from the staff and that an angry prisoner is not only a pain in the neck but also liable to have a very deleterious effect on the prison.
I was pleased to hear that the use of the provision with regard to time-wasting was expected to be rare. I sincerely hope that that will be the case. It is extremely subjective and therefore how it would stand up to scrutiny on an appeal is obviously a matter of concern.
I am very pleased to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that the rules will come before this Chamber. Therefore, while thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and my noble friend for their support, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In forming an opinion under paragraph (b) of subsection (4), a court shall invite and take into account any representations on this matter by the offender or by his legal representative.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey and myself deals with the practical difficulties which were prefigured by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, a moment or two ago and most helpfully developed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate in his reply to

589
the observations of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I listened to them very carefully and found them extremely beneficial.
Clause 8(4)(b) gives the sentencing court—which I take to be a magistrates' court as well as a Crown Court for the purposes of jurisdiction in England and Wales—the discretion to order that time served on remand shall not count against a sentence. That discretion is given to the court if the court takes the view that it is just in all the circumstances not to give a direction.
Rather different language is found in the explanatory memorandum at Part II. There it is stated that Clause 8 gives the court the discretion to allow time spent on remand not to count towards sentence. The words used there are,
"unless, in all the circumstances of the case, it considers it unjust to do so".
That is slightly different.
The reason that I go to the explanatory memorandum, Clause 8, is that the language used there is precisely the terms of the amendment which Members of the Committee rightly carried last Thursday. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said a moment ago that what we have here is a question which can affect the liberty of the defendant. Agreed. He said that it is a complex and technical matter. Agreed. He said that it is right to maintain the exercise of judicial discretion. Agreed.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate put all these matters so much better than I could that I simply move this amendment on the basis that, if there are technical matters and if there is judicial discretion, there should be a statutory requirement—which is all this amendment seeks—for the court, before it takes away a defendant's liberty on the basis of not allowing remand time to count, to invite, and to take into account, representations made by the offender or his legal representative.
It is important to bear in mind that, as all practitioners know, 95 per cent. of criminal work takes place in the magistrates' courts. Not every defendant is represented, even in the Crown Court. This is a perfectly sensible, efficient and workable amendment. I would expect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate would readily recognise the coherence of thinking between what I have said and what he said only a moment or two ago. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Having risen to support the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, on this point on the previous amendment, when I got the amendments wrong, perhaps I may say that nothing that he said has dissuaded me of the view that I then held, which is that it would be common justice to accept that anyone in this situation should be represented or have the chance to make representations
590
before a decision of this nature is taken. I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will explain that that is the Government's position.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I strongly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I represented someone who spent seven years on remand, three years in Pentonville and four years in Brixton. I agree with everything that the right reverend Prelate said about incarceration in those institutions. Remand is not an easy option for anybody.
I was interested to discover to what circumstances Clause 8(4)(b) referred. I waited with interest to hear from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate what the Government had in mind. He referred to the double-counting of time spent on remand. I believe that that was quite recently the cause of an unusual and unexpected release of a flood of prisoners from prison. On appeal it was held that to count the remand period twice was not lawful. Accordingly, this is not one of the circumstances which can possibly be in the minds of the Government under Clause 8(4)(b).
The noble and learned Lord referred to the case of someone serving a term of imprisonment for failing to pay a fine concurrently with a period on remand. I cannot see why, when a person has been arrested and held in custody for a serious offence, the fact that he concurrently serves a period of imprisonment for failing to pay a fine should in any way affect the situation.
So one comes to the third heading: time wasting. If a person is to serve a period of imprisonment for the very serious criminal offence of wasting time, the very least that one can expect is that he should have the right to make representations to the court, either personally or through his advocate, to prevent that sentence of imprisonment being imposed—because that is effectively what it is—and to make sure that all the facts are properly disclosed and are before the sentencing judges, be it magistrates or the Crown Court judge.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I rise to join issue briefly with a few remarks made by Mr. David Maclean on behalf of the Home Office. Speaking in another place on 26th November last (cols. 188–9) he said:
"I do not think it is necessary or wise to provide explicitly for this in statute … To do so in these circumstances might be to imply that in others there is no need to take account of defence misrepresentations".
There seems to be quite a depth of legal misunderstanding behind that remark.
The requirement to hear both sides is a basic requirement of natural justice. I shall not speculate on how far back in English law that goes because it is a great deal further than it is wise to take us tonight. But that requirement is perfectly clear. There is no danger of it disappearing in one place because it is specified in another. The argument for specifying it is lest the statute might appear to be attempting to overrule it.

591
I do not for one moment deny that a statute may overrule natural justice or indeed do absolutely anything else that it likes. But, as the Home Office knows perfectly well, statutes which purport to overrule natural justice are rightly construed a great deal more strictly by the courts than any other statutes. They might then avoid a good deal of trouble by accepting the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for accepting my advocacy at an early stage. I hope that he will continue to accept what I say and depart from his amendment. As I said earlier, there are similar provisions in Scotland which work perfectly well without any requirement in the legislation that before taking account of a period spent in remand, the court has to invite and take into account any representations on this matter by the offender or his legal representative.
Clearly, the Government do not argue with the principles that lie behind the amendment. It is a standard part of the criminal procedure both north and south of the Border that the accused man or the defendant should have the right to make representations about whether it would be just to disallow any time spent in remand counting towards his prison service or the date from which any prison service is to be imposed.
But, quite genuinely, we do not consider it necessary to provide explicitly for that in statute in the form that the amendment proposes. Any representations that the defendant might wish to make either personally or through counsel in respect of receiving the lightest possible sentence can be made during the speech in mitigation prior to sentence being passed. The clause as drafted makes clear that the magistrate or judge must take account of all the circumstances of the case in reaching a decision. That will include any mitigating factors raised by the defence and, following the coming into force of these provisions, will include taking account of factual material as to the period spent in remand, which will no doubt require to be placed before the court, I assume by the prosecutor. Certainly that is the practice in Scotland.
The criminal justice system in England works on the basis that, where a court is minded to make a decision which is to the disadvantage of the defendant, the defence is given the opportunity to address the issue in question. That is as it should be and common practice reflects that underlying principle. If, for whatever reason, a court was minded not to credit the full remand period and no mention is made of remand time in the mitigating speech, I should have thought it implicit that the court would invite the defence to make such representations before reaching a decision. I have to say, again based on my experience, that invariably when a period has been spent on remand and it is competent for the court to take it into
592
account, it forms part of the plea in mitigation seeking to gain the maximum advantage for an accused person of such a period in custody.
I recognise that this amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill principle and practice which are accepted. However, as the Minister said in another place, there is a danger that doing so might imply that in other circumstances a court should not take a similar tack of inviting defence representations. Clearly, we would not wish to give any cause for believing that that is the case.
I should like to remind the Committee of an important safeguard against any potential injustice in that respect. As I have already indicated, the court has to explain in open court why its decision has been reached and the defendant will have a right of appeal. If, for whatever reason, the court had not properly exercised its discretion or had denied a defendant the right to make submissions on this important matter, I have little doubt that the appeal would be successful.
Returning to the point I made at the outset, I hope that on this occasion at least the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will accept that experience from north of the Border suggests that this particular amendment is unnecessary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am most grateful for that careful exposition. Our stance is one of principle. Of course the defendant has the right to be heard but if he is not represented or is inadequately represented, which I believe happens on some occasions even south of the Border, there ought to be a mechanism in place to deal with putting things right. With great regard to what the noble and learned Lord said, I cannot believe that if a man is unjustly treated, the mere existence of a right of appeal is a better mechanism to deal with it than getting the matter right first time. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has made it perfectly plain—I am most obliged to him—that in respect of this particular statutory power it is expected that the opportunity to make representations will be given in every case, whether or not the defendant is represented. On the basis of that specific assurance, we have achieved our object. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Balfour: Subsection (4) of this clause reads:
"Subsection (3) above shall not apply if and to the extent that … rules made by the Secretary of State so provide".
I have raised this matter in regard to previous legislation that has passed through this Chamber. I was under the impression that regulations are made by the Secretary of State but that rules are usually made by a court. I do not say that I necessarily have any right to expect an answer now but between now and Report,

593
would my noble and noble and learned friends on the Front Bench consider whether they are using the right words there? I feel that it should read:
"regulations made by the Secretary of State and rules made by a court".
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to take the advice of parliamentary counsel as to whether the clause as presently framed is in the correct terms. We shall report further on that at Report stage.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
RELEASE ON LICENCE OF LONG-TERM PRISONERS
(".—(1) After a long-term prisoner has served three-quarters of his sentence, the Secretary of State shall, if recommended to do so by the Parole Board, release him on licence.
(2) Where a long-term prisoner is released on licence, the licence shall, subject to any revocation under section 28 below, remain in force until the date on which he would (but for his release) have completed his sentence.
(3) In this section, a "long-term prisoner" means a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of four years or more.").
The noble Lord said: The reason for tabling this amendment and the amendments grouped with it is that the new remission scheme for prisoners, set out in Clause 10 and subsequent clauses, looks certain to put the general public at greater risk than it is at present of prisoners committing further crimes when they are released early. In making that assertion, I do not imply that I did not listen carefully to what the Minister said earlier in this afternoon's proceedings. I realise that this is perhaps an issue on which we are not seeing entirely eye-to-eye.
My reason for making this assertion is simply that Clause 10 will award early release days at a maximum rate of 12 days every two months on a test simply and solely of good behaviour—or behaviour of the "prescribed minimum standard" as the Bill rather dryly puts it. That is not risk assessment.
I ask the Committee to contemplate for a moment the situation of a robber or the attacker of a defenceless pedestrian being released early from prison under the Bill to live near one's home, having had no proper risk assessment as to whether or not he is still a danger to the public. I would guess that most people would not be happy about that situation. It takes little imagination to realise that many prisoners have little difficulty in behaving well in prison, but do not necessarily experience a change of attitude or of criminal intent and in some cases can remain as much a danger to the public as on the day that they were sentenced.
It is exactly that problem which, for the past quarter of a century, the parole system has tried to tackle by weighing up the risk of releasing a prisoner early. As a result, reconvictions for parolees are lower by some half to two-thirds than the reconviction rate for non-parolees. I was heartened therefore to hear my noble friend Lady Blatch, in relation to the first amendment this afternoon, indicate that the Government recognise the danger to
594
the public of the early release of, at any rate, long-term prisoners without risk assessment and that the Government will now accept risk assessment for more serious offenders. I assume of course that the release will be based on risk assessment reports.
Nonetheless, I tabled Amendment No. 35 in order to record factors which I expect my noble friend the Minister to take into account in any discussions following today's debate. I have therefore adhered to the new clause, which has the effect of retaining the opportunity for prisoners serving sentences of four years or more—in other words, long-term prisoners—to have a single parole review at the three-quarter point in their sentence. If at that point the long-term prisoner is granted parole, he or she will be supervised for the remaining 25 per cent. of their sentence, which is exactly the time stipulated in the Bill for supervision.
As the Committee will already have perceived, the new clause is limited. It is simply a method of inserting into the new remission scheme one opportunity for long-term prisoners to have a single parole review. However, though the amendment is limited, the new clause will do a great deal to put right three major problems inherent in the remission scheme.
First, it will provide a full-scale risk assessment for long-term prisoners and will not just tip those more serious, fixed-term prisoners out into the community on grounds of good behaviour. That is absolutely in line with the directions the Home Secretary gives to the Parole Board at the present time. They make clear that, in considering early release, "primacy—the Home Secretary's word—must always be given to the safety of the public.
The second advantage, which is a spin-off of the amendment, is that at the parole review it would be possible to decide what conditions should be placed on a long-term prisoner's supervision period which will either follow immediately if parole is granted, or after sentence if parole is refused. The aim of extra conditions is to reduce recidivism by obliging an offender to tackle problems which contributed to his or her criminality; for example, drugs, alcohol and anger. But setting the right licence conditions is only possible if the supervising probation officer—the probation officer who will supervise when the offender comes to that part of the country to live—contributes to and sees the reports on which early release is to be based. As the Bill stands, it does not seem that probation officers will be required to undertake the wide-ranging risk assessment which they currently provide for a parole review nor, significantly, to impose licence conditions based on that assessment and specifically aimed at reducing risks. Those are serious omissions which would be put right by my amendment.
Thirdly—more briefly, but just as importantly—the new clause would make it much more possible to recall a long-term prisoner than under Clause 14, which requires court proceedings to be started if recall is to take place. I realise from what my noble friend said

595
earlier that this is an area where the Government feel that the Bill has got it right. Perhaps I can say briefly therefore that the effect of Amendments Nos. 68 to 71 and 73 to 79 is that if a prisoner starts to go off the rails; if he ignores licence conditions relating to victim protection or psychiatric oversight; if he leaves a rehabilitation centre or abandons offence-focused work; if for any reason a prisoner under supervision looks as though he or she is about to re-offend, there can be recall before and not after another crime is committed. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, indicated earlier this afternoon, that is an essential safeguard now for public protection.
The amendments do not jeopardise the Bill. They tackle the three issues to which I have just referred in Clauses 10 to 14, which will jeopardise public safety if amendments are not made. I am heartened that my noble friend Lady Blatch recognised that danger, particularly in relation to the release of long-term prisoners who, as the Bill is drafted, would be released without a real risk assessment. I hope that the additional points I have made in speaking now to these amendments can be taken into account in the discussions which the Minister kindly offered following this Committee stage. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: I served on the Parole Board for six years and, like my noble friend Lord Belstead, I am delighted that the Minister is showing some sympathy with the thinking behind this amendment. The participation of the Parole Board would be of particular importance for those offenders—there will be many of them—who are released for good behaviour six, seven or eight months before the completion of their sentences.
Prison officers on their own are not the best fitted to be the judges of risk or to set the conditions of licence. While on the board I had considerable experience of the reports from prison officers. Many were not good. They were often bland and vague. It is not surprising that, in conditions of open reporting in prisons, reports were not as direct as one would have liked.
More than that, I should like to underline something of the nature of the Parole Board that makes it the best judge of risk and of conditions of licence. First, it is independent. Secondly, the Parole Board consists of a wide range of expertise: judges, psychiatrists, probation officers and independent members drawn from a wide range of professions.
I add another fact. Since the last Criminal Justice Act it has been the practice of the Parole Board to require one of its members—not one who considered whether or not to grant parole—to conduct a lengthy interview with the offender at the prison. The interview would last anything from between 40 minutes to one hour. When I sat on the board I found that the reports of those interviews—often covering four or five pages—were of inestimable value; they were of much more value than the rather limited reports of prison officers. Inevitably, hard pressed, overworked prison officers, living and working within the prison, are much influenced by the
596
exigencies of the prison service. This element of independence and detachment is very important if the interests of the general public are to be guarded. As I have said before, under the Bill, an offender serving four years would receive as much as seven or eight months' remission for good behaviour before the end of his sentence. Therefore, in her discussions with my noble friend Lord Belstead I would urge the Minister to take note of these points.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I certainly did not come to the House this afternoon with the intention of making a Second Reading speech, and I shall try very hard to avoid doing so. However, I have looked at Chapter I of Part II of the Bill as it was printed and as it has come before the Committee. I do not think it is a financial interest that I have to declare but I was the predecessor of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, as chairman of the Parole Board and a very good and happy colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington. The Committee will appreciate that since then I have spent most of my time trying to administer justice in the Crown Court in the same way as some noble Lords may do, although perhaps not many of them, on a regular basis.
We have all got used to the 1991 legislation. Indeed, I was part of the arrangement whereby Sections 33 to 51, now to be swept away by Schedule 6, were put onto the statute book. I am very concerned about the risk assessment element which has been mentioned during the course of the debates today. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that that will be looked at again. Therefore, nothing I can say will do anything other than, I hope, point consideration in certain directions. However, when one is passing sentence in the Crown Court—I hope that this is a wholly non-political matter—one has to consider the assessment of risk and the way in which that will be dealt with at the end of any sentence one may pass.
I am not sure whether noble Lords have previously considered the aspect of the 1991 Act which deals with longer than normal sentences. Longer than normal sentences can be passed—not of course exceeding the maximum that is laid down by statute but exceeding what might otherwise be the amount that the Court of Appeal has advised us to pass in such cases—when one is dealing with a violent or sexual offence. I should like to illustrate what I am saying by referring to arson. Under Section 1(2) of the Criminal Damage Act arson carries a life sentence, and rightly so because it is a very worrying offence. It is not included as part of the arrangement in Part I of the Bill whereby people will automatically have certain offences registered against them and at the end of the day they will receive a life sentence. Arson is not among those. But arson is one of the most difficult and complicated issues with which we have to deal when it comes to sentencing. Indeed, the Court of Appeal has said—I am certain, from every background I have, with great justification—that one always ought to have some medical evidence before one deals with it.

597
The case of an arsonist, if one is going to give him an ordinary sentence, a longer than normal sentence or anything else other than a life sentence, will involve a risk assessment. If it is a life sentence, under the Bill there will be a risk assessment, because that is still left in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his colleagues on the Parole Board. However, it is anything else, there will be no risk assessment.
I looked at one of the cases we have in the encyclopedia. It took place in 1988. It involved an arsonist. He lived in a ground-floor flat of a block of dwellings. He piled his furniture together, set light to it and then went. When he was arrested he said that he was fed up with life, that he had forgotten about those living upstairs and he claimed not to realise that they were at risk. He had 18 previous convictions, including two for arson and eight for criminal damage. He was put on probation with a condition requiring him to reside and undergo treatment at a clinic forming part of a mental hospital. Within a few months he left the clinic and was brought before the court for failing to comply with the requirements of the probation order. He was then sentenced to five years' imprisonment. That was before the 1991 Act came in allowing longer than normal sentences. There were medical reports—he was of low intelligence, he was subject to schizophrenic episodes and personality disorder, he lacked insight and was likely to set further fires in future. But he was unsuitable for a normal mental hospital and had been refused admission to a special hospital.
At the end of the five years one would have thought that it would be necessary for there to be a risk assessment. Under that legislation, and under the legislation as it now exists, that risk assessment is undertaken by the Parole Board. People who sentence in the Crown Court do not pass sentences of four years or more in order to make people subject to assessment by the Parole Board. It would be wholly wrong and it would be set aside on appeal if we did. But we are aware, because we are trained, that if we sentence people to more than four years there will be an assessment by the Parole Board before they are released as a matter of risk assessment and other conditions such as have already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Pilkington. That is to go; or is it?
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that we might think again about this. I have talked to colleagues in my court about the kind of case I have described as it would stand under the Bill. Clause 22 is the continuity of sentencing exercise. If the Bill is left as it stands we shall have longer than normal sentences in the kind of case I have described of someone who is obviously a serious potential risk when released. We are supposed to pass what is approximately the same time in prison as that person would otherwise have served under the old regime. We are also aware that there will no longer be any process for risk assessment before that person is let out. I do not see how any court can pass a sentence which is approximately the same. There is no mechanism whereby you can test whether at the end of the time you pass as a sentence that person is fit to go out except by taking the views of the wing officer in the
598
prison. I am very much afraid that the Bill as it stands at the moment on this issue will force judges to pass longer sentences than would otherwise be the case.
I dare say that we shall all be trained and told what to do about it. At the moment, because we know that we are dealing with somebody who certainly will not receive a life sentence, which would be totally unjust, that person will be released and be confronted by the public again, having had no risk assessment whatever. The only way in which we can protect the public—that is one of the things which, as I understand it, judges are supposed to do as well as being fair in every possibly way to the offender, the victim and anybody else concerned—is to increase the length of sentence. I do not believe that that is what the Government are trying to achieve in this part of the Bill. If the noble Baroness intends to look at this matter again, I hope that she will use that to illustrate why this particular provision will simply not work satisfactorily and that she will perhaps consider it as part of a revision of the regime that she is putting forward.
6 p.m.
Lord Hope of Craighead: I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I would like to endorse the observations of the noble Lords, Lord Pilkington and Lord Belstead, about the work of the Parole Board. I have never served on it, but I have observed the Parole Board at work. I went to visit the board in my capacity as Lord Justice General of Scotland and I have also seen reports by the board in connection with tasks that I had to perform. I have also seen and been able to compare its work with the reports provided by prison officers, who no doubt do a very good task under difficult conditions.
I endorse with all the strength I can what has been said about the quality of the work which the Parole Board can perform and the value of the work it can do with the various expertise which its members bring to bear on the difficult problems with which it has to deal. I urge the Minister to think very carefully about abandoning that particular input into the criminal justice system, bearing in mind the aim that we all share which is to protect the public against the risk of re-offending.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, has given a very clear example of the way in which this Bill may have the effect of increasing sentences in a manner which the Government say they do not intend. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will bear in mind what the noble Viscount said.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that we had earlier as regards Clause 7 of the Bill. However, I wish briefly to support Amendment No. 36 in the name of my noble friend Lord Belstead. The Minister has implied that we are to look again at what is really the restoration of parole. At the moment the Bill does away with parole other than for life sentences. If we are to look again at risk assessment for long-term prisoners, we would be looking at the return of parole, and that is important for the protection of the public. I hope that the Minister will put forward proposals on this matter

599
which will command the general support of this Chamber. In fact, we need something along the lines proposed by my noble friend Lord Belstead. In other words, if sentences are to be two-thirds their present length, we should see whether that person is to be released based on risk. Then we shall have the kind of protection that we have at the moment, with the advantage that the longer period of supervision suggested by the Government in the Bill will cover an equivalent period of supervision if the prisoner was released having completed 50 per cent. of a longer original sentence.
There is one point about which I really wish to ask my noble friend. At the moment subsection (3) of the new clause in the name of my noble friend Lord Belstead, states,
"In this section, a 'long-term prisoner' means a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of four years or more".
As I understand it, that has always been the classic definition of a long-term prisoner used by the Home Office, and that is why the present provisions provide for automatic release up to four years and only with the approval of the Parole Board after four years. If we are to be serious in the intention of reducing by one-third the sentence passed by the court, then technically the sentence line between longer and shorter-term prisoners should be reduced to two years and eight months. That might be unrealistic, but I suggest to my noble friend that if we are to live in a regime where it is the desire and intention of government that the judiciary should pass sentences which are one-third shorter than they are at the moment, it will be necessary to reduce the definition of "long-term prisoner" from four years to three years so that people will be subject to risk assessment at a suitable point in the sentence, as they are at the moment. Unless one does that, one is in fact saying that many people will no longer have risk assessment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in that I was detained outside the Chamber for the first part of his opening speech. I want to support the general thrust of this complex group of amendments very much for the reasons suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, just now. In effect, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is proposing the restoration of the Parole Board, with virtually all of its current responsibilities. We very much support that and hope that the indications given by the Minister in her response to the debate on Clause 7 mean that.
I heard one part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in which he spoke about recall powers. It occurred to me then to wonder whether I should have grouped my Amendment No. 57 with this group, because that amendment is specifically designed to retain the powers which the Parole Board now has to order the immediate recall from post-release supervision of somebody who has been breaking the conditions. In the debate on Clause 7 the Minister
600
referred to the power to go back to court laid down in Clause 14. That is fine as far as it goes, but it is not an immediate recall of the kind—
Baroness Blatch: It is possible for a person to be arrested on the spot for a breach. The most likely way in which that would be done would be on information provided by a probation officer. The person would be held in custody and the opportunity would be sought for a court hearing the following morning in order to confirm whether the person should remain in custody or be released on bail before the breach is properly considered. In relation to an arrestable offence, that person can be taken into custody on the spot for breaching the terms and conditions of the supervision order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I accept what the Minister says. The committing of an arrestable offence is not quite the same as that which the Parole Board is prepared to consider. At the moment the board considers a report from a supervising probation officer. That officer may not feel that the breach of the conditions of the post-release supervision order is sufficiently explicit or serious to justify an arrestable offence which would lead to a new term of imprisonment, which is what Clause 14 provides.
Under the present arrangements, the supervising probation officer reports to the Parole Board, which meets daily for that purpose. As I understand it, it considers recall applications as the first and urgent business of that daily meeting. The Parole Board is then enabled to order a recall to prison immediately, without the court considering the matter or there being any further arrestable offence.
It may be that in extreme cases the Minister is right and that what is proposed in Clause 14 could result in very rapid recall. But that is not the same as recall under the existing sentence, which is what is now provided. When that was debated in another place, Mr. Maclean said that the difference is that the release supervision order under the new arrangements will be in addition to rather than part of the prison term. That seems to me an entirely technical answer that does not deal with the issue of the protection of the public, which I understand to be the basis of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
It may be that I am not raising this in a definitive way and that it would be better for the Minister to take advice on the matter rather than to respond immediately. But I believe that the issue which I raise in Amendment No. 57 is of great importance and germane to the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has been speaking.
Having said that about my amendment, I wish to support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said about the importance, in the discussions which are to take place, of restoring the responsibilities of the Parole Board, because that is the only way in which risk to the public will resume its pre-eminence in the consideration of the amount of time that prisoners should spend in custody and what sort of supervision should take place after they have been released.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: I should like to register my support for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I shall not express my reasons because they have been covered, and in any event there is no question of a Division on this amendment.
I stress that it is very important that the Parole Board should continue to have the power to recall if it is anticipated with good reason that breach of the conditions may occur. Odd behaviour, acting as a danger signal, should give power to act, as occurs now. One wishes to prevent breaches and future offences, not merely wait until they occur. I too support fully what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, that the period of four years needs to be brought down to at least three years, both in this amendment and the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had in mind.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend's amendment seeks to combine for long-term prisoners the current parole arrangements with the earned early release arrangements set out in Part II. I have listened carefully to the debate and in particular I have listened to my noble friend Lord Belstead, whose experience and knowledge of the parole system I hold in great respect.
I understand and share my noble friend's concerns to ensure that any system that we have in place for dealing with the release of prisoners both affords the public proper protection and affords the best opportunity for the prisoner to follow a law-abiding and constructive life on his return to the community. It is for that reason that I made clear in speaking to Clause 7 that, as regards the release arrangements in the Bill, we must see how best to build in the release of the most serious long-term prisoners. I do not believe that the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Belstead would be the best way forward. However, I give my noble friend an assurance that I shall make every effort to see that a way will be found to achieve that.
One very evident anomaly arising from the proposed amendments would be that those prisoners who have committed less serious offences and who have received a sentence of less than four years would have to serve at least five-sixths of their sentence, whereas an offender who had committed a more serious offence and had received a longer sentence could serve as little as three-quarters of it. I do not believe that the public would understand or would even accept that. Prisoners would not understand it or accept it, and we do not believe that it is consistent with the aim of honesty in sentencing.
As I understand the effect of the amendment, long-term prisoners would continue to earn early release. A prisoner serving a four-year sentence who did not receive parole would nevertheless be eligible for release before the end of the sentence if he behaved well. In other words, he would be released at exactly the same point as under the provisions of the Bill.
Therefore, the main effect of the amendments would be to release some prisoners earlier than under the provisions in the Bill. None would be held for longer. And if the prisoner were released early on parole, then
602
all the work that had been undertaken to assess the prisoner's behaviour under the earned early release scheme would be largely redundant.
Those released earlier on parole would of course be released on licence, such that they could be recalled to prison on the recommendation of the Parole Board to serve the remainder of their sentence. But the licence period would be no longer than the 25 per cent. supervision period provided in the Bill. The range of conditions that could be imposed would be the same. The possibility of return to prison is provided for in the Bill if supervision is breached.
The early release arrangements in the Bill improve upon the present system and protect the public. The proposals in the Bill ensure that all prisoners will serve their full sentence unless they behave well; there will be no automatic release, as there is now for short-term prisoners, and I must remind the Committee that that is the majority of prisoners. About 90 per cent. of people who go to prison serve sentences of less than four years.
The proposals in the Bill ensure also that all prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or more will be subject to a period of supervision equal to 25 per cent. of the sentence; that sex offenders will be supervised for at least 50 per cent. of the sentence and up to 10 years; that a range of conditions can be attached to the supervision period of any prisoner, just as they can now be imposed when an offender is released on licence; and risk assessments will continue to be carried out as appropriate as part of the process of sentencing, planning and setting of post-release conditions.
If an offender breaches conditions, he can be returned to prison. In deciding whether to imprison, the court is required to consider the same issue—the protection of the public—that the Parole Board must consider before recommending the recall of a prisoner. There is no other constraint on the court when considering a return to prison. If the court judges that that is inappropriate, it has a range of other options that are not available under the present system which it can take; namely, probation, community service, curfew orders. As I say, they are not presently available. I believe that in the light of the changes we are now contemplating, we should want to build on those advantages and further improve the scheme.
Perhaps I may pick up on one or two points mentioned by Members of the Committee. My noble friend referred to the role of the probation officer. Under the terms of the amendments and the terms set out in the Bill, there is no way in which this will work without the expertise and influence of the probation officer. That simply is not possible. The views of the probation officer, particularly the through-care workers and those working in the Prison Service, will be extremely material in reports which go either to the Parole Board and/or to people carrying out the assessments of the shorter-term prisoners.
All of the examples of breaches mentioned by my noble friend, unlike the interpretation placed on them by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, will be arrestable offences. If the Parole Board or others set conditions about behaviour that are material to the

603
indexed offence—for example, someone who has been involved in child abuse may be hanging around school gates or someone who gets drunk may frequent the pub every night—and there is evidence that that pattern of behaviour is repeated, it will be possible to regard it as an arrestable offence. All breaches of conditions will be considered to be arrestable offences. It will allow flexibility to deal with breaches from the most minor to the most serious throughout the whole period of supervision. The setting of conditions will be a very important part of that process.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, made some important points. First, I give him the absolute assurance that I will take very seriously all that he has said in deciding what to do at the next stage of the Bill in addressing the concerns that have been expressed. The illustration that he gave involved acts of arson. The other day I met a young man who was just 24 and had already served a life sentence. He had been found guilty of a number of arson offences, during one of which people had died. I was shocked to find that he was still aged only 24 and was back in the community. I had a slight intake of breadth when the noble Viscount said that a person who had 18 previous convictions, two for arson, had been put on probation. I am no judge of the appropriate sentence, but I suggest that that raises eyebrows just a little.
Viscount Colville of Culross: The noble Baroness cannot say that. When one is confronted with a person in this position sometimes there is a point in putting him on probation. I do not know what happened in this case, but it was before the 1991 Act. One could try it out to see whether the person would abide by the conditions of the probation order. He is told that if he does not he will be brought back before the court. This man did not abide by the conditions, was brought back before the court and given five years. I and justices sitting with me have done this in order to see whether there is any way out of what would otherwise be an impossible dilemma. If not, the person is sentenced accordingly. The noble Baroness must not raise her eyebrows. With respect, she does not know the way in which one must deal with these matters in practice.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that I am as free to raise my eyebrows at the circumstances of a particular case as any member of the public. I only know what I am told. I concede that I do not know all of the circumstances. However, this person had 18 previous convictions, two of which were for arson. I simply pose to myself the rhetorical question: had probation been tried before? The point that the noble Viscount makes, which I take seriously, is that when the court considers the sentence the assessment of the risk if the person is released back into the community is a factor in the mind of the judge. That is a matter which will weigh heavily with me in the course of the debates and discussions that I will have between now and the next stage of the Bill in order to address the issue of the protection of the public.
604
The noble Viscount went on to describe this offender. There are measures in the Bill, which we will discuss at a later stage, that give the court more flexibility to deal with mentally disordered offenders so that it does not have to chose either prison or hospital. It can impose a hybrid sentence that may be prison with a hospital direction. I believe that that would be a welcome addition to the disposals available to the court.
We want to retain the principle that there should not be automatic release or staged early release but that before someone is released into the community the question of whether it is safe to release him is addressed. My noble friend referred to subsection (3) and long-term prisoners. This was a matter discussed only in passing because we had insufficient time to develop it in earlier discussions. If one is referring to sentencing and the release arrangements for long-term prisoners, clearly one must take a view as to what is a short-term and what is a long-term prisoner. I am entirely seized of that point and I want to include it as part of the package of proposals to be brought back to Committee. It would involve taking a view as to what the sentence should be now and what the comparable sentence would be under the new arrangements.
The noble Viscount also referred to freedom to give longer sentences in certain circumstances. Nothing in this Bill will preclude judges from doing that. I see Clause 22 as being interpreted in the following way. If a judge felt that had he been sentencing under today's proposals he would have given a longer sentence, that would be the starting point for determining the two-thirds of the longer sentence. We do not want to preclude that. The effect of Clause 22 would be very much a continuum not only of normal sentencing but longer than normal sentencing.
I return to a question posed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He referred to waiting for a crime to be committed. In setting out the supervision arrangements we specifically do not intend that someone must commit a crime before he can be dealt with. We intend that breaches can relate to any of the conditions laid down before a person is released. Therefore, it may be a matter of displaying the kind of behaviour that leads to crime. Perhaps someone takes up drinking again or begins to demonstrate threatening behaviour towards a partner similar to that which was involved in his previous crime.
Lord Ackner: It was not a question of waiting for someone to commit a crime but of a breach of the conditions. The point that I sought to make was that a situation might occur well before a breach of the conditions in which the person behaved in a worrying way without breaking the conditions and the psychiatrist, or even the probation officer, said, "This augurs ill. If I do not do something soon there will be a breach of conditions".
Baroness Blatch: I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord has just made. On many occasions in discussions with probation officers, for whom I am responsible, they have spoken of patterns of

605
behaviour that give rise to concerns about the kinds of crimes that they may lead to if they remain unchecked. We see that as being related precisely to a condition. It is easy to describe a condition where a breach would be committed if that happened.
Recently I came across a case involving a particularly violent offence against a partner. A different partner went to the police to describe the kind of behaviour that the individual was displaying 'which made her very nervous. When the police cross-referenced with the probation officer, the probation officer immediately realised that this was just the kind of behaviour that had preceded the indexed offence. A return to custody was then initiated through the Parole Board. All of that would be possible under the supervision arrangements in the Bill.
I remind the noble and learned Lord that even under the present arrangements, when one comes to the at-risk period, which is still within the sentence period, it is a very different matter. An offence must be committed. One wants to get away from the necessity for an offence to be committed before people can be dealt with. Pervading the whole of the supervision period should be the belief that behaviour that gives rise to concern must he dealt with by making sure that the conditions are properly spelt out.
In the light of what has been said and my assurance that I will think carefully about these matters, in particular the whole question of safe release into the community, I hope that my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Before the noble Baroness sits down, 1 am wholly in favour of her proposal to discuss this matter with the noble Lords, Lord Belstead, Lord Carlisle and Lord McIntosh. Will she also discuss it with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice on behalf of the judiciary? This is completely new and it must be workable by the judges. Before the Bill and the provision go to Report stage in an amended form, it must be discussed with the judiciary to see whether they can handle it. Can the noble Baroness give an assurance as to that?
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: If I may say so, it is not nearly new. The tension between what we have at the moment and the proposals in the Bill is that before long-term prisoners are released into the community they are released on the basis of a risk assessment into the community with conditions. I am simply looking for ways of taking that form of release into the community at the point when they are eligible for release into the community and working it into—not grafting it on—the system we have at the moment. There is nothing new. The way it is envisaged that the parole board will do its work is exactly the same as it is now, taking its information from the sources it takes its information from now: probation officers, psychiatrists, medical people, the Prison Service and anybody who has any involvement with the prisoner, using exactly that same system. I want to consider doing that. It is nothing new;
606
it is simply an adaptation of the release arrangements for the longer-term prisoners as opposed to the shorter-term prisoners.
Lord Shepherd: The noble Viscount made a plea. Surely the noble Baroness would not resist the wish of this Committee that she should consult with the Lord Chief Justice.
Baroness Blatch: I have given assurances throughout the whole of this day that I will discuss this with all the relevant people, including the Lord Chief Justice. The point I was taking at issue was that this is new; it is not new. It is a question of taking the best of the present system and making sure that it does not compromise the intentions of the Home Secretary that there should not be automatic release on the basis of nothing other than it being automatic, and that certainly there should not be an earlier release contemplated other than at the maximum point at which one could be released under the provisions of this Bill.
Lord Belstead: I shall speak briefly because I know that the Committee wishes to proceed. There were three reasons I suggested for this group of amendments. The first lies at the heart of any debate on law and order. Are prisoners, once they are released, going to return to crime or are they not? If I have learnt anything in the last four years working with the Parole Board it is that the chairman requires a little humility in these matters. Nonetheless, the available evidence shows that prisoners on parole are reconvicted at much lower rates than non-parolees, and this is significant protection for the public. However, parole is decided by assessing the risk of earlier release of an individual prisoner into the community and not by a test of good behaviour in prison, as the Bill is worded at the present time.
The second reason for the amendment was that it would be a practical way of enabling, at a parole review, the board to decide what special conditions should be placed on the prisoner's period of supervision. Surely, it is going to be quite considerable at 25 per cent. of the sentence. It still remains totally unclear to me how, for instance, hard-pressed prison officers can possibly decide whether a prisoner needs psychiatric treatment on release or whether a special and probably crucial victim protection condition should be imposed. But these can be life and death decisions which, under the amendment, can be decided professionally and independently at that particular point of sentence.
My understanding of the reply of my noble friend Lady Blatch is that the Government recognise that those two reasons for the amendment are based—these are my own words—on Protecting the Public, using the exact title of the White Paper which preceded the Bill, and that she accepts the case put for those two points and intends to proceed as she described in her most valuable assurance; namely, seeing how we can bring again within the scope of the Bill the parole procedure for long-term prisoners.
Having heard the speeches in support of this amendment from those with very much more expertise than I shall ever have, indeed from noble and learned

607
Lords as well as other of your Lordships, and particularly the speech of my predecessor as chairman of the Parole Board, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, it is enormously important that we have such an assurance from my noble friend Lady Blatch.
The one point on which my noble friend has not been able to meet the amendment concerns recalls. With the greatest respect to this Government, I believe that the problem is of their own making. The difficulty about the recall situation is that if you push the release date up into the region of 80 per cent., then you are going to find that the period under supervision is being spent entirely after the sentence has been served by the prisoner. That is why the Government do not like the way in which Amendment No. 57 of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is drafted. This is a real impasse. It is going to be very difficult despite what has been said by, for instance, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, of the enormous importance of trying to see that recalls work so that one recalls somebody before and not after he has committed another offence. It is going to be very difficult to see if that can be achieved. I am by no means sure that it can be done. All I can say this afternoon is that I will continue to keep this in view. I will not harry my noble friend because I owe some thanks to her for showing that even with so much legislation on her shoulders, she is still capable of listening sympathetically. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): Before calling Amendment No. 37, I should inform the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to then I cannot call Amendment No. 38.
Clause 10 [Award of early release days for good behaviour]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 6, line 19, leave out ("for a term of more than two months").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is grouped with other amendments. I have addressed the Committee earlier today on the difference between the present system, which depends upon a fixed date of release followed by supervision and conditions, and the proposals that exist in the Bill. However, I make no apologies for returning to this particular topic because, to my mind, it is vital.
My amendments seek to introduce into the framework of the Bill an entitlement to earlier release as opposed to a discretion. The amendments propose that we should have a fixed date subject to additional days for misdemeanours which are proved through a proper procedure. The discretion to which I refer is in the hands of the corporal, the warder on the landing. The Minister in her reply to the Question, That Clause 7 shall stand part, likened the prison warder to the teacher dealing with a pupil or the nurse dealing with a patient, and
608
pointed out that the teacher and the nurse are concerned with constant monitoring of his or her charges. That seems to me to be not a very good analogy.
The prison warder is not trained in the same way to make assessments of this kind. He is not a person who has any specific expertise or calling to judge his fellow men. He is there simply to keep people contained and locked up. One can envisage that some form of training would be necessary for him to make the kind of assessment that nurses or teachers may make of the charges under their control. Therefore, if the prescribed person who, as I have already indicated to the committee, is simply defined as the person prescribed in prison rules, and if the prescribed person is either the prison warder or a person advised by the prison warder, how is he to exercise that discretion? What is the difference between a prisoner behaving well and thereby getting early release days awarded to him for reaching or exceeding the prescribed standard of behaviour, and a person who is so misbehaving as to be on a charge in front of the governor? What is the limbo land where a prison warder judges that the prisoner has not reached the prescribed standard of behaviour? What does that mean? Does it mean that he has not made his bed, has not cleaned his shoes, has been rude to the person who has cooked his meals and has not washed up? If so, it sounds like my own home life.
What is the prescribed standard of behaviour which prisoners must achieve in order to obtain early release? If they fall below the prescribed standard and do not get a tick on the assessment, what happens then? Are they told about it? Does someone come along and say, "You have to make your bed every morning, look smarter and dress better"? What kind of regime is envisaged that a prison warden must look at and judge? What temperatures does he have to take? What standards are required? I am trying to point out that between failing to meet a minimum standard and misbehaving there is a completely vague area. It is left to a warder or someone of that level to try to determine, and one can see the problems which will be created.
The Minister referred to the issues that I set out in an earlier address as a set of horrors which will not come about. They are not horrors that I have invented. They were horrors, to use her word, which were set out by the General Secretary of the Prison Governors' Association in his article in the Guardian on 11th February. I want the Minister to address the problems that I earlier outlined and to tell us what the Government intend to do about 60,000 assessments every two months. Where will the records be stored? If the assessments are not recorded, there will be no way of checking that they have been made, what kind of progress has been made and so forth.
How will they deal with the intimidation which might occur on the landing? How will they deal with favouritism, racism and all the problems outlined by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in his forceful speech on Second Reading? Are there to be appeals against assessments or is the matter to be left simply in the hands of the person prescribed without recourse to higher authority? In that case, a person may fall into the limbo-land below the prescribed minimum

609
standard of behaviour and have no redress. He will simply be marked down and be moved off the register and, on the Minister's own analogy, will not be able to appeal to the headmaster to put the record straight on his behalf.
It is not enough for the Minister to say, "Well, we already have a system in operation whereby prisoners are assessed for the purposes of giving them privileges". There is all the difference in the world between giving a privilege to a prisoner to work in a certain capacity in a certain part of the prison or a specific privilege of free time within the prison and denying to him his freedom to go out into the world. One cannot equate those two types of assessment and say, "If we can give the prisoner privileges we can also leave it in the hands of the prescribed person to deny him his liberty".
Finally, if there is no fixed date for release towards which a person can work in order to make plans for the future—I will not accept the automatic date of release—what about the supervision plans that are to be made for him, his ability to apply for jobs and the ability of his family to look forward to him returning to be a breadwinner and to play a useful part in society? If the date is not fixed but is variable at the whim of the prescribed person—I say that the Bill permits the prescribed person to make whimsical decisions—the planning for release is that much more difficult for the person, who is suffering enough by being deprived of his liberty during his period of incarceration.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I have the problem of sentencing people from time to time. Obviously, people who commit a crime deserve to be punished, but I repeat that the best protection for the public is that those people should come out of prison and lead a decent and honest life. All our planning for their release should be directed to that end. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. He outlined all the problems which Clause 10 raises and which have not been answered. How will the new system of early release work in practice? I understand that the prescribed person is to be the prison officer on the landing. How is he to decide whether an individual has attained the prescribed minimum standard? What is the prescribed minimum standard? Is it a standard that is laid down? How can the prison warder decide whether he can have regard to the extent to which the prisoner's behaviour during the period has exceeded that standard? What does that mean? I understand from the Minister that it means that the prisoner must have shown active co-operation. However, if you are in an overcrowded local prison and banged up in your cell for 23 hours a day, how in practice, even if your heart is entirely in the right place, do you show co-operation which exceeds the minimum standard that is expected? What does it mean?
Surely what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said is right. Let us imagine that in the heat of the summer in
610
a fraught, overcrowded prison during the last two months of a sentence one prisoner is granted 12 days' early release in order to attend a particular course but another is granted only six days because it is said he has reached only the minimum standard. I cannot fail to see anything other than tension caused between the prisoners, leading to problems within the prisons. I understand that that is exactly what prison governors have warned the Government about.
I notice that there is to be a right of appeal to another prescribed person. Who is that person to be? Is it to be the governor? How much resource time is to be used? One cannot ignore the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. For example, if there are 60,000 people in prison, a certain number of them will be serving under two months so they can be ignored. However, you must take into account those on remand because that remand may count towards the period of imprisonment eventually decided upon. Let us say that there are only 40,000 of the 60,000 prisoners who require assessment at the two-month level. How long is assumed for the purpose of working out the resource implications? What is the length of time considered necessary to make an assessment on an individual prisoner? There must be some time involved. If you have 40,000 prisoners being assessed every two months, surely there must be very substantial resource implications.
I do not want to repeat what I said earlier, but perhaps I may remind my noble friend the Minister that this has been tried before. I know that it is a long time ago but when remission or early release first came in, it was based on a marks system. Prisoners were awarded marks for good behaviour. In the earlier part of this century, which perhaps only the noble Earl, Lord Longford, will remember, that system was abandoned because it was found to be inoperable. The authorities moved instead not to automatic release as my noble friend always says but to a situation where, provided he behaved properly, a prisoner was given a target date on which to aim for release. If he failed to behave properly, days were added to that target and he failed to come out on that date.
As I said, the marks system was soon abandoned and we moved to a system where release was accepted, unless the person was involved in behaviour which was not good. I do not see why it is said to be less of an incentive to say to someone, "You will not come out on such a day unless you behave yourself", than it is to say, "You will come out on such a day if you behave yourself". That seems to me to be the difference, in some ways. With the greatest respect to my noble friend the Minister, I must admit that I am not persuaded as to how in practice the new system will work without putting great pressure on the Prison Officers' Association and increasing the tensions in prison.
Lord Burnham: I may seem very stupid but, as I read it, Amendment No. 37 would make no difference to someone who is serving a sentence of more than two months or someone who is serving a sentence of less than two months. I listened with great care to the noble

611
Lord and my noble friend and I have heard no word addressing the specific amendment under discussion. Are we perhaps talking to some other amendment?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I should point out that I was talking to the other amendments that are grouped with Amendment No. 37. I share my noble friend's views on Amendment No. 37.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may put the noble Lords, Lord Carlisle and Lord Thomas, out of their misery. They were speculating about what kind of behaviour would be classified as reaching the minimum standard or exceeding the minimum standard. Well, Notes on Clauses gives some examples. For the sake of brevity, I shall give examples only of behaviour which might exceed the prescribed minimum standards. Subsection (3) of the notes on Clause 10 refers to,
"participating constructively in sentence planning (if available); effort and productivity in workshops"—
I do not know what proportion of prisoners are in workshops but there must be a substantial number who are not. Therefore, the words "if available" or "if relevant" ought to be added,
"(where appropriate and available) participating constructively in courses on addressing offending behaviour or in educational or vocational training courses".
Finally, we have,
"promoting positive relationships between staff and prisoners".
The examples given by the Government in their Notes on Clauses reinforce the point that noble Lords have made. It is virtually impossible to imagine how one could have consistent, fair, acceptable and accepted standards which could be applied across the range of types of prison and prisoner. Fears expressed by Members of the Committee about the opportunity—indeed, the likelihood—of disruption and disaffection must be very much in the forefront of our minds.
I support what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said about a target release date. I do not know how many Members of the Committee underwent peacetime conscription—that is, peacetime national service—but, when I was a gunner in the Royal Artillery as a conscript, the only thing that kept me going was being able to say:

"Only 121 days to do,

That's a lot less than you,

Get some more in!"

It is terribly important that people should have that protection, that target; and, indeed, that they should know that their behaviour will contribute to whether or not that target is reached. A target date is of enormous psychological importance.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: Perhaps I may express my concern regarding the last point made by then noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the uncertainty over the ever-changing release dates. How are probation officers and prisoner resettlement organisations expected to make sensible plans for released prisoners as regards hostel places, local authority housing, housing
612
association accommodation, job training schemes, and so on, if they cannot tell when the prisoner will be released until such release is imminent? Those difficulties would be avoided or greatly reduced if prisoners were eligible for a fixed amount of early release, unless of course they lost it through the disciplinary system following misbehaviour in prison. That is a very important point.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Can the Committee be assured that the minimum prescribed standards in a prison are that you comply with the prison rules and that the test of whether or not you have done so is the fact that you have not appeared before the governor on report?
The Earl of Balfour: I should like to raise one further question about the word "prescribed". Clause 23 says that "prescribed",
"means prescribed by prison rules".
Having read that, I looked up the prison rules within Section 47 of the Prison Act 1942, but I could not find the word "prescribed" anywhere. However, it is possible that I have not read the most recent edition of that section which is mentioned in Clause 23.
Earl Russell: I am sorry to prolong the discussion but I am afraid that we have not exhausted the evils of the proposals contained in the Bill. On Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, said that he believed that the proposals would prove incapable of fair operation and that they would give rise to a flood of appeals. There are many good reasons why that is so. It is a basic principle of English law that any exercise of public authority is subject to the rules of natural justice. That has been the case for a very long time.
Under the present procedure there is a date for release unless a disciplinary offence is committed which justifies its postponement. In dealing with any such offence, there is an orderly procedure. The procedure is laid down, the evidence is presented, the prisoner is given an opportunity to challenge it, reasons are given for the governor's decision and a record of the proceedings is made. That is a fairly precise outline of the basic minimum requirements of natural justice. It will be a great deal harder under the new and more discretionary system.
Perhaps I may take the Minister's analogy of a teacher. The effect of what is happening is very much as if we were to move from a formal examination to a system of continuous assessment. In a system of continuous assessment, the decisions which affect the ultimate class are taken at a very much lower level and on a very much more daily basis. Therefore, the range of situations in which an abuse of power may take place is very much wider. It is sadly true that charges of sexual harassment are very much more part of daily existence in an American University than is the case in a British one. I do not believe that that is because Americans are more libidinous than the British. I believe

613
that it is because the power to affect the final grade is more constantly available to an individual professor, or even an individual teaching assistant at quite a low level.
It is this devolution down the scale of the power which worries David Roddan of the Prison Governors Association. He is surely right that the work will have to be pushed down the line, possibly to the level of wing staff. Therefore there will be a big risk of infringing one of the basic requirements of natural justice; namely, that a person should not be judge and party in his own cause.
Let us suppose it is alleged that a person has forfeited some of his early release by being offensive to his warder. The warder, in the end, may be the judge of this matter. If that is not the case, I should be extremely interested to hear the reasons why that is not so because those could be extremely helpful to the Committee. If there are to be these detailed decisions made on daily behaviour, there is surely a risk of them being made by people who are directly affected by the prisoner's conduct. It is not only a flood of appeals that we shall get; it is a flood of judicial reviews as well.
It is my understanding that the Government do not like the growth of judicial review. I can see why; I would not if I were them. But it seems to be the effect of legislation which frees public authority from statutory control that the only remaining controls are the principles of natural justice. That must lead to a growth of judicial review. In my opinion the Government frequently complain of that of which they are themselves the author.
There is also, of course, a problem of favouritism. For me to quote or refer to Sir Ivan Lawrence might be thought to be a case of the devil quoting scripture. But fortunately the rules of order restrain me from quoting him in detail. However, I hope I may be allowed one or two words. He said in another place that there was a real risk of cases in which relations between a prisoner and a warder became over-friendly. The risk of being judge and party in one's own cause is surely obvious.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Can the Minister help on one practical matter arising out of the detailed questions that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked? Let us consider the situation of a man who is on remand, who behaves to an acceptable standard—rather better than the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in his domestic circumstances—and who then serves a sentence of six months. Then let us consider a man who serves a prison sentence of 12 months. Is the good behaviour of the man who has behaved well on remand for six months taken into account as regards the overall period that he will serve? If it is not, it seems to me that he will be treated worse than the man who has served no remand time at all. How is that to be adjusted? Is the sentencing judge intended to aim off, as it were, and reduce the overall sentence?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I wish to say a few words on this matter. When I had some responsibility for prisons at the Home Office I had the opportunity to visit the state prisons in the State of Georgia at a time
614
when Mr. Carter was still governor of the state, shortly before he became President. I had the opportunity of looking at their system of creating an alternative to remission by earning what was described as "good time". On my return I discussed that and other matters with officials in the prison department. Their view was that it would be quite impossible to administer a system of this sort, yet this is precisely what we are discussing today, except that the prison population was then 40,000, whereas now it is 60,000 and still rising.
That is the first problem. I refer to the amount of documentation that will be required in terms of a prison officer having to establish whether an inmate has qualified for being treated in a particular fashion. As my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, has pointed out, there will have to be a record. Presumably that will have to be referred to the appellate authority, whoever that may be. Then, inevitably, there will be a flood of judicial review applications. That is quite inevitable. We should recognise that from the outset.
Last Thursday we had a brief exchange with the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, during which I believe she referred to tensions in the prison system. There are plenty of tensions but they will be as nothing compared with the tensions which will exist in the prison system if this system is introduced. One can see only too clearly what will happen. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will not be a Minister when the problem arises.
However, some unfortunate Home Secretary and junior Minister in the future will be faced with the prospect of serious disturbances in prisons because of the amount of ill will and suspicion that has been engendered as a result of the introduction of this system. Then, no doubt, a judge will be approached and asked whether he will be good enough to investigate the situation in some form of judicial inquiry, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, after the disturbances at Strangeways. We should have no illusions at all about what we are discussing today. We are discussing quite deliberately creating a system which will almost certainly lead to serious new difficulties in our prisons, with the possibility of creating serious disturbances.
Baroness Blatch: These amendments seek to remove the requirement that prisoners should earn early release and to substitute automatic awards. All prisoners, whatever their length of sentence, would be entitled to automatic early release at the maximum rate which can be earned under the Bill for good behaviour; that is, 12 days for every two months served.
We have already discussed the principle of automatic release in considering the amendments moved earlier today by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The abolition of automatic release before the end of the term of imprisonment that is imposed by the sentencing court is a key objective of the honesty in sentencing proposals. The proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, to reintroduce automatic release would seriously weaken the provisions in the Bill and would undermine that key objective.

615
The present automatic early release provisions provide no incentive for prisoners to behave well; they merely discourage prisoners from behaving so badly that they are awarded additional days for disciplinary offences. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, will know, with his knowledge of the prison service, that the behaviour has to be pretty serious before days are added to prison sentences. As I say, the level of behaviour that leads to additional days has to be serious. Automatic early release is neither understood, nor supported by the public. That is why we have these proposals in the Bill which provide for prisoners to earn early release. That is why we want the amendments rejected and the government proposals supported.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has read the Bill carefully. However, I refer him to Clause 10 (5)(b) where he will find a provision for appeals. I think he said there was no way of appealing. However, there will be a system for appeals. If we were to have no measurement whatsoever for automatic release, why not simply shorten a sentence? It seems to me absurd to have a period of a sentence that will not be served which is not related to behaviour or to anything. To shorten a sentence and to allow the supervision period to start earlier is more honest in terms of what the noble Lord seeks.
The way that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and others have described the Prison Service is decidedly uncomplimentary to that service. They have implied that those in the service are incapable of distinguishing good behaviour from bad behaviour and that they are incapable of being objective but are subjective. They have implied that people could become "toadies" and staff could get too friendly with prisoners. At the moment there is a system in operation in prisons which is working well and which involves earning privileges. The staff have to make judgments of their prisoners to decide whether the prisoners will receive the privileges or whether they will lose those privileges.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle have overestimated the numbers of assessments. We have worked on the basis of an average of about 50 assessments per establishment per week. I apologise for giving an average figure. As someone who was a corporal about 42 years ago, I consider it rather a class ridden statement for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to refer to the warder on the landing as a corporal, speaking from his lofty officer class, as it were. I do not know who would comprise the officer class—perhaps the prisoner governor. I find it surprising in today's world to refer to the warder on the landing as the "corporal". However, I now know my place. Prison officers will receive training. They receive training now. They will be introduced to the assessment systems for early release. They will have clear criteria for assessments. Guidelines and training for staff will be available.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said how difficult it is to tell good behaviour from bad behaviour. He gave some examples, rather disparagingly. Let me give examples of good behaviour:
616
people who obey instructions; those who have an absence of violent or threatening behaviour; people who are not bullies; people who do not intimidate others; those who are not aggressive or do not use offensive language; people who co-operate with staff in the performance of their duties; people who do not interfere with others' property (which is probably a euphemism for stealing); people who comply with mandatory drug-testing provisions; and people who do not use drugs or alcohol. The converse of those examples would represent poor behaviour. With training most prison officers would know the difference between aggressively bad behaviour and good behaviour. They would also know the difference when behaviour is passively good—when the situation is ticking over and the person is neither good nor bad but simply wants to while away the time.
I return to the issue of appeals. The person to whom appeals can be taken against decisions on early release will be prescribed in prison rules. The word "prescribed" will not be in the prison rules. The system and the person to whom the appeal will be made will be prescribed in the prison rules. An internal appellate procedure is envisaged. There will be consultation on that. There is no question of appealing to the same person who made the determination in the first place. We envisage two levels of appeal: one with the governing governor and one with the Prison Service headquarters; and prisoners will also be free, as at present, to refer cases to the prison ombudsman. The Inspector of Prisons is keeping a fairly impressive downward pressure on prisons to ensure that systems in place work well and that they are working in the interests of the welfare of the prisoner.
As regards the idea that everyone will rush off to a tribunal, first, no one will act in isolation. The "corporal"—as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would have him—on the cells would not be the judge and the jury. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to the one person in isolation acting as judge and jury. That would not be the case. The prison officer looking after the prisoners on the cells, the educators in the education block, the trainers in the training block, those in workshops and the supervisors of gangs working on external projects will all have an input, as indeed they do now; they produce behavioural reports. The probation officer and the voluntary sector working with prisoners in prison are all part of the present system of managing prisoners in prison.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to no fixed release date. The prisoner will know exactly when he will be released—after serving five-sixths of the sentence if he behaves well. If he does not behave well, he knows that he will serve the whole of the sentence. If the prisoner wishes to be released earlier, that will provide the best possible incentive to behave well.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that prisoners need to know the date so that they can prepare for their release. I agree with that. The noble Lord is quite right. The noble Lord's arrangements create a shorter sentence. But prisoners will know their release date.

617
There is no difference between us. Knowing their release date is very much part of the proposals that we put before the Committee.
My noble friend Lord Carlisle claimed that early release will tear prisons apart. I do not know how he comes to that conclusion. As I have said time and again, prisons already have good experience of assessing prisoners and privileges. The scheme now in place has not torn prisons apart. It has been welcomed by many of the staff and accepted by the prisoners. One of the great spin-offs is that the level of behaviour is being modified as a result.
I say again that I find it deeply depressing that no one is giving the Prison Service the credit for doing the job objectively and well. It performs its assessment task of prison behaviour under the earned privileges scheme well. 1 pay tribute to that.
Lord Ackner: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell the Committee whether the prison governors were consulted about the wisdom of the proposals? If they were, what were their views?
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Yes. I think that the noble and learned Lord knows that they were consulted. The White Paper went to all interested parties. It is no secret that they were concerned about the operation of this proposal. I have already stated in responding to the amendments that we shall consult with them on the details and the implementation of the scheme and how it will work. That will be set out in prison rules, upon which they will also be consulted when those rules are in draft.
Lord Ackner: Will the Minister tell us the substance of their concern? What were the reasons which, according to them, gave rise to their concern?
Baroness Blatch: If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, we always treat responses to consultation as confidential to us. It will be a matter for the prison officers. If I find that I can talk to the noble and learned Lord about it, I shall certainly do so. But it is no secret that prison officers have expressed concern. Indeed, there are noble Lords in this Committee who know that they have expressed concerns. If I can be more explicit with the noble and learned Lord, I shall. However, he has to understand that it was a response to consultation and we do not make public those responses unless the person who has responded to us allows us to do so.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: On that basis, will the noble Baroness undertake to ask the Prison Governors' Association whether it would agree that a copy of its representations be placed in the Library of the House? If she will give that undertaking, it will reassure many of us.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is well able to do that himself. Perhaps I may say to him that he does not have to come through a third person in order to receive
618
the consultation response made by the Prison Governors' Association. If the noble Lord wants it, I suggest that he asks the association direct.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Baroness must not try to evade answering simple, clear, straightforward questions. She made a great issue of saying that the responses are confidential unless the person making the representation to the Home Office agrees to make the position public. The noble Baroness is in the position of having to justify this Bill. It is not for us to do so. The onus of proof is upon her to demonstrate the rightness of the Government's position. In relation to the answer she gave to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, we merely ask that, with the major resources available to her within a great department of state, she asks the prison governors whether they will agree that their representation to the Home Secretary be placed in the Library of this House.
Baroness Blatch: These provisions will not come in for some time. I have made it absolutely clear to the whole House, and to the Committee, that the details of a scheme will be set out in prison rules. In draft form, there will be consultation about the scheme. We shall certainly do that at that time. We are not in a position to do so now. If the noble Lord wants the answer quickly, it will take a postcard and a 26p stamp simply to ask those who responded to the consultation whether they would like to make their response available.
The Home Office does not intend to be a third party for the myriad of people who can come to us. The noble Lord is well able to request that the response to the Home Office be made public.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: At a time when the Minister proposes a major change to the existing situation, the onus is upon her to establish the need for that change. I adopt what the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said earlier: if it is working, do not change it. Since 1991 when the Criminal Justice Act was introduced by the noble Baroness's own Government, we have avoided, thank God, serious rioting in the prisons of this country. We have done so for a number of reasons, but largely because the recommendations of the Carlisle Committee were accepted and implemented, and have been shown to work. If they are to be changed and a new and radical system is to be put in place, there is a serious obligation on this Government, before they finally depart, not to leave problems behind for a future government to have to resolve in the way described.
I am intrigued by two pictures that arise from the Minister's response. One is of her as a corporal standing in front of her barrack block telling the squaddies that their free time was to be taken up by punishments that she had invented for them and they were not to be allowed out into the town that night or on any night for a week. I wonder how long she would have retained her authority had she acted in that way. It is a picture that I leave with great regret. The second picture I have in

619
mind is of the mountains of paper—I know that the noble Baroness wishes to give us more of her experiences.
Baroness Blatch: If I may put the noble Lord out of his misery, it happened quite commonly that as a punishment we were not allowed out into the town. We just took it like boys and girls at the time.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The point is, was it the noble Baroness the Minister, foreseeing her future, who told those in her squad that they could not go out on the town; or was it some higher authority? That is the picture that I have in my mind.
The second picture is of the mountains of paper that would be engendered by all the agencies within the prison to whom she referred. It is not simply to be the warder on the landing; it is to be the head of the various working stations throughout the prison, presumably the cookhouse or wherever a person has the opportunity of working. All those reports are to come in and be sifted, and presumably discussed, and decisions are to be made by the prescribed person in 60,000 cases every two months, with appeals to follow.
I am not satisfied with the replies that the Minister gave. Although I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, we shall return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 38:
Page 6, line 19, leave out ("two months") and insert ("one month").
The noble Lord said: This amendment was intended to probe very much the same areas that have been probed at quite considerable length already. I do not seek to move it.
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("the prescribed person") and insert ("a governor grade of the Prison Service").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 42.
In each of these amendments "the prescribed person" is the person who may award a prisoner up to 12 days of early release, first in the initial assessment period for attaining the prescribed minimum standard of behaviour, and then in each two-month subsequent assessment period when the person can get six days' early release for "attaining" and six days for "exceeding" the prescribed minimum standard. The effect of these two amendments is to spell out that the prescribed person is to be a governor grade of the Prison Service.
Perhaps I may say just one word of explanation. At the moment, the report which is found in a parole dossier called "The Prison Assessment for the Parole Board"—which consists of 33 boxes each giving room for a brief report—is generally compiled by the
620
prisoner's personal officer and is countersigned by a governor. In an instruction to governors sent out on 16th November last year, governors countersigning were required to monitor the standards of reporting in the Prison Assessment for the Parole Board.
The "PPA" is a vital document for parole assessment purposes; but it is not a decision giving document. It is read by a panel of the Parole Board which either decides on early release or, in cases of seven years and over, recommends to the Home Secretary how he shall decide on release.
But Clause 10 of the Bill is concerned with decision-making. In these two amendments we are talking about the person who will decide whether a prisoner is to be awarded early release days and it is not unreasonable to expect that this decision, taken early on, may set the course of a prisoner's hopes for remission for some time to come. It is also crucial in terms of public confidence that the assessment of behaviour is accurate and fair. It therefore seems very important that a governor grade has a responsibility in the decision-making process in Clause 10 for the award of early release days. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It is quite likely that, in practice, it will be a governor grade who awards early release. But there may well be other people in the prison whom it is appropriate, and on occasion even necessary, to prescribe as being empowered to award early release days.
I am not talking here about the prison officer on the wing who is in regular day-to-day contact with the prisoner. This officer will not be taking the final decision on early release. I am talking about one of the senior members of staff in an establishment, whose job it might be to consider a number of assessments of a prisoner's behaviour over an assessment period and to come to a reasoned judgment as to how many early release days that behaviour has earned. We have the excellent example of the earned privileges scheme already operating in prisons which demonstrates that an assessment procedure can work successfully. That must be an encouraging precedent.
We must not forget the consequences to a prisoner of delay in awarding earned early release, which has a direct effect on his or her release date. There must be adequate machinery in place to provide for staff to be available to make these awards. If, for example, all governor grades were fully occupied in dealing with a protracted operational emergency it could be quite proper for another senior designated member of staff in the establishment to award early release.
The Bill leaves this possibility open, and intentionally so. Before drafting the prison rules which will set out exactly who the prescribed person is to be, there will he full consultation with operational staff to decide whom it is sensible to include. Before that point, we would not want to rule out the possibility of senior members of staff in an establishment who are not of governor grade awarding early release. There are people in the Prison Service who are acting governors at any given time and, for

621
example, there would be the flexibility of being able to use those people. I should add that prison rules which will prescribe this person will be laid before this House and another place before coming into operation.
I take entirely the point that my noble friend makes. It is intended that the decision should be taken by very senior staff indeed. However, we want just an amount of flexibility so that emergencies can be coped with; and/or, as I say, an acting governor grade could, if appropriate, be used.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before my noble friend sits down, I apologise to her, but might I ask a question? She was good enough, in answer to an earlier point, to answer the question I raised about the number of likely assessments, which she said she thought I had grossly exaggerated. She gave a figure which I am afraid I missed. Is it possible to be told what that figure was?
Baroness Blatch: If one assumes everybody—I have to qualify that with a caveat about completing the work on re-examining longer-term prisoners; there are also those who are on two-month sentences and below who I believe represent about a quarter of the intake and movements in and out of prison in the course of a year. We think that about 26,000 assessments would be required per month. That would average out at about 50 per establishment.
Lord Belstead: It is my intention to withdraw the amendment. I merely say that what arises from the Minister's reply is the need for validation by a governor grade of the different steps that will be taken in seeing that assessments are made in a fair and equitable manner. I very much hope that that point will be taken into account so far as the rules are concerned.
I do apologise; I do not hear as well as I used to and this is an important point. Could the Minister repeat the figure she gave? How many cases are we talking about that will go through the whole prison system of England and Wales over a two-month period for assessment for behaviour?
Baroness Blatch: Again, repeating the caveat, in the absence of, or in advance of, making any changes to the schemes to which we referred earlier today as a result of my remarks on Clause 7, and also remembering that those sentences of two months or less are not included in the scheme, we reckon about 26,000 for each month. That represents about 50 assessments per month as an average for each institution across the whole prison estate.
Lord Belstead: Am I being very dim? I simply do not understand what the Minister is saying. How can 26,000 give rise to a figure of 50?
Baroness Blatch: Fifty assessments per prison institution, but 26,000 per month across the whole estate.
Lord Belstead: So is there some strange difference between a month and two months? The assessments are to be made every two months. I do apologise—I am being
622
difficult, I know, but I genuinely want to know. How many assessments are to be made at every two-months' stopping-off point?
Baroness Blatch: Assessments will have to be made every month for some prisoners. At the end of every calendar month it will be necessary to do the assessment for those for whom that will be the end of a two-month period. At the end of each month there will be an assessment. I have therefore worked on the basis of how many assessments will need to be undertaken each month by the prison establishment.
Lord Belstead: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch: I rise to make a correction. My noble friend was right to look slightly confused about the figures I gave him earlier. The 26,000 is absolutely right: that is the figure that I assumed for the purpose of answering my noble friend's question. The 50 per prison establishment was a weekly figure.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill
7.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): 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.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I should like to record the great courtesy the Minister has shown in sending me on 11th February a very full reply to the questions which I asked on an earlier occasion. I have shown that reply to the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham. We should both like to ponder the terms of it rather than take up the time of your Lordships this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997
7.32 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 will introduce provisions broadly in line with those already in force in Great Britain by the enactment of the Race Relations Act 1976. It has been supported in another place.
I believe that it will be helpful to the House if I comment briefly on the order and then say a few words about the detailed provisions. The main purpose of the order is to render unlawful direct and indirect discrimination on the grounds of race. It offers aggrieved individuals full and proper redress through the normal process of civil law. The order also establishes the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government are committed to the elimination of all forms of discrimination. In Great Britain legislation exists which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of gender and race. In Northern Ireland, the sex discrimination legislation replicates that of Great Britain. Because of the unique circumstances pertaining, Northern Ireland also has very stringent legislation which outlaws discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion.
Northern Ireland does not have race relations legislation. In this matter its citizens are not afforded the same protection in law as those of the rest of the United Kingdom. Racial groups account for less than 1 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland. In the past it was felt that any deprivation suffered by such groups was insufficiently different from that suffered by the indigenous population to warrant specific legislation. Existing social and criminal legislation, together with various administrative policies, was thought to be adequate to address such problems.
Great Britain, however, has obligations not only to its own citizens but internationally through its ratification of the UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights recommended that race relations legislation should be introduced in Northern Ireland as a matter of urgency.
The Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order was drafted, following a lengthy period of consultation, to replicate the Great Britain race relations legislation. It is similar to the Great Britain legislation in almost all respects. It establishes a Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland which will help to enforce the legislation and promote equality of opportunity and good relations between people of different racial groups generally. The commission will be the principal source of information and advice on the legislation and will have similar powers to those of the Commission for Racial Equality in Great Britain.
In line with the Race Relations Act 1976, the order will make racial discrimination unlawful in employment, training and related matters, in education, the provision of goods, facilities and services and in the disposal and management of premises. Individuals who suffer discrimination will be given the right of direct access to the courts and industrial tribunals for legal remedies.
The order will contain provisions enabling the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland to enter into voluntary, legally binding agreements with individuals or corporate bodies. The introduction of these provisions to the Great Britain legislation was recommended by the Commission for Racial Equality following its second review of the Race Relations Act 1976. It is the Government's intention to amend that Act to include this provision.
The proposed Northern Ireland legislation differs from that of Great Britain in that the Irish traveller community is defined as a racial group for the purposes of the legislation. Their inclusion was the subject of considerable lobbying during the early consultation period on the proposals for a draft order. It was again heavily supported in comments received on the proposed order before your Lordships here today.
The introduction of race relations legislation in Northern Ireland is a demonstration of the Government's commitment to equality for all United Kingdom citizens. To have access to employment, training, education as well as goods and services, regardless of racial background, is a basic human right which should not be denied to the people of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 14th January be approved.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
7.38 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her exposition. We support this order, although it is 21 years since the Race Relations Act 1976 was passed and it has operated for most of that time in England and Wales.
We welcome the fact that the travelling people, who have particular complaints about discrimination, have been included as a separate minority group.
In addition, this is about the only time that I ever expect to find that another group which is sorely discriminated against will receive the full protection of the law. I refer to Article 26, whereby barristers are specifically given the protection of the law. This is a unique occasion, never to be repeated. Buy now while stocks last!
One of the problems is that anti-discrimination and human rights legislation in Northern Ireland has grown up piecemeal. That may have been inevitable because of history; it is unfortunate in many ways. Our commitment, if the electorate do their duty, is that after the election we shall introduce into domestic legislation the European Convention on Human Rights. That will probably be an occasion on which to look on an overall

625
basis at all human rights and anti-discrimination legislation in so far as it relates to Northern Ireland as well as England, Wales and Scotland.
One thing that troubles me slightly is whether governmental functions relating to health, social security and housing are covered at all. I do not expect the Minister to deal fully with that on this occasion because I have not had the opportunity to give her notice; but, if she would be kind enough to write to me, I should be grateful. Other than that, we welcome this order.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her introduction of the order. We too on these Benches support this measure, which is long overdue. It is an extraordinary anomaly that we have had to wait since the 1970s for such a measure. The noble Baroness will recall that in the 1970s Parliament made it unlawful to discriminate on religious grounds in Northern Ireland but not in Great Britain and to discriminate on racial grounds in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland. At least we now have a substantial step towards rationalisation. I pay tribute to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, whose continual pressure and analysis of this point has, I am sure, helped the Government and inspired them to bring the measure forward.
Most people think of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. However, we should remember that, according to figures from the University of Ulster, there are significant ethnic minorities there. There are in Northern Ireland between 3,000 and 5,000 ethnic Chinese, who no doubt are the subject of the protection in Article 8(2)(c) which allows racial discrimination on grounds of race where food or drink is being sold. I dare say that it is intended to protect the admirable Chinese restaurants in Northern Ireland. But as well as the Chinese, there are 1,000 Indians and 641 Pakistanis, and the travellers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I usually agree with every word that the noble Lord my colleague says but I am not sure that barristers are a group that normally needs special protection. Probably a slightly different thought is that conspicuously in Great Britain there has been difficulty, particularly in solicitors' partnerships, for many members of ethnic minorities trying to succeed in that profession. Therefore I believe that there is a serious intent.
There is one point which the noble Baroness might like to consider, although I suspect that it goes wider than Northern Ireland. If we make legislation of this kind user-friendly so that people can use it when they are discriminated against, I wonder whether there is a case for some kind of human rights commission to mediate between the general public and the terrors of the law. When she responds, I should like her to say whether she considers that there is any merit in that suggestion. Otherwise, she has our wholehearted support from these Benches.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister is indeed to be commended, in that it is during her tenure at the Department of Economic Development
626
that this measure has come forward. I certainly welcome it very strongly. I could hardly do otherwise because my colleagues have been pressing for it, not for many years but for very many years. It has already been recalled that the Race Relations Act upon which the order is based came into effect in this country in 1976. So it has come of age just as this piece of legislation is coming into force.
It is not unusual, of course, that Northern Ireland finds itself a little behind in the legislative programme and that matters are brought into place in England and Wales and indeed Scotland and only subsequently in Northern Ireland. That is not always a bad thing. Sometimes we can learn from the experience in this part of country. For example, we have the example of the community charge. Northern Ireland did not find itself having to venture down that particular road and I hear very few voices raised in objection to that.
On a more positive note, perhaps, the mental health legislation which came through this Chamber in 1959 and which was subsequently replicated in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1961 had a number of provisions which differentiated it from the previous mental health legislation here and which were an improvement. Subsequently, experience demonstrated that that was so, as legislation here began to take on some of the qualities of the legislation in Northern Ireland. So the idea that Northern Ireland is a little behind is not necessarily a bad thing so long as we learn from experience and so long as the read-across from this side of the water to Northern Ireland is an appropriate read-across.
What is more than a little disappointing is, first of all, that it has taken so long. Twenty-one years is an extraordinary length of time to permit racial discrimination in Northern Ireland to remain legal. Secondly, it is a little disappointing that in the read-across some things appear to have been missed. There is another similar example. When the health service reforms came into existence, the Government seemed to slip a little in recognising that in Northern Ireland there is an integrated health and social services system; and just as trusts were about to come into play, it was suddenly recognised that social services would be part of those trusts and all the statutory responsibilities thereof which did not apply to health trusts in this part of the country would apply in Northern Ireland. The legislation had to be delayed a year in order for that matter to be rectified.
I feel that this is a similar kind of matter. District councils and local authorities in Northern Ireland have an entirely different remit from local authorities here. It is a much narrower remit. One of the unfortunate things about this order is that because it places a statutory responsibility on local authorities, it applies to a much narrower area than is the case in respect of local authorities' responsibilities on this side of the water.
My colleagues and particularly my colleague Mary Clarke-Glass, whose experience as a former chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission is quite singular, raised this matter with the noble Baroness the Minister. She kindly replied indicating that

627
government departments which have those responsibilities in Northern Ireland have to accommodate themselves to the policy, appraisal and fair treatment guidelines. That is absolutely true. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some regret that a piece of legislation of this kind cannot apply in the widest possible fashion.
That leads me to my final comment, which takes up the very interesting comments of my noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that we have a series of quangos in Northern Ireland to deal each with a separate significant and important area of possible discrimination. I emphasise that that is not meant in any fashion as a criticism of those excellent bodies and their excellent work over the years. Nevertheless, by accumulating an increasing number of such bodies, we are achieving a degree of fragmentation and piecemeal effect in our approach to civil liberties and human rights and responsibilities.
I welcome the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, that the time may be coming when we might be able to rationalise them and bring them together, and, indeed, in that regard to have some overall body which will help guide people through the maze of different organisations that has developed, all of whose members have one purpose; namely, to ensure that all people in Northern Ireland are treated equally and with dignity and respect. But perhaps there is a sense that we are coming to a point where there are so many channels and so many ways of working that it is a little confusing.
Having said that, we welcome the order, a little overdue though it be, and commend the Minister in that it has come into existence in her tenure at the department. We hope very much that no other matters, including the electoral timetable that is upcoming, will stand in the way of its urgent implementation.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, who I believe has a heavy cold, it falls to me strike the first slightly discordant note.
We are told that the ethnic minority population of Northern Ireland is approximately 7,000, which is less than one half of 1 per cent. of the population. Most of them are Chinese and the Chinese historically have never complained much about discrimination, not because they would be reluctant to do so if they were discriminated against but because people do not normally discriminate against them. That one half of 1 per cent. is an interesting and significant proportion. It is smaller than the ethnic minority population of Great Britain before the 1950s, when no race relations laws existed as there was no need for them. It is the case the whole world over—not simply in Europe—that when ethnic minorities are small and stable the indigenous population does not feel threatened. It is only when the minorities start growing rapidly and significantly that attitudes change and it is then felt that race relations laws have to be brought in.
628
In parenthesis, it is worth reminding noble Lords that the Conservatives, both Front and Back-Benchers, bitterly resisted large tracts of the 1976 Race Relations Bill, as a perusal of Hansard will demonstrate. Therefore, it is rather puzzling that it is now felt that legislation has to be brought in for Northern Ireland, given that, happily, full employment exists among the ethnic minority population, in contrast to the situation among the majority, and that, happily, once again, there are so few racial incidents—only 66 in 1995, for example.
The cost of the new quango is estimated at £450,000 per annum. That works out at more than £7,500 per incident—not all of which are necessarily specifically racial. For example, Chinese or Gujarati shopkeepers who are attacked and robbed by thugs, are not necessarily attacked because they are Gujarati or Chinese; it may be because they are slight in build and therefore make an easier target for thugs intent on robbing them. It may also be thought that they will put up less resistance.
There is then the curious business of the "travelling community" being classified as belonging to a different racial group to the rest of the population, which clearly it does not. As I understand it, none of the travellers are Romanies. Once one starts treating cultural differences as racial differences, one opens the door to all sorts of unintended consequences.
Be that as it may, one imagines that it is that factor alone which prevents the Government from simply extending the law in Great Britain to Northern Ireland, which would surely be a lot cheaper and simpler. As I understood it, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, suggested harmonising the law and the operation of the race relations quangos in that respect.
One important factor has so far not been mentioned—it may seem far fetched at the moment, but may not be so far fetched in a few years' time. Not only will discrimination on the grounds of race be forbidden, of course, but also discrimination on the grounds of nationality.
At the moment the Republic of Ireland is enjoying a great economic boom—in part due to EC subsidies. Northern Ireland is also doing well, but rather less so. Suppose the position were dramatically reversed in five or 10 years' time and the Republic suffered from a severe and prolonged economic slump. Suppose then that the citizens of the Republic—a republic which in its constitution formally lays claim to the whole of Northern Ireland territory—started pouring over the border trying to buy up houses and land. Once they had established residence, they would immediately be able to vote in local elections and elections for the European Parliament. It is possible that before long they would also be entitled to vote in general elections.
Inevitably the unionists—in the broadest sense—would become alarmed at the influx of new residents who would almost certainly upset the delicate electoral balance of the Province. I would guess that they would probably resist, collectively or individually, selling houses and farms to the citizens of the Republic, seeing their nationality threatened by the upsetting of that

629
delicate electoral balance. Would that contravene Articles 21 and 22? Or would they be permitted to behave like the Danes, who are allowed by the Maastricht Treaty, albeit to the annoyance of many people, to keep out German settlers?
Finally, perhaps I may turn to a remark made by the Minister in her introduction. The noble Baroness said that the United Nations was urging that race relations legislation be introduced as a matter of urgency into Northern Ireland. There are a large number of countries in Europe and throughout the world which have no race relations legislation at all, even though they may need it a great deal more than the Province. Why has the Province been singled out for this legislation when it needs it a great deal less than many other countries one could mention?
7.54 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, when the Race Relations Act was going through Westminster under a Labour government in 1976, I made repeated pleas that the Act be extended to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland at that time was Roy Mason, who is now a Member of your Lordships' House. He put forward many arguments as to why the Act should not apply to Northern Ireland. It is therefore unfair to read Hansard and to hear the words of those who are charging the present Conservative Government with 21 years of neglect. In the three years between 1976 and 1979 the Labour Government could have extended the Race Relations Act. It is unfair therefore for that criticism to be levelled at the present Government.
I welcome this legislation. However, I find bizarre reasons being given for its introduction. In my young days and even up to the present moment I can think of hundreds of Italian ice-cream shops in Northern Ireland, none of which claimed to have been subjected to any discriminatory acts. When this legislation was being introduced, the Minister of State for Northern Ireland said,
"However, the total number is approximately 0.5 per cent. of the population. It was only in the late 1980s that a public debate on the need for such legislation began. In 1995, the Secretary of State gave a commitment to introduce race relations legislation to Northern Ireland as soon as possible".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee, 6/2/97; col. 1.]
There has been a minority group in Northern Ireland since 1920 and it could well have done with this type of legislation. However, it took from 1988 to bring about a change of heart in the Government, according to the Minister of State. I should point out that it took much longer—since 1920—before the Race Relations Act and the other fair employment Acts came into being in 1976.
I would like to ask the Minister about the composition of the new Race Relations Board. How many members will it have and what will be their ethnic backgrounds? It will be difficult to obtain sufficient numbers from whatever religious backgrounds who are natives of Northern Ireland, and the Government will need to be extremely careful.
As it is, we are legislating for 80,000 people in Northern Ireland. The Government have gone to a great deal of trouble to bring this order before the House this
630
evening. I hope that there is not the same action against ethnic minority groups in Northern Ireland as there has been against the main minority group in Northern Ireland. I urge the Government that in the composition of the board they do not deliberately create another quango. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, there are already far too many of them in Northern Ireland.
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, as ever I thank noble Lords for their involvement, comments and, for the most part, welcome for this order. I am extremely grateful for that and perhaps I may share with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, my pleasure in bringing forward this legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said, it is a commitment that has been outstanding since April 1995 when the Secretary of State undertook to bring it forward.
We had extensive consultation. The absence of race relations legislation in Northern Ireland has not been due to any lack of will on the part of successive governments. I shall make certain that my honourable friend's attention is drawn to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, in protection of the Conservative Government. The issue has been one of proportionality. Even now, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, raises the issue of numbers, to which I shall turn in a moment.
In recent years there has been a significant increase in the numbers of people in ethnic minority groups in Northern Ireland, although the total number is still small. In the late 1980s this debate put itself on the agenda and we will all be pleased to see the order moved into legislation. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, that it is important that it passes into law and will not be held up by an electoral process.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, was kind enough to say that if there are areas I miss in my response, he will be happy for me to write to him and clarify them. I hope other noble Lords will also extend me that privilege. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the provision of primary healthcare is covered by Article 21.
I know that many noble Lords have anxieties about the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, as to where the difference in government structures relates to this order. The draft order places a duty on local government in order to emphasise the importance of the promotion of good race relations at a local level. These provisions also aim to emphasise that the establishment of the Commission for Racial Equality for Northern Ireland will not absolve local government from its responsibilities in relation to ethnic minority groups. Placing such a duty on local government will ensure that all councils, and not just those with a high level of ethnic minorities within their areas, take responsibility for promoting good race relations. That is very important.
The central government functions in Northern Ireland are subject to the policy, appraisal and fair treatment guidelines which aim to ensure that issues of equality and equity conditiona policy making and are central to all spheres of government activity. The guidelines are aimed at ensuring fairness not just between ethnic

631
groups but also between people of different religious beliefs or political opinions as well as differences in gender, age, marital status and sexual orientation. The guidelines apply to non-governmental public bodies such as health boards as well as to central government. Concentration on making them work effectively is very important.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, raised the issue of exemption for restaurants. This covers the front of the house, so to speak, so that your marketing and presentational policy may mean that an Indian restaurant has Indian waiters and a Chinese restaurant has Chinese waiters. We should not restrict the development of small business enterprise, of which we could certainly use more in Northern Ireland.
The need for a single human rights body is an important issue. The order follows the 1976 Act. A separate body is necessary to help enforce the legislation and to carry out promotional and advisory functions. The amalgamation of all the anti-discrimination bodies in Northern Ireland into one human rights body has extremely wide implications. It requires detailed consideration and extensive consultation. The Government last addressed this issue in the mid-1980s. They concluded that separate institutions were more appropriate. But this issue may well be revisited in the context of the employment equality review currently being undertaken by SACHR. I pay tribute to the enormous load being taken on by that body in this review. That will then be the appropriate time for this issue to be considered.
It is important that the different organisations work together as closely as possible and that both the public and employers have a coherent service offered to them. The Government stress that and the department and my officials work at it. The Commission for Racial Equality has a duty to help applicants and to explain law to employers and so on. That applies to all the commissions. I hope noble Lords will accept the Government's support, and the support of the Prime Minister in particular, for citizen's charters and the ability of individuals to understand and use the law.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, is not with us this evening. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was implying that he would have been more critical of the legislation. I hope not. The noble Lord rightly drew attention to the fact that not all the incidents may have been based on the ethnicity or nationality of the people attacked. However, there is a definite need in Northern Ireland for the various groups which make up the community to have confidence. It is important for them that they should feel that they have rights extended to other parts of the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to the work of community groups in making quite certain that their members have been able to work with us in bringing the legislation forward. I believe that one racial attack is one too many. In a society which sometimes has a non-peaceful approach to life, we have to be extremely careful that all citizens are protected.
632
In the responses to the proposal for a draft order there was great urging that the legislation should make clear the status of the Irish traveller community as a separate ethnic group. We believe it is definable. However, it was not thought that the ethnic distinctiveness of the Irish travellers would be so widely accepted as to ensure that a court would establish the locus of an Irish traveller under legislation. It was also thought that the inclusion of Irish travellers would have a declaratory significance in terms of government's attitude to society. Furthermore, the Irish travellers are found throughout the island of Ireland. They are included in anti-discrimination legislation which is being processed by the Irish Government. For all those reasons it was decided to include Irish travellers as an ethnic group in the race relations legislation. I believe it to be a fair protection well offered.
The key issue for ethnic minorities is the provision of goods and services, particularly public goods, access to interpretation, and so on. Employment is not a current problem but the Chinese population is concerned about future generations. That motivates almost all their decisions and it is something which I think is admirable.
Article 22 deals with discrimination in the disposal or management of premises. I do not share the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there will be an instant emptying of the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland. Many advantages have been available for many years with the support of the Government in terms of support for health services and education. I think there are cultures which are very different, but Article 22 deals very specifically with discrimination in the disposal or management of premises. But I also recognise that there is cross-border traffic. It would be unlawful to refuse to sell a property in Northern Ireland to someone from the Republic of Ireland on grounds of nationality. I do not think the noble Lord raises something which will be a major issue, however far down the future we look.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, questioned the format of the Commission for Racial Equality. All appointments to the commission will be made on merit and in line with the recommendations contained in the Nolan Report. It is important that the commission should represent a mix of relevant skills and backgrounds. As with the Commission for Racial Equality in Great Britain, it will be important that those include some with a detailed knowledge of the needs of various ethnic minority communities. Further than that it is not possible to say what the racial balance of the commission will be. There is always the aim that a commission, when formed, should not consist of representatives but should consist of individuals with knowledge and expertise who act together as a commission.
I wish to clear up one final point. The Government do not regard barristers as a deprived group. The difference in this legislation is only that it is specifically tailored to circumstances in Northern Ireland where we have a Bar library system, which I suspect the noble Lord understands rather better than I do.

633
I believe that this is a very valuable piece of legislation and that it will make a difference to what may well be a small group of citizens in Northern Ireland, but a group that has entitlement to rights as much as other members of the United Kingdom.
Lord Monson:: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Is she in a position to answer my question as to why the United Nations has singled out Northern Ireland as a place where race relations legislation needs to be introduced as a matter of urgency when it apparently feels no such urgency is needed in respect of a large number of other countries where race relations problems are very much greater?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I cannot speak with absolute confidence about the aims of the United Nations, but I suspect—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that it has a sense of the need for urgency everywhere where there is no protection. Despite the noble Lord's concerns about the timetable, if we have managed to move rather more quickly than others, I can only be very proud of that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.11 to 8.30 p.m.]

Crime (Sentences) Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 10.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 43, leave out ("to prescribed persons").
The noble Lord said: This amendment concerns appeals against determinations as to early days of release. That has been gone over to some extent already so I shall be as brief as I can. When, under Clause 10(5), decisions are given to persons as to whether or not they have been awarded any early days of release, prisoners may appeal to prescribed persons, and the effect of this amendment is to leave out the reference to "prescribed persons" simply with a view to asking the Government to explain who the prescribed persons are to be.
Perhaps I may flesh that out a little. I ask that because obviously there will be some sensitivity if the award of early release days is to be decided by prison staff, a matter referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, on Second Reading, and referred to earlier in the Committee today. To have prison officers who are responsible for the custody and care of prisoners being responsible for decisions as to the award of early days could put prison staff in a difficult position in relation to allegations by disappointed persons. That is why, when the parole system was set up, the first chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made very clear the independence of the board as regards decision-making. That tradition has been handed on from one chairman to
634
another. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, used to take the Parole Board off to the different livery company halls in London. The meetings were held there in rather the same way as the Scottish board does today. That was to show the independence of the Parole Board.
It goes without saying that when, today, the board holds hearings—in other words, discretionary lifer panels—the independent position of that panel in hearing evidence from the prisoner, his legal representative and witnesses, and evidence from the Prison Service and sometimes other witnesses is made perfectly plain. I wonder whether the Government have taken on board that point in deciding who the prescribed persons are to be who will hear appeals from prisoners and how those appeals are to be made—either in writing or at an appeals hearing. Therefore, that is why I wish to move the amendment, although some of the ground was covered earlier. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am sorry to come back to this but the words "prescribed persons" cause me to reflect on the fact that I do not believe that we ever sorted out what a prescribed minimum standard of behaviour was. The word "prescribed" appears in both. I suggested that the prescribed minimum standard was in fact a negative. It was not appearing before the governor on report. I am very anxious to establish a baseline so that we can see how the first six days in a two-month period will be allocated. Once that is done, we can then see above which line we are trying to allocate the second six days in the two-month period. If it is difficult to sell this programme to the Committee, it will be even more difficult to sell it to the prisons.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, makes an important point. There will need to be some guidance for prison officers who are engaged in the assessment of behaviour. Therefore, we should expect that to be addressed as part of the prison rules to prison officers. I am not able to be absolutely specific. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, gave examples of proactive bad behaviour and I have given some examples of what would be good behaviour. However, important though the point is, this amendment is about who should be the members of the appellate body and whether it should be prescribed.
As my noble friend said, the amendment seeks to change the power in the Bill to make prison rules enabling prisoners who are dissatisfied with awards of earned days of release to appeal against such a decision. There is nothing between us on this point. The Bill makes provision for such appeals to be to "prescribed persons". The amendment leaves the appellate authority at large on the face of the Bill, although the rules would no doubt still make it clear to whom prisoners might appeal. Therefore, I cannot see a great deal of difference between the two approaches and there is certainly no advantage in my noble friend's proposal.
There will be full consultation with prison governors and others before proposing any appeals arrangements for inclusion in prison rules. At present, we envisage a system internal to the Prison Service. We have certainly taken on board the points made about the level of

635
bureaucracy and the diversion of prison officers from other work. Those will be very important factors in any system. The noble Earl is probably experienced and knows of the systems which already operate in prisons concerning prisoners' behaviour for other reasons. It is impossible to divorce the training shops, the educational services, gang supervisors and so on from the good order of the prison. Therefore, there will be systems in place and we shall want to build on those, and not make them over-bureaucratic. The first point of appeal could be to the governor in charge of the prison, with a second appeal point in the headquarters of the Prison Service, which would be independent of the prison. Prisoners still dissatisfied could ask the Prisons Ombudsman to carry out an independent review of the case and he would make any recommendations that he thought proper to the Director General of the Prison Service.
Prisoners would also be free to seek the external remedies of judicial review and investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. But we would expect that to happen only when all the internal processes had been exhausted. There is nothing between us on this issue. This will be a matter for very full consultation and I hope that my noble friend is able to accept that explanation.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend for that clarification. I wish to make just one point before withdrawing the amendment. My noble friend referred to the process of judicial review. I do not know very much about that but I know that there are usually about half-a-dozen judicial reviews on the go in one way or another as regards the Prison Service and the Parole Board. That is an real factor in the daily life of an organisation which is liable to judicial review. It was with judicial review in mind that I asked some of the questions that I did. The procedures will be extremely important if the Prison Service is not going to be extremely vulnerable to judicial review. I am sure that the Prison Service will understand that and has time to take account of what the procedures will be. Nevertheless, I give that warning. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 6, line 44, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to delete Clause 10(6). That is a Henry VIII clause giving the Minister power by order to alter primary legislation. It has not caused particular concern to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, whose report I have here. It should be a routine matter that this Chamber should probe the reasons why a Henry VIII clause appears in a particular Bill. Therefore, to save the time of the Committee and perhaps to avoid unnecessary debate, I shall ask my routine question: is your Henry VIII clause really necessary? I shall conduct such further debate as the answer seems to require. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Having sat on the joint Committee for some time, I am well aware that if Henry VIII clauses are to be used, the Government should be challenged on
636
the importance of using them. The noble Earl will be aware that the Scrutiny Committee has already looked at the Bill with a view to seeing whether there is any abuse of power or whether the House should be invited to consider the proper use of power and question it in debate. There is a temptation to accept the amendment of the noble Earl and leave out the subsection. However, I hope that when I have explained why it is there, the noble Earl will accept that there is very good reason for its inclusion.
The noble Earl seeks to remove the power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to vary by order the number of early release days that prisoners may earn. The Bill allows for amendments to be made only in the prisoner's favour. It is not possible to use this power in any other way. For example, there is no power to reduce the number of days that may be earned. Therefore, I find it quite difficult to see any objection to its inclusion. It was thought that if when the system was up and running a future government or Home Secretary believed that it was worth recommending that the number of days available for early release should be increased, instead of altering primary legislation, the primary power would be there to be used. But the power cannot be used to reduce the number of days. The noble Earl is right to question the inclusion of a Henry VIII power in a Bill.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness for a very fair reply. She said very much what I expected she would say. She makes the perfectly fair point that the use of this power can only be beneficial. I am very glad that I have heard that said. However, I can imagine circumstances in which a future Parliament may object very strongly even to the use of beneficial powers in this respect if there were to be a demand for even longer sentences than are being considered already. That could cause concern. Nowadays, we see a good many of these clauses. That may give rise to an issue. I do not believe that the point for making an issue is here, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 48 to 50 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Provisional awards for remand prisoners]:
[Amendments Nos. 52 to 54 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Release supervision orders]:
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 55:
Page 8, line 45, leave out from ("released") to end of line 46 insert ("under section 10").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 55 with Amendment No. 36, which was withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 9, line 27, leave out from ("any") to end of line 29 and insert ("conditions.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 56. In subsection (4) on page 9 the Bill provides for the Parole Board to be involved in the holding of oral hearings at which prisoners can be heard or represented in order to decide whether a recommendation shall be made to the Secretary of State that the prisoner shall have a hostel condition or a curfew order condition specified in the prisoner's release supervision order. The effect of this amendment is to make the Parole Board responsible for recommending to the Secretary of State any conditions which should be specified for release supervision orders.
I say in passing that perhaps I am not being wholly genuine in putting forward the matter on that basis. This would probably make for an almost impossible situation, but it is a convenient peg on which to hang what is in effect a probing amendment. I believe that it is nonetheless an important probing amendment from the point of view of administration of the Parole Board. I ask my noble friend the Minister the reason for the subsection. First, is there a special reason for requiring Parole Board intervention to recommend hostel or curfew order conditions? If so, does that special reason apply only to those two types of supervision condition? What about offence-focused work conditions? What about psychiatric or psychological oversight and treatment conditions? What about conditions not to enter a given geographical area? What about non-contact conditions which are very important for the protection of victims? What about so many of the essential conditions that are imposed on paedophiles?
Secondly, how will subsection (4) work in practice? I am now speaking about the Bill as drafted. I have been discourteous. My noble friend has given me important assurances as to how parole will be injected into the Bill. However, under the Bill as drafted the Parole Board will have had nothing whatever to do with a fixed-term sentenced prisoner who is about to have a release supervision order made. The Parole Board will go into an oral hearing "cold", as it were. In those circumstances will the prisoner have a dossier of reports? If so, who will have written those reports?
How is the Parole Board to be interpreted under subsection (4)? Is it to be a panel of the board and, if so, how many members will it comprise? In that context, have the Government given any thought to the cost of the provision and the time needed to set up these panels from a much smaller board? That is an important point. One comes to a particular moment in the process of review, in this case the review for early days of release. At an earlier point in the Bill reference is made to letting prisoners know at a prescribed time. It is important that the whole matter does not slip. If it will take quite a long time to set this up, things will slip.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State is to make rules for regulating the supervision of prisoners. Presumably, those rules will contain guidance as to the criteria for specifying a hostel or a curfew order condition. Have the Government given any thought to those criteria? I remind your Lordships that a prisoner who is released
638
early will have been awarded early release days on grounds solely of good behaviour. It would seem rather strange if the criteria for a hostel or curfew order condition on release were to reduce the risk to the public. How is that apparent contradiction to be resolved?
I do not ask for answers to all these questions this evening. If my noble friend writes to me, I shall be only too pleased. These questions may appear to be a rather grudging response to the need for the Parole Board to become involved in specifying release supervision order conditions for hostels and curfew orders, but at the moment I believe that my list of questions shows that the position is not entirely clear, at least not to me, hence the amendment. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend is right. We are speaking in a vacuum in advance of any consideration of the matters that concern my noble friend and on which I have given him assurances. Given that caveat, one of the reasons why we believe that the Parole Board should be involved in commitments to bail and/or curfew orders is that both orders involve a restriction on liberty. We believe that there should be Parole Board involvement in something that restricts liberty. The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to set the conditions of supervision. In practice, this will be done by the prison governor acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, exactly as happens now in the case of short term offenders. We are discussing longer-term offenders between now and Report stage. But there are a number of standard conditions such as the need to maintain contact with the supervising probation officer, a requirement to live only where approved by that officer and a requirement to take only such employment as is similarly approved. Where necessary, additional improvements may be included which may for example require the offender to attend a treatment programme to address his offending behaviour or to live at a specific address such as a family home.
Decisions as to the inclusion of such additional conditions are made on the recommendation of the supervising probation service which will have conducted a thorough risk assessment, together with information obtained during the offender's time in custody. Relevant information will include his behaviour in prison, attitude to the offence committed and his home circumstances. This is the type of information which is considered now by the Parole Board in the case of long-term offenders who are being considered for discretionary release. When the Parole Board will not be involved in the decision to release an offender, I see no value in its routine involvement in the setting of conditions. I do not know whether my noble friend has even contemplated the volume of work that would be involved if the Parole Board moved into the area of the 90 per cent. of prisoners who received sentences below four years. This can be done efficiently and properly by the prison governor on the recommendation of the probation service, taking into account the principal aims of supervision: protection of the public, prevention of re-offending and the

639
rehabilitation of the offender. If the board were to become the body responsible for setting conditions of supervision for all offenders sentenced to 12 months or more, it would face a substantial increase in the volume of cases dealt with. Let us not forget that currently the board deals only with cases involving offenders sentenced to four years or more. If it were to set conditions for all offenders sentenced to 12 months or more its workload could increase fourfold. I do not see how the board could be expected to do so much. There is a limit to the number of oral hearings that could be dealt with in a day. The board will also have, in the longer term, to deal with more life sentence prisoners in the light of Clause 1 of the Bill.
There is, however, still to be a Parole Board involvement in the setting of the two conditions mentioned by my noble friend: the requirement to live in an approved hostel and the imposition of a curfew order. The reason for this is straightforward. Both conditions involve a significant loss of liberty on the part of the offender and it is only right and proper that an independent body makes the recommendation to the Secretary of State that they should apply. The board will make their decision on the basis of recommendations from the supervising probation service which will have considered the need for such conditions as part of the on-going risk assessment process inherent in sentence planning. The primary consideration will, as always, be the need to protect the public.
The Bill allows for appropriate conditions of supervision to be set in the interests of the public and the offender; the involvement of the Parole Board would not add to this protection and would involve an impossible burden of work. Only in the specific areas of curfew orders and probation hostels is it right for the Secretary of State to have the recommendation of the board.
For these reasons, I hope that my noble friend will not press the amendment. But I end yet again with the promise that everything I have said is in advance of any consideration that we will have between now and Report stage on the whole issue of assessment of risk before the release of long-term prisoners.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I understand the point the Minister is making about the workload of the Parole Board and the vast number of cases that would occur for offenders with sentences between 12 months and four years. That seems to me to be a reasonable case. I am puzzled by what she said about loss of liberty, however. Of course, a probation hostel involves complete loss of liberty in that sense. But why is a curfew order more of a loss of liberty than being directed to live somewhere other than in an approved probation hostel, for example?
Baroness Blatch: If somebody is subject to a curfew order, they are actually quite literally curfewed to a particular home. It may be their family home or another home, but they are not allowed to move from that place. If somebody is allowed to live at another address, perhaps away from where they originally committed the
640
crime, they can come, they can go, they can move around, they can go and meet their friends, but a curfew is quite specifically keeping somebody at home. Usually the most modern method of operating a curfew order is by electronic tagging. A person subject to a curfew order is curfewed to a particular address and for the period of time that the curfew order applies—at the moment it is up to 12 hours in any one day and up to a maximum of six months—the person simply cannot move away from that place to which they are curfewed.
Lord Belstead: This is something we can pursue subsequently. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for intervening because it is of importance so far as the Parole Board is concerned. First of all, I am guilty of making it seem as though the objective of the amendment was to extend the remit of the Parole Board to all conditions, because that is the effect of the amendment. However, as I said when I was first speaking, it is only used as a peg by me in order to probe what the subsection of this clause really means. I hope that my noble friend Lady Blatch will forgive me for leading her along that road; that was not my intention, although she and her officials were not to know that.
Having said that, the whole pith and kernel of what we are talking about is the fact that this is a restriction of liberty, the point on to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has latched. Thinking this through for a moment, taking the remarks of the Minister at face value, because it is a restriction of liberty the Government want to be extra careful. I am not sure of whom they are being extra careful.
Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps my noble friend would like to explain to me of whom it is we need to be extra careful. If there is somebody of whom we need to be extra careful because of a restriction of liberty, presumably we have to make sure that the procedures are absolutely A.1, that the people who are going to do this work—it is to be the Parole Board—will have the right reports.
I do not gainsay what my noble friend said about sentence planning. But the report which allows one to decide finally as to what conditions should be so far as release is concerned is the parole assessment report, which used to be called the old home circumstances report from the field or home probation officer. That is a report which sometimes, because of pressure of work, can come quite late. It may be that under a new regime the probation services of Great Britain are not going to be quite so keen to do the reports at all because they are extremely expensive. To start sending someone from the Inner London Probation Service up to a prison in Cumbria or Northumbria would be very expensive indeed. It will be necessary, before we get to that stage, to make it clear that the parole assessment reports are extremely important.
Having made the point that the paperwork has to be there, there is then a time factor. Without speaking too long about it, there comes a moment in the procedures before the prisoner is told how early he or she can be released when one has to make sure that the whole procedure does not slip. Presumably, this is going to

641
mean getting a panel of the Parole Board together to hold the hearing. I remind my noble friend that if there is to be legal representation, which apparently there is to be, of the prisoner, these oral hearings will be quite tough assignments.
I am suspicious. I do not believe that I am an ungenerous character, but I am suspicious of this provision in the Bill. I have always been suspicious of it ever since I saw it. The Minister, persuasive though she always is, has not allayed my suspicions entirely.
Baroness Blatch: I find it something of an irony that, if the Government had proposed that they could authorise as a condition of supervision a curfew order and/or hostel accommodation, somebody somewhere would have put an amendment down to this Bill saying, "This involves a restriction of liberty and there ought to be an independent view about whether that is the right thing to be doing".
Further, the Government have literally singled out these two issues. There is nothing suspicious about it. The Government believe that, because it involves a restriction of liberty, the valuable assistance of the Parole Board in giving an independent view to those doing the assessment as to whether it believes that it is appropriate for that person should be sought, just as now the Parole Board calls for reports from probation officers and others in order to come to a view about whether a certain aspect is appropriate. My noble friend will know that the conditions are set in advance of release. They have to be set in advance of release and there has to be a good deal of thinking about what those conditions should be. There will be time to do that.
I hope that my noble friend does not think there is anything devious about this. I know he is suspicious but I hope he does not think there is a hidden agenda here. There is absolutely no hidden agenda, but we believe it would be a good thing to have an independent view from the Parole Board.
Clause 13(4) requires an oral hearing before the Parole Board at which the prisoner has the right to appear or to be represented. The conditions in which the subsection applies are onerous and it is right that the offender should have an opportunity to make representations to an independent body before the conditions are imposed. We believe that would be a good thing. There is no more nor less to it than that.
Lord Belstead: I assure my noble friend that my suspicions do not extend to there being some form of deviousness. My suspicions relate to whether the proposal will work. I am still worried about that, but I shall not pursue the matter tonight. I am grateful to my noble friend for what she said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 57:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause—
RECALL OF PRISONERS
(".—(1) If recommended to do so by the Parole Board, in the case of a prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years or more and in respect of whom a release supervision order is in force, the Secretary of State may revoke his release supervision order and recall him to prison.
(2) The Secretary of State may revoke the release supervision order of any prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years or more and recall him to prison without a recommendation by the Parole Board, where it appears to him that it is in the public interest to do so.
(3) A prisoner recalled to prison under subsection (1) or (2) shall on his return to prison be informed of the reasons for his recall and of his right to make representations.
(4) The Secretary of State shall refer to the Parole Board—

(a) the case of a prisoner recalled under subsection (a) above who makes representations under subsection (3) above; and

(b) the case of a prisoner recalled under subsection (2) above.

(5) Where on a reference under subsection (4) above the Parole Board directs the immediate release of a prisoner under this section, the Secretary of State shall give effect to the direction and shall release him subject to his release supervision order.
(6) On the revocation of the release supervision order of any prisoner under this section, he shall be liable to be detained under his sentence and, if at large, shall be deemed to he unlawfully at large.").
The noble Lord said: I first referred to the amendment during our debate on the long list of amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. I did so because a number of his amendments addressed the issue of recall and I did not believe that it was appropriate to debate them without flagging up the fact there are still major problems with recall, some of which are addressed by my amendment.
Perhaps without repeating the arguments in full I may recapitulate on what the amendment will achieve. It provides that we should continue the procedure whereby the Parole Board can organise the recall to prison of a prisoner released under a post-release supervision order from a sentence of four years or more. It also provides that in a case of extreme urgency the Secretary of State may order a recall when it is not practicable for the Parole Board to consider the case first.
The current system of parole is streamline. It provides that on the recommendation of the supervising probation officer the Parole Board can quickly recall the parolee to prison when his behaviour suggests that he is at risk of serious re- offending. Perhaps in referring to the amendment previously I was too ready to talk about breaches of the conditions of the post-release supervision order. However, other Members of the Committee referred to the need to recall someone to prison even when there had been no overt breach of the post-release supervision order but when his behaviour indicated, for example, a likelihood that he would continue with the same behaviour which had brought about the sentence in the first place. Therefore, if we are to achieve our shared objective of protecting the public and avoiding re-offending, it is extremely important that

643
the supervising probation officer has a wide range of discretion of recommending to the Parole Board that a recall should be made.
I went on to explain that that is a reasonably quick procedure because the Parole Board meets every day and can and does give priority to recall cases. Those decisions can be acted upon immediately. However, in case it should be thought that there are people who might slip through the net, the amendment provides that the Home Secretary can carry out a recall in advance of a decision of the Parole Board and obtain subsequent justification for that.
The Parole Board, in its comments on Protecting the Public, which it made public, described the procedure and recall by the board as being swift and certain. It stated that the public are better protected than would be the case under the proposed new measures. The Association of Chief Officers of Probation said very much the same thing. It stated:
"The replacement of the present system would be a grave error. The present system is quick and effective. It is one of the main features contributing to the effectiveness of parole supervision, allowing as it does for prompt executive action to be initiated at any time of day or night, or at weekends".
It further stated that the court system is incapable of delivering rapid recall and that in its view the proposed change would substantially increase the risk to the public.
The Minister intervened, as was her right, and suggested to me that it would be possible for quick action to take place under Clause 14 because in certain circumstances it would be possible for someone to be arrested and held in custody, appearing before the court the following morning. I do not deny that, but it still is not as quick and effective as executive action. Since it involves arrest and a new charge, it could relate only to an arrestable offence. That is a more limited power than that which the Parole Board and the supervising probation officer have at present.
I am puzzled as to why in this clause the Government should wish to remove the executive power. It is not as though we are proposing to take away the Government's power to create a new arrestable offence. Clause 14 is already part of the Bill and this new clause is not proposed as a replacement. The only reason I can find for the Government's action was set out by Mr. David Maclean on 10th December when he pointed out that the release supervision order begins when prisoners are released from prison. It is additional to and not part of the prison term. Clearly, I do not have the attention of the Government Front Bench. Perhaps I should pause for a moment or two.
His was a technical response and not a response of substance. The fundamental question is whether the Government agree with the merits of the argument that a system of emergency recall is worth retaining. If so, of course further amendments are required. The Government would have to redraft the Bill in order to designate the period of post-release supervision as part of the sentence in order to overcome those objections. Is that so desperate an action to take? Is it so serious a
644
problem in comparison with the increased flexibility and protection for the public which would be provided by the amendment? I think not. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie:I believe that we are getting in a slight tangle here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that recall would be a useful thing to have but, at the risk of sounding as if I were giving a lecture on an alternative to custody project, it is a separate order. Orders are dealt with by returns to court and, dare I say it, breaches of probation, breaches of community service and breaches of attendance centre orders all end up back in court. Recall was permissible because parole is part of the original sentence. Unfortunately, and perhaps not wisely, the release supervision order is not part of the prison sentence. Therefore, I would argue that you cannot have recall within an order.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The amendment does not provide a new order; it provides for the revocation of a release supervision order. That is why it does not have to be a new offence.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Yes, but the release supervision order is an order and not a licence. Therefore, one cannot organise a recall off an order.
Lord Belstead: I guess that the issue which has just been debated between the noble Lord and the noble Earl will probably form the basis of at least part of the reply from my noble friend the Minister. I believe that I am guilty of saying this before today but, where a prisoner has finished his sentence, there is the difficulty of him being made subject to an executive recall. Although this may be falling on stony ground because my noble friend made clear her views on the issue in the Committee this afternoon, perhaps I may remind my noble friend the Minister that, subsequent to the assurance that she was good enough to give that parole for long-term prisoners should be written back into the Bill, it will mean that for some months those long-term prisoners who get parole will still not have completed their sentences and could be brought within the scope of the recall procedures, which the noble Lord and I want to see, at least for a period of time.
I am aware that that suggestion probably does not commend itself to my noble friend the Minister, but the reason I say so is that I believe there is enough evidence—and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may have more of that evidence in his hands than I have—to show that there is something of a problem here. For the past four and a half years what are known as ACR licences (the licences for short-term prisoners who go out on automatic conditional release) have been subject to court procedures for recalls. I am told that the picture is one of a lower level of reinforcement of licence conditions than applies to DCR licences (that is, the licences for four years and over), which have all the advantages outlined by the noble Lord.
The reason for that difference is that the level of proof required by the courts is different from the level of proof required by the Parole Board. But everyone knows that;

645
indeed, the Probation Service knows it. Therefore, it will not go to court if it believes that there is no chance at all of obtaining satisfaction. Indeed, Clause 14(4) says that a sentence of imprisonment for breach of a supervision condition shall not be made unless either the court thinks it expedient to protect the public from serious harm from the offender, or the offender's breach consists of an imprisonable offence. That shows that we are talking about a different level of proof from the one that would obtain with the Parole Board and the Secretary of State as things exist at present.
There is another unattractive and difficult point. I am advised that very often victim issues are not included in ACR licences because of the knowledge that victims would have to be brought back to court in order to prove breach of conditions. I do not like that at all and I very much hope that the Home Office will look again at the matter. I shall not go on in that respect because the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, spoke effectively on the subject. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will look at the matter with some care. We are actually talking about people whom it is important to prevent committing another offence, as opposed to catching them after they have recommitted. That is the nub of the matter and upon that really hangs the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, this evening.
Baroness Blotch: The amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Williams, seeks to apply to all offenders—and I have to repeat, "all offenders"—sentenced to four years' imprisonment or more who have been released from prison and are subject to a release supervision order the same recall arrangements as those governing offenders on life licence. In other words, the Secretary of State could recall them to prison if recommended to do so by the Parole Board, or without such a recommendation on urgent public interest grounds.
I share the sentiments expressed that protection of the public is paramount and appropriate measures must be taken to ensure that offenders who fail to comply with the conditions of their release supervision order, and in so doing present a significant risk to the public, are dealt with swiftly and effectively. However, the Bill as it stands already provides for this. Clause 14 provides for offenders who breach the conditions of their release supervision order to be returned to prison on the order of the court.
Clause 15 enables the police to arrest someone who is believed to have committed a breach of supervision. The offender could then be detained and brought before the court promptly. If the supervising probation officer has reasonable grounds for believing that an offender who is subject to a release supervision order has breached the conditions and that urgent action is necessary to protect the public, then he can at once notify the police with a view to the offender's arrest and detention pending his appearance in court the next day or perhaps even later that day.
Some enthusiasts for the present law have drawn attention to the ability of the Parole Board to recall released offenders to prison within a matter of minutes in urgent cases and suggested that the absence
646
of Parole Board involvement will reduce the protection of the public. The Parole Board has a vast range of experience on which we place great value. But the ability to deal urgently with such cases will not be lost under the Bill. Indeed, we are proposing to streamline the procedure. Whereas at present the probation officer has to notify the parole unit which then asks the police to detain the offender, in future the probation officer will be able to deal with the police direct. This will cut out one stage and therefore save valuable time. Moreover, the new procedures will apply to all offenders subject to a release supervision order and not just to those offenders sentenced to four years or more. This is a further improvement as short-term prisoners cannot—as my noble friend has already said—at the moment be arrested for breaching their conditions unless the breach constituted the commission of another crime.
Once the offender appears in court for alleged breach of the release supervision order it will be for the court to decide, if it finds the case proved, what the correct punishment should be. This can include return to prison if the court considers it expedient in the interests of protecting the public or the breach consists of another offence which itself is punishable with imprisonment. But under the Bill the court will have a range of other options for dealing with breach of supervision which are not available now when it is either a case of an offender being taken into custody or being sent back out into the community. We are simply saying that the court can now impose any penalty including a community sentence. That is a further improvement on the present system.
Under the Bill prisoners will serve the whole of their term in prison, save for any days of earned early release which, by definition, they will have earned by good behaviour. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, made an important point about that. The release supervision order begins on their release from prison. It is additional to, not part of, the prison term. That is a fundamental difference from current legislation where the period on licence forms an integral part of the sentence, and in the case of lifers, such a licence does not expire until death.
I have been musing while the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend have been talking. I was musing on the notion that, had the Government brought forward an executive power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to recall—in the supervision period outside the sentence period—someone back to prison without any reference to the courts or to the Parole Board, there would be pages of amendments tabled to curtail the Home Secretary's draconian use of an executive power. If the Secretary of State had executive power to recall an offender to prison without the authority of a court when the latter was outside the sentence period for behaviour that had nothing to do with the conditions of supervision that were laid down, that would be a serious abuse of power. We believe that the ability to recall someone quickly is essential. We have found ways of making sure that that will be the case. We also believe it is important to have court authority seriously to restrict someone's liberty if he is to be returned to custody.

647
We have deliberately made it an arrestable offence to be in breach of a condition of supervision, to make it possible for the Probation Service to do its job of ensuring there is a punishment which fits the crime. That can range from custody to a community sentence or even a court discharge. Against that background it would be wrong in principle to go down the road paved by this proposed new clause which would in effect allow the Secretary of State or the Parole Board to extend a prison sentence by executive authority. That cannot be justified. Indeed I suspect that the European Convention on Human Rights would have something to say about that matter.
Under the arrangements in the Bill when the offender is released he will have served his sentence. He will not be released on licence as now. Punishment for breach of the post-release supervision order must therefore be for the courts and the courts alone to authorise. As I have said, if breach is proved, the court will be able to impose a range of penalties, including imprisonment and also community penalties, further strengthening the options necessary for the court to deal satisfactorily with an offender. In dealing with the case the court can have regard to any period during which the offender has failed to comply with the conditions of supervision. The clock effectively stops as soon as the offender fails to comply. The offender cannot avoid any part of his release supervision order. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Belstead: Normally I always take entirely the points made by my noble friend the Minister. However, in this case when the noble Baroness invokes what might be a danger with the European Court, I must take issue with her.
The fact that the Parole Board is being used at present in what otherwise would be an Executive procedure as regards recalls makes it a perfectly reasonable procedure. I moved an earlier amendment which we debated. That is exactly why the Government are using the Parole Board in order to ensure that curfew orders and hostel orders are decided by the Parole Board. I do not think that we are in jeopardy of the European Court as matters stand at present.
Baroness Blatch: I understand the point my noble friend makes. However, there are two issues. Unless one introduces two systems running in tandem to cover the supervision period, under the skeleton framework of proposals about which I spoke for consideration at Report stage, if a person were released by the Parole Board at the 84 per cent. point, it is true that up to the 100 per cent. point of sentence it would be within sentence and clearly would not breach the European Convention on Human Rights principles. I would put a question mark beyond that point during which the supervision period would run. We take the view that once someone is released either under the short sentence system or as proposed under the longer sentence system, that is deemed to be the end of the sentence and the period of supervision begins. There needs to be only one system operating for the supervision period. As it is
648
deemed to be post-sentence, it is important that if anyone is to be returned to court—albeit he or she could be returned to custody quickly in emergencies—authority must come from the courts and not as a result of executive action from the Parole Board.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Analogies with the intrusive surveillance and executive action under the Police Bill come to mind. The Minister is saying that there is something wrong with executive action which is not authorised properly by an outside body. I am glad to say that we have persuaded the Government that external judicial prior authorisation is required for intrusive surveillance. The analogy is that the action should be taken by an independent body, the Parole Board.
All of that shows that the Government are acting on a stereotype: that the Government are tough on crime but that the Labour Party in particular is soft on crime. It is a totally false stereotype. It is certainly true that we understand being tough on crime as looking for a more effective criminal justice system which includes prevention, detection and conviction as well as sentencing. We regret the concentration on sentencing, the most populist part of being tough on crime, which is the Government's stock response to all those questions. That does not mean, as I think noble Lords will confirm, that throughout the Bill we have not been tougher about sentencing in many cases, and about enforcement of the criminal law, than the Government.
It is certainly not the case that we propose anything in the amendment which is at any risk from the European Convention on Human Rights or the European Court. It is not in any conflict with what has been done before. The only change which has taken place, and which has forced the Government to propose weaker protection for the public, is because the Government are governed by their ideology. I am getting very tired of the Minister being amused by the things that we are saying. I really do wonder whether she can be listening if she finds these matters quite as amusing as all that.
It is the ideology of saying that the period served in custody has to be the same as the original sentence which causes the problem that the Government now have; namely, that they cannot enforce quickly and easily a return to custody simply because the original sentence has expired. My suggestion is not that there should be executive action outside the period of a sentence—at least, not now; we shall return to the Butler Committee proposals on Report. My proposal is that the Government should relax their own ideological identification of the sentence with the period in custody in order to ensure that we can have a more effective system of recall, as now exists and as is proposed by these amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise to the noble Lord for being amused, but I did feel that there was a little bit of electioneering going on in what he was saying.
Perhaps I may put a question to the noble Lord. It would be helpful to clarify where he is coming from on this amendment. The only way in which we can bring the whole of the supervision period into the sentence

649
period is by having very much earlier eligible release dates; that is, the 25 per cent. period, the 50 per cent. period for sex offenders, and up to 10 years for certain other sex offenders. The noble Lord has tabled an amendment which he will discuss in a moment suggesting a 50 per cent. period for violent offenders.
If the noble Lord is saying that recall to prison should only be on the basis of the within-sentence period, then he has to come clean and say that he would have an eligible period for parole very much earlier in the period of a sentence. If he is not saying that, my question to him is this. Is he really saying—because it would be new to the Parole Board as it operates now, and certainly a new power for the Government—that it would be possible to give the Parole Board and/or the Secretary of State an executive power to sentence, outside a sentence period, a person to custody without reference to the court?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is a smokescreen, and the Minister knows it. The amendment is about the continuation of the existing powers of the Parole Board within existing Parole Board constraints. I think the kindest way to bring this to a close is to say that my understanding is that the undertakings given by the Minister to the noble Lords, Lord Belstead and Lord Carlisle, will involve a further discussion of these matters and may involve the Government in going further to meet the kind of concerns that are raised by this amendment, as by others. On that basis alone—
Baroness Blatch: I must intervene again. The noble Lord is rather widening the terms on which I gave my noble friends assurances that I will go on to consider their points of concern between now and the next stage. I have made it absolutely clear that we will not consider automatic release; nor will we consider bringing forward to an earlier point the eligible release date. We are talking about making sure that there is a proper risk assessment for release into the community at the 84 per cent. point of sentence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What is the use of having a proper risk assessment unless there is provision for recall if the risk is assessed as being too great? That is what it comes down to. If I have over-estimated the importance of the Minister's undertaking to her noble friends, then I am sorry to hear it—not sorry from my own point of view, but because it would certainly mean that the principled objection that was put forward this afternoon to Chapter I of Part II of the Bill will have to be revived as a principled objection. We would rather deal with it as a revising Chamber and by negotiation. But if the Minister does not intend to put the protection of the public first, above ideology, then so be it. That is the way in which the matter will be debated at later stages. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 16 [Young offenders]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 11, line 31, leave out ("secure accommodation") and insert ("a community home, provided that there has been no absconding or attempt to abscond").
The noble Lord said: Let us try to make this a slightly less emotive issue than the one we have just been discussing. I understand that we are to debate Amendment No. 58 with Amendment No. 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which covers part of my Amendment No. 58.
This is again a question of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". The present position is that time spent in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty but which is not a secure unit can count towards the time of a custodial sentence. The law on this point is governed by Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 as amended by Section 130 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It provides that time spent on remand by a young defendant in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty should count towards a subsequent custodial sentence.
There have been recent cases, with which I shall not weary Members of the Committee, which established that accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty was not limited to secure accommodation but also covered other forms of accommodation in highly structured and closely supervised conditions. Indeed, in reflection of that view of the courts, the Department of Health issued a memorandum on 16th May 1995 to directors of social services in which it was stated:
"The Home Office …have taken the view that when a young person is remanded to local authority accommodation and placed in a non-secure children's home with education on the premises, from which he/she is not permitted to leave—
I do not care for the syntax there—
"and who is not permitted to live at home with his/her parents, then the time spent there should count against sentence. In practice this will mean all placements in community homes".
We are not proposing any change here; it is the Bill which proposes a change. The Bill proposes a restriction to the effect that only secure accommodation should count against a custodial sentence. That must be damaging to young offenders. Of course they need to have their liberty restricted (that is the basis on which we are all speaking) but at the same time they may need the wider range of education, training and facilities which would be available in a non-secure children's home—let us not hear talk of secure training establishments again because there are not any; they do not exist—and which might in many circumstances be more suitable to the young offenders without being, strictly speaking, secure accommodation.
We are not opposed to local authority secure accommodation, as noble Lords will know. We have always said that an expansion of local authority secure accommodation is a proper alternative to the secure training centres which the Government proposed. Nevertheless, it is necessary that there should be a wider

651
range of the kinds of accommodation which are available to young people who need to be deprived of their liberty in anticipation of sentencing by the youth courts.
I shall not go into a tirade about the youth justice system, as I might well do; and I shall certainly not take any electioneering advantages, which I could do, about the youth justice system; but it is a fact that the Government now propose a change which is retrograde and which would restrict the availability of suitable accommodation for young people awaiting sentence. This amendment to restore the present position should be accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support this amendment. I speak also to Amendment No. 59, which is in my name.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 changed the law by extending the Criminal Justice Act 1967, Section 67, to apply to sentences of detention under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It subjected offenders ordered to be detained under the Children and Young Persons Act to the same system of early release as adults sentenced to imprisonment. So, prior to the Act offenders sentenced to detention under the Children and Young Persons Act could be released at any time in the discretion of the Secretary of State; but after 1st October 1992 they had to serve half the term before being released or becoming eligible for release in the case of a sentence of four years or more.
The Act required the period of time spent in custody on remand to be treated as having been served for the purpose of determining whether the offender had served half or two thirds of his sentence for this purpose.
Section 67(1A)(c) of the 1967 Act provided that the time during which the offender was remanded or committed to local authority care and was in any accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty should be treated as a relevant period for this purpose.
Those provisions came before the Court of Appeal in the case of Collins on 26th May 1994. The case is reported in 1995, 16, Criminal Appeal Court Sentencing at page 156. That concerned a youth of 14 years of age who pleaded guilty ultimately to false imprisonment and assault and had been detained in a non-secure home. He had been detained in a place that was known as Tong Park and was local authority accommodation. In considering the provisions of the Act, the Court of Appeal said:
"Looking at the matter broadly, it might be thought to be rather puzzling that it was ever suggested that the appellant was not in accommodation provided for the purposes of restricting liberty. If his liberty was not restricted during the pre-sentence period, there do not seem to be strong grounds for arguing that some deduction should be made in the sentence at all".
Mr. Justice Waller, who gave the judgment in that case, said that there was some discussion about it but the Home Office had written to say that the Home Office would have applied the automatic provisions in the case if the sentence in that case had been left alone. In other words, the Home Office view was that being
652
detained in local authority accommodation, even though it was not a secure unit, satisfied the provisions of the Act and should be taken into account in determining the sentence.
That was the law as expressed by the Home Office. The Crown adopted that position in the case of Collins and the Court of Appeal said that it was perfectly correct so to do. So we have the position that at present, where a youth is detained in local authority accommodation on remand or as a result of a court order awaiting a hearing, that has to be taken into account. Now what is proposed in this Bill is a change. The onus is upon the Government again to explain why there has to be a change in this Bill, so that only a young offender who has been kept in secure accommodation can have that period of time taken into account and counted as part of the sentence that is ultimately imposed upon him. Why is there that change?
It means that under the proposals in this Bill a young offender who is taken away from his home and kept in a secure unit will have the period of time that he spends in that secure unit taken into account. For the less disruptive young offender who is taken away from home, losing his home life, all his surroundings and so on, and who is ordered to stay in local authority accommodation which does not happen to be a secure unit, that period of time when he is taken away from home does not count.
There appears to be a manifest injustice about that which needs to be resolved. Why have the Government gone back on the position clearly expressed not only by the Home Office and the Court of Appeal but also by the circular to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred? The department issued a circular, the terms of which have been quoted and which confirm the position of the Court of Appeal. We require reasons for the change.
Lord Hylton: The amendments appeal to me for two reasons, particularly Amendment No. 58 because it is the stronger. Some young people need their liberty restricting pending their hearing in court. But during that time of restriction it is important, first, that they should be able to maintain their family links and contact as much as possible; and, secondly, that their education should suffer the minimum of disruption. The amendments will help on both those points.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Is the Minister able to say what the Government's definition is of "secure accommodation" in these circumstances? Also, can he indicate for what period of continuous incarceration the Government believe a young offender can be kept in a community home or a community home with education?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Clause 16(3) sets out the types of remand which should be credited towards a custodial sentence where the defendant is a juvenile. They are time spent on remand or committal to local authority accommodation where the offender is placed and kept in secure accommodation and time spent on committal to a remand centre or prison.

653
To deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, "secure accommodation" is accommodation to which the alleged offender is confined and from which he is not at liberty to depart as and when he chooses. Time spent in such a centre will count towards the sentence under the terms of the Bill as currently drafted. It is not spelt out in detail in Clause 16(3), as the matter is already covered by the definition of a remand to custody given in Clause 8.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Thomas of Gresford, would have considerable impact on Clause 16(3). As many Members of the Committee will know, juveniles who are denied bail are usually remanded to local authority accommodation. Once remanded there, the juvenile may be placed, among other places, in a community home. That may be in secure accommodation; it may be with foster parents or with relatives. It is for the local authority to decide where the individual is placed and considerable discretion is given to a local authority in such a situation.
Until recently in calculating the sentence for a juvenile the Prison Service took into account only time spent on remand in prison accommodation or in secure local authority accommodation in accordance with the intentions of Section 67(1)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. However, two court rulings—the case of Collins, to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred, and the case of Kerry—found that time spent on remand to non-secure local authority accommodation where the regime is highly structured and the people staying there closely supervised amounted to secure conditions and for that reason should count towards sentence. As a consequence of the rulings in those two cases, the Prison Service when calculating sentence currently takes into account time spent on remand to local authority accommodation even where the accommodation is not secure but where a strict regime is imposed.
Clause 16(3) seeks to reverse the position to what was understood to be the law before those two judgments were passed. The effect of Clause 16(3) is that only the following types of remand will count towards sentence: remand or committal to a remand centre or prison; remand to a local authority where the juvenile is placed and kept in secure accommodation; and, in the future, where a court has ordered a secure remand.
Amendment No. 58 will go even further than either the Kerry or Collins judgments and provides that time spent on remand to an open community home, whatever the nature of the regime, should be credited towards sentence. The only caveat is whether the remanded juvenile has absconded or attempted to abscond.
The Government cannot agree with either of the amendments. Juveniles who are given custodial sentences are held in a young offender institution, in local authority secure accommodation or in a youth treatment centre run by the Department of Health where there are secure conditions. Periods of detention in open conditions in a community home, during which period a juvenile defendant may go to school or take part in leisure activities outside the community home, are not
654
equivalent to the period of time spent under a custodial sentence. The Government believe that time spent under such conditions should not fall to be credited towards any sentence that has been imposed.
Whether or not the defendant absconds or even tries to abscond from a community home with open conditions is irrelevant, as the important point is the conditions under which the juvenile is held while on remand. The proper question is whether the remand conditions are comparable to those encountered while serving a custodial sentence. The amendments seek to equate the period on remand with the period of sentence. All that is quite apart from the practical problems that would undoubtedly occur in deciding, on the basis of any objective assessment of evidence, whether or not a particular defendant had attempted to abscond, or had been successful, and had thereby been disqualified from remand credits. The fact that it has not proved necessary to keep an untried juvenile defendant in secure accommodation may be a powerful factor in mitigation in deciding what sentence is to be imposed, but treating a period of remand in non-secure accommodation as part of that sentence is a different matter altogether.
For those reasons, on the clear understanding that all the amendment seeks to do is to restore the law to what it was understood to be before the two cases to which I referred, I hope that neither noble Lord will feel it appropriate to press the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Before the Minister sits down, will he deal with the second part of my question? What is the Government's view on how long a young offender can be kept continuously in secure accommodation on a 24-hour basis?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: That is a matter for the people running the secure accommodation. As currently framed, the intention of the Bill is that if someone is kept in secure accommodation the extent to which he can leave the accommodation would be entirely under the control of those who run the accommodation. Non-secure accommodation would involve an element of flexibility where, provided the individual kept in contact with the accommodation, he would be abiding by the rules of the accommodation. For the life of me, I cannot imagine a situation where accommodation was secure but individuals were allowed to come and go from it for any part of the day. But it is not impossible that people running secure accommodation for young offenders, having got to know the individual concerned, took the view that it was appropriate for them to allow the individual to leave for a couple of hours during the day. I do not think that would necessarily render the accommodation non-secure. But, as I understand it, secure accommodation makes it clear that those running it determine as and when an individual leaves, if they leave at all.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the Minister is saying simply illustrates the absurdity of the Government's stance. Of course the secure

655
accommodation remains secure, but the question is whether the young offender is in it. If he is not in secure accommodation, are the Government saying that that counts as time served in custody or not? Are the Government aware of the existence of specific regulations dealing with how long young offenders can be kept in secure accommodation?
Finally, as I am intruding unfairly on the time of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord McIntosh, what is the difference between a young offender on remand in a community home in relatively open conditions and someone who serves a sentence in an open prison?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord makes my point. If the prisoner is serving his sentence in an open prison, that prison is still under the control of those running it as regards the extent to which the prisoner is free to leave the boundary of the prison. He is still serving his sentence. And so it is with secure accommodation. If it is appropriate in a particular case for those running it to release the individual—I find it very difficult to imagine that they would choose to do so—that does not of itself render the accommodation non-secure.
However, if the individual is free to come and go as he wishes, which is certainly the position if he is placed with a relative or a foster parent, then we are in a different situation altogether. That is why the Government believe that it is important to restrict the position to that set out in Clause 16(3). Although the noble Lord poses certain difficulties with the argument that I advance, as I understand it, that was the law for many years prior to the two cases to which I have referred.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the Minister sits down, can he answer this question which arises from his reply to the question that I posed? I asked: why change the situation set out in the case of Collins? The Minister's reply to that, which he repeated a few seconds ago, was that it is the Government's view that they are reverting to the position as the law was understood to be prior to the Collins case. If that is so, what was it in that case that made the Home Office write to Leeds Social Services to say that the automatic provision would have applied to the situation that had arisen where Collins was kept in a non-secure home? Why was it that the Crown adopted that position, presumably on instructions? Later, in the memorandum of 16th May 1995, which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has quoted, why was it said:
"The Home Office … have taken the view that when a young person is remanded to local authority accommodation … from which he is not permitted to leave and who is not permitted to live at home with his/her parents, then the time spent there should count against sentence"?
On all those occasions that was expressed to be the Home Office view and also that of the prosecution and their understanding of the law. How can it be said today that the alteration that this Bill proposes to the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Collins, and which was repeated in the case of Kerry, is a reversion to what
656
the law was previously understood to be? Prior to the case of Collins who understood the law to be as the noble and learned Lord now says it is?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. I had understood quite clearly that prior to the case of Collins the law was as I understood it to be. The position had to be reviewed in the light of the two cases of Collins and Kerry to which I have referred. Prior to these cases I am unaware of any dissatisfaction with the law because many people—lawyers and non-lawyers—can readily draw a distinction between keeping alleged young offenders in secure accommodation from which they are not free to come and go as they please, with keeping them in accommodation such as foster homes, staying with relatives or wherever, where they have a measure of ability to come and go to school; to go out to meet their friends; go to youth clubs or whatever else they wish to do, but requiring them to stay somewhere else other than the family home.
That was something that was deemed to work. That was what the law was understood to be. As I understand it, Collins and Kerry changed people's understanding about what the law was. The Government take the view that the division which existed prior to Collins and Kerry was sensible and acceptable. That is why this Bill, in the form in which it is currently framed, draws a distinction between secure accommodation on the one hand and other accommodation on the other.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry to say it but the answers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate are all over the place. At one stage he said that the amendments go further than Collins or Kerry but then at another stage of his reply he says that the Government are seeking to restore the situation which existed before Collins or Kerry and that this would undo that by confirming the situation after Collins and Kerry.
At one stage he speaks as though the amendment would allow time spent at home or in a foster home or some other designated place as counting against sentence. But then he must recognise that the phrase "community home", which we use in the amendment, has a very precise meaning and it is a precise meaning which has been used by the Home Office in the Department of Health circular which I quoted and which has been referred to since.
In response to my noble friend Lord Williams, the noble and learned Lord acknowledges that a prison sentence is a prison sentence whether or not it is in an open prison. And yet he is not prepared to make that exactly comparable distinction between remand in secure accommodation and remand in a community home. Both of them are places where time is spent on remand and both involve the deprivation of liberty. Both of them are as much capable as counting against a custodial sentence as is a sentence in a secure prison as compared with a sentence in an open prison.
We have protected the position of the community home in Amendment No. 58 by saying that, if it were to be used in the way that the noble and learned Lord suggests and the young person then absconds or tries to

657
abscond, the provision would no longer apply. In other words, absconding or attempting to abscond automatically disqualifies the period from counting against the sentence.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate refers time and again to the purposes of Clause 16(3) but, if he turns to subsections (4) and (5), the assumption, for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) of the clause is,
"that the prisoner's behaviour had been such as to entitle him to the maximum number of early release days available under that subsection."
The analogy is very precise. If it applies for early release days, it should apply whatever kind of deprivation of liberty has been undergone.
Let us leave aside the legal arguments. The social reason for proposing the amendments is that a wider range of accommodation on remand is for the benefit of the young person concerned and for the benefit of society. If the balance between, for example, education and training in a community home is in favour of that choice as opposed to the real necessity for security against absconding, that should be the proper place of remand; that should be the decision of those responsible for the remand; and that should not affect the ultimate sentence which is served by the young person.
If there is not to be a proper judgment based on the needs of the young person concerned as between secure accommodation and a community home, and if that judgment is to be distorted by the length of the sentence that is finally awarded, the interests of justice are not being served. The public is not protected and the chances of weaning a young person away from crime are not being properly considered.
This is not the time of night at which to divide the Committee on the matter; but I am profoundly dissatisfied with the answers of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 11, line 36, leave out ("16") and insert ("21").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 60. The amendment refers to Clause 16(4). This is an interesting illustration of the problems that arise from the regime proposed by the Government. The prescribed person shall assume that the prisoner's behaviour has been such as to entitle him to the maximum number of early release days available if he is under 16. I do not know whether that is a rebuttable or irrebuttable assumption. Does it mean that the prescribed person starts off by assuming that the prisoner is entitled to the full amount but it can be reduced if the prisoner does not satisfy the prescribed minimum conduct? What does it mean?
The essential purpose of this amendment is to ask the Government why it is set at 16. Young offender institutions contain people between the ages of 15 and 21. A cut-off point of 16 seems to be an arbitrary
658
decision. Up to 16 there is an assumption, rebuttable or irrebuttable, that days of release have been earned. If the Government seek to draw a distinction they will create trouble within young offender institutions, as has been said so many times today. What people look for is their early release date to discover when they can get out. If there are to be distinctions all kinds of tensions are likely to arise in young offender institutions. We seek to discover why 16 has been arbitrarily chosen.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 16(4) specifies that prisoners under 16 years of age, or those who have been detained in local authority accommodation or in a home provided under Section 82(5) of the Children Act 1989, should be awarded the maximum number of provisional early release dates available under Clause 10. Amendment No. 60 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would extend this provision to all prisoners under the age of 21. Amendment No. 61 to Clause 16(5) makes a similar change in respect of remanded prisoners. Clause 16(5) makes provision that those who are under 16 years of age or those who are remanded or committed to local authority accommodation and placed and kept in secure accommodation under Section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, or Section 37 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, should be provisionally awarded the maximum number of early release days. Amendment No. 61 would extend these provisions to those under the age of 21.
Both Clauses 16(4) and 16(5) provide adjustment to other parts of the Bill so as to take account of the special arrangements that are necessary for children and young people who offend or are so accused. They recognise in part that some children and young people under 16 years of age lack a level of maturity appropriate for the adult provisions to apply directly to them. In addition, some of these children and young people will be held in accommodation outside the prison estate where the regimes are different and where it would be inappropriate to operate the earned early release provisions in the Bill in exactly the same way as in prison. Such children are usually under the age of 16. Young people can, however, also be held in a young offender institution from the age of 15. To ensure equal treatment of such young people, we have provided for the same release arrangements to apply to them wherever they are held.
The two amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, would significantly affect Clause 16, subsections (4) and (5), and widen these special provisions to include those aged under 21 years of age. The proposed widening of these provisions to include young adults aged 16 to 20 years is entirely inappropriate because this older age group, which would be included by the proposed amendment, does not fit well with either of the two special reasons which underpin these provisions. The older age group typically has a greater maturity which is well able to understand and comply with or exceed minimum standards, and the vast majority will be held in young offender institutions within the prison estate under regimes which are comparable to those applicable to adults. We see no reason whatever to extend the provisions in this way.

659
I hope it was a slightly rhetorical question: what is the difference between the number 16 and the number 21? Those of us who are parents know that there is a very real difference between a child aged 16 and under compared with a person who is 21 years of age.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Let not the noble Baroness assume that I do not have children of my own. That is not the case; I have been there, done it. But would the noble Baroness be good enough to answer my specific question as to whether this assumption is rebuttable or not? She used two different expressions. She said that the person concerned should be awarded the maximum number of early release days; then later in her reply she said that they should be provisionally awarded the maximum number of early release days. Which is right? Is it the first, an irrebuttable assumption, or is it the second, that if they do not reach the minimum standard, just like anybody of an older age, they do not get their maximum number of early release days?
Baroness Blatch: The intention is that it should be an irrebuttable assumption.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: On that assurance, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Sexual offenders]:
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 13, line 40, at end insert—
("(7) The Secretary of State shall secure the availability of facilities to provide programmes of treatment designed to reduce the likelihood of further sexual offences so that any requirement that a sexual offender shall participate in such a programme as a condition of his release supervision order may be complied with.").
The noble Lord said: This is an amendment of great importance, particularly bearing in mind what the noble Baroness said earlier this afternoon, with which I for one entirely agree. She said on one occasion that the Government attach great importance to the breach of conditions of supervision. I entirely agree with that. It is critical to the assessment of these measures.
Secondly, she said that the Government were concerned with better protection for the public. Of course, we entirely agree with that. This amendment, in the context of Clause 17, is to make proper provision for conditions of supervision and therefore to provide a better protection to the public in particular circumstances.
Sexual offenders, in my belief and in the experience of many practitioners, offer a particular problem. They are a menace to the public. Many of them are extremely devious. Many are quite able to reconcile themselves to "good behaviour", to put it neutrally, in prison—that is conformist behaviour. But it is difficult to deal with what may be a pattern of recurring sexual offences, particularly where small children are involved.
This amendment obliges the Secretary of State to make available facilities to provide programmes of treatment designed to reduce the likelihood of further sexual offences so that any requirement that a sexual offender shall participate in such a programme as a condition of his release supervision order may be complied with. In other words, if there is a sexual offender who is going to be released, part of the condition of his release supervision order may be that he attends at a programme of treatment which is designed to reduce the likelihood of re-offending in a sexual context. It should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make those facilities available.
There would be a degree of expense and I put that in the context to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred on Second Reading; £0.5 billion a year for new prisons. It is a prudent step for the protection of a particularly vulnerable section of the public and their relatives and friends. It means that one has conditions of supervision which can be carefully accommodated within the provision that the amendment would require. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I do not pretend fully to understand the detail of the amendment, but it appears to be the way in which the Committee, the Government and Parliament should be proceeding in dealing with the real problems of sex offenders, in particular those who offend against children. I hope that, even if the amendment as it stands is not appropriate, the Government will welcome the intention behind it.
Earl Russell: It is not within the purpose of the present amendment but in a redrafted amendment that I have another aspect which I hope will be included. It is the treatment of men who repeatedly perpetuate domestic violence. It is an offence in which there is a large recidivist tendency which causes a great amount of hardship, dislocation, dismay and expense.
Punishment alone does not seem to have the necessary curative effect. Attempts have been made to provide treatment and the Home Office has been involved in funding some of them. It could be a cost-effective, humane and sensible way of dealing with a real mischief.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may begin with the point made by the noble Earl because I regard it as being very important. Those of us who knew Baroness Faithfull will know that she was a doughty fighter for what was originally the Gracewell Clinic. It closed due to problems but reopened as the Faithfull Clinic. I was most pleased to carry on that doughty fight within the Home Office. We secured funding for the clinic, which is working well and hope to evaluate its work. That such a programme is important is beyond doubt.
It is true that the rehabilitation of sex offenders causes all the authorities the most difficulty. The noble Earl was right in saying that recidivism is high among sex offenders. It is a particular problem and any way in which one can address it is important. The increase

661
in the number of programmes in our prisons is particularly pleasing. It means that during the custodial part of the sentence treatment programmes are in order.
I share the concern that sex offender treatment programmes should be readily available to meet an identified need, but we do not need the amendment to achieve that. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, because I know that it is the premise behind the amendments, that if it is a condition of supervision the provision must exist. It is no good making breaching a condition of supervision an arrestable offence if the person in default is the Secretary of State or the Probation Service, which would be the front line service for making the provision.
The Probation Service already has the responsibility, which it is used to meeting, to design, provide and promote effective programmes to tackle all aspects of offending behaviour, including sex offending. I am aware that when the issue was discussed in another place concern was expressed that the proposals in the Bill would place an additional burden on the Probation Service. Although we expect the overall effect of the provisions to be broadly cost neutral for the Probation Service, we have promised to keep the matter under review.
There will of course be some savings arising from the "honesty in sentencing" proposals in the Bill—the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that some sentences will be longer on custody and shorter on supervision—which are largely likely to offset the additional costs arising from the provisions for extended supervision for sex offenders. Probation committees receive grant allocations to support their programmes based on workload and demographic indicators of needs. It is for individual services to decide on spending priorities.
Well-designed and properly delivered sex offender treatment programmes will obviously play a major part in assisting sex offenders to tackle their offending behaviour. That is borne out by research. In October last year the results of a Home Office research study concerning the two-year reconviction rates of a small sample of sex offenders who received treatment in the community were published. The study indicated that such treatment not only has a positive effect on offenders' attitudes but also on their reconviction. Although the probation service has no national equivalent to the prison service sex offender treatment programme, treatment programmes are nonetheless widely available within the community. Almost all probation services now run treatment programmes and, in addition, the Government provide funding to the Wolvercote Clinic, a residential sex offender treatment programme which specialises in treating men who have abused children with whom they have established a relationship.
To aid the probation service in its work, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation has embarked on a thematic inspection of probation service work with sex offenders. The outcome of that inspection, which should be available later this year, should provide a
662
useful tool for probation services to improve the quality and effectiveness of sex offender treatment programmes provided locally.
Programmes to tackle all aspects of offending behaviour—which, interestingly, is why sex offending should be particularly singled out on the face of the Bill—are made available by the probation service on the basis of need. The issue is best left to the probation service, which will play an integral part in determining and influencing conditions of supervision. The service is best able to identify the need for, and take steps to provide, the specific treatment to tackle a particular type of offending, including treatment for sex offending. For those reasons we cannot support the amendment going on the face of the Bill but we have every sympathy and empathy with the sentiments behind it.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am disappointed not with the tone of what the Minister says but with the conclusion that she offers us. Of course, I agree—and this is the motive behind the amendment—that there is no national equivalent for the treatment of sex offenders out of the prison system to correspond with a national regime within the prison system. That is what troubles us.
We are suggesting a scheme which, as the Minister said, the sample shows to be cost effective, practical and one which would bring about proved public protection. Leaving it to individual probation areas simply will not do, for two obvious, practical reasons. First, if a judge is sentencing someone and has in mind particular treatment for a sexual offender who may be a sexual recidivist, he can only sentence on the basis of available resources. If the available resources are not there, that is one sentencing option which will not be open to him.
Secondly, if the probation service in the area is tightly strapped for resources, which many of them are, in preparing the appropriate report for the court the probation officer will simply not be able to offer such an alternative for the court to consider. That is not a criticism of the Minister, because I know that she shares my views about the particular problem of recidivist offenders. This has nothing to do with party politics at all. When one considers the resources that may be applied elsewhere in other aspects of the Bill, it is very disappointing that the amendment cannot be accepted by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 63:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
EXTENDED RELEASE SUPERVISION ORDER FOR VIOLENT OFFENDERS
(".—(1) Subsection (2) applies where—

(a) an offender who has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence

663
committed after the commencement of this Chapter is released under this Chapter; and

(b) the court by which he was sentenced gave a direction under subsection (3) below.

(2) Section 13 above shall have effect in relation to the offender as if for subsection (2) there were substituted the following subsection—
"(2) On his release, the offender shall be subject to a release supervision order

(a) where he is released otherwise than under section 9 above, for such period as is specified in the direction under section (Extended release supervision order for violent offenders) (3) below;

(b) where he is released under section 9 above, for a period equal to the aggregate of—

(i) the period mentioned in paragraph (a) above; and

(ii) a period equal to so much of the remainder of his term as he would have served but for his release under section 9 above;

and in applying paragraph (b) above account shall be taken of any early release or additional days awarded to the offender before his release."
(3) Where a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term of four years or more in respect of a violent offence committed after the commencement of this Chapter, it may give a direction under this subsection.
(4) A direction under subsection (3) above shall direct that the offender's release supervision period shall be such period as is specified in the direction.
(5) The period so specified shall be a period equal to more than 25 per cent but not more than 50 per cent of the offender's term of imprisonment (rounded up to the nearest whole day).").
The noble Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 63 would be to extend the period of supervision for serious offenders; in other words, those sentenced to four years or more who are also violent. I shall not go over the ground that we dealt with earlier this afternoon when we considered whether Clause 7 should stand part of the Bill and subsequent amendments. I shall draw attention only to the conclusion of that discussion when we drew attention to the remarks of Mr. Maclean in another place on 10th December last year on the issue of parole and whether parole improved the chances of a prisoner staying straight.
There was disagreement about the evidence from the Home Office. However, the important point to refer to here is Mr. Maclean's observation when he said:
"There is no evidence whatsoever that parole, rather than well-targeted and effective supervision, leads, of itself, to a reduction in offending".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 10/12/96; col. 342.]
I do not agree with that. I think that his assessment of the effectiveness of parole is based on, at the very least, a misinterpretation of the Home Office research. However, I draw attention to the point about,
"well-targeted and effective supervision.
That is the thrust of this amendment.
A similar amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place. The Minister pointed out that the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill would create a larger number of automatic life sentences which would therefore make extended supervision possible. He said that,
664
"Of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, we estimate that 120 would have been eligible for an automatic life sentence had the Bill been then in force".—[col. 341.]
Regardless of any amendments carried last week, the point is that even under the Government's proposals, that is only 6 per cent. of violent offenders; 94 per cent. of violent offenders would not have received automatic life sentences and would not therefore have the possibility of continued supervision—indeed, supervision for life.
What is the position about extended supervision under the Bill? It is difficult to sort out. We are clear about the present situation. In the case of a prisoner who receives an eight-year sentence, with parole that means four years in custody, two years on parole and a further two years at risk. The Government may not like that; indeed, they clearly do not, but that is the present situation and it is reasonably clear. The question of whether there will be more or less supervision now under the provisions of the Bill is much less clear. Someone who is released on parole would receive a shorter period of post release supervision under the new proposals, whereas the long-term prisoner who does not receive parole would receive a longer period of supervision under the Bill's proposals. We have to accept that there are pluses and minuses in terms of supervision for different cases under the Bill's provisions.
I wish to draw an analogy with what the Government themselves have stated about sex offenders. This relates to the amendment just moved by my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. As recently as June 1996 the Government's consultation document Sentencing and Supervision of Sex Offenders stated:
"the length of post-release supervision for the majority of sex offenders is at present directly proportionate to the length of time spent in custody … The longer the period of supervision on release from custody, the greater the opportunity for the probation service to continue to work with the offender to address his offending behaviour, to assess the risk he poses to the community and to take steps to minimise that risk by arranging further treatment or helping the offender to avoid a relapse".
Those are wise words but, I suggest, they should apply also to serious violent offenders—those covered by the amendment. I believe that we are all in agreement about the way in which sex offenders should be treated. I am encouraged to believe that by the responses of the Minister to my noble friend's arguments. But we want to provide an extended supervision period for violent offenders. That is not adequately provided by Clause 17 of the Bill. It is provided for by the new clause.
In relation to the supervision of violent offenders, the provision does not go as far as Clause 17 for sex offenders. It does not require the courts to order extended supervision, but merely gives them a discretion to do so. It is limited to the more serious cases where sentences of four years or more have been passed. That is equivalent to six years or more under the existing rules.
It is, therefore, a rather modest amendment. In cases involving serious, violent offenders the amendment gives the court a discretion to award longer periods of supervision. In other words, in keeping with the way in which we have been approaching this part of the Bill

665
throughout, the provision is concerned primarily with the protection of the public. On that basis alone, I believe that it should commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blotch: I share the concern that the law should provide greater protection for the public from the most serious violent offenders. That is why in Clause 1 of the Bill we have automatic life sentences for those who commit repeat serious violent offences. I also support the view that a period of supervision is valuable for any offender who is released from a significant spell in prison. We have provided for that in the Bill by way of a statutory period of post-release supervision which, following an amendment in another place, now represents a period equivalent to 25 per cent. of the sentence length. This means that an offender sentenced to four years' imprisonment will, on completion of his sentence be subject to 12 months' supervision by the probation service during which time the service will continue to work with the offender to build on work started in prison to tackle his offending behaviour.
But, however valuable the supervision period, the case for increasing it still further for a particular group of offenders, and violent offenders in this case as this new clause proposes, I believe should be considered further.
The group of violent offenders covered by the proposal are among those who receive the longest sentences. Some of them will receive an automatic life sentence under Clause 1 of the Bill and will be supervised for life. As the noble Lord mentioned, of the 1,900 violent offenders sentenced to custody of four years or more in 1995, we estimate that about 120 would have fallen into this category.
Those who do not will nevertheless receive long prison sentences. And we have made one particularly important improvement in supervision arrangements as compared with the present arrangements for prisoners when they are released. Under present arrangements an offender who is held until the two-thirds point of sentence because he is not granted parole is supervised for only 8 per cent. of sentence—or less if he has any additional days to serve. Under the Bill, an offender's supervision period will be 25 per cent. of sentence whenever he is released. This means both that serious violent offenders will spend a lengthy period of time in prison, during which time they are very likely to be involved in treatment programmes to tackle their offending behaviour, and that they will be subject to a lengthy period of supervision when released, which will allow action to build on the work begun in prison.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point by giving an example. In the Bill as it stands, an offender who receives a four-year sentence will serve between three years and four months and four years, and, on release, will be supervised for 12 months. The equivalent sentence under present arrangements is six years. An offender who received no parole would serve four years and be supervised on release for only six months. In other words, the supervision period under our proposals would be twice as long as it is at present.
666
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to apply to some serious violent offenders supervision arrangements similar to those which the Bill provides for sex offenders. But it has long been recognised that sex offenders are considered to be different from other offenders including violent offenders, and it was on that premise that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 made provision for a longer period of supervision for sex offenders. For example, sex offenders tend to continue offending for much of their lives; many violent offenders stop offending earlier. Sex offenders tend to escalate in their offending; often violent offending appears to be more random, sometimes the result of loss of control, alcohol or drugs. Sex offences are clearly defined in the Criminal Justice Act 1991; violent offences cover a very wide range of behaviour.
It is important to target supervision effectively. The Bill provides lifelong supervision for the most serious violent and sex offenders. It provides extended supervision for other sex offenders because for those offenders there is a clear and specific need. And it provides supervision periods commensurate with the seriousness of the offending and proportionate to the prison sentence imposed for other offenders.
We see one or two problems in relation to the amendment before us. I do not reject the noble Lord's proposed amendment out of hand; indeed, I am very sympathetic to it. We share the same aim. But, first, can I assume that, as the noble Lord wishes supervision to be within the sentence period (if one takes all the amendments together that the noble Lord is supporting) then the eligible release date for a violent offender would have to be at the 50 per cent. point in order to contain the supervision period within the period of sentence.
Secondly, there is not a definition of violence. My question is: would it include Section 47, Section 18 and Section 20 violent offences; or would it include any violent offence that attracted the sentence set out in the amendment?
Thirdly, does the reference to "four years" mean four years as of now—which would mean a sentence of two years and eight months—or would it be four years under the new proposals, which represents a sentence equivalent to six years? It is important to know whether the noble Lord is using an old or a new version of the four years.
Under the amendment the court is not required to give reasons for the extended supervision. I can only imagine that is an omission that the noble Lord would want—if the court varied the supervision order, reasons would be given in open court.
I recognise that the noble Lord has moved from the rather inflexible position of the amendments tabled in the House of Commons proposing a fixed period of 50 per cent. for violent offenders—again without definition and without explanation of the four-year period. It would be right, were we to go down this road, that the discretion of the judge should be considered because of the wide variety of violent offences that can be considered. In that case it would be very important

667
for the court to spell out precisely why there was an extension and a movement away from the standard 25 per cent.
The amendment introduces a discretion for the courts. We accept that. I should like to consider that further. But we have a number of questions about the amendment before us. I wonder whether the noble Lord will help us with the answer to some of those questions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is very interesting. The Minister is saying in effect not only that the intention of the amendment is good but that, subject to a number of relatively minor reservations of which I took a note and can certainly answer, the Government may well be prepared to consider a proposal along these lines at a later stage. I am deliberately putting words into the Minister's mouth because I do not believe that her reservations about the wording were particularly serious.
The first one, which relates to the release date and the fact that it is our wish that the release supervision order should be considered within the period of the sentence, is probably the most serious. That, of course, is exactly the kind of issue which is open for discussion.
Baroness Blatch: Let me make it plain once more. I have said several times today that we are not contemplating an earlier release date. The discussions we are having with my noble friends address their concerns about the safety of releasing prisoners, the arrangements for that release, a proper risk assessment at the time of release and the conditions to set down for supervision. We are not talking about the whole supervision period being within the sentence period. I have said this to the noble Lord once; I say it again and I shall continue saying it: we are not contemplating earlier release dates for anybody.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister indeed said that before and I give the same response as I did then: behind all the amendments we have been proposing has been a principled objection to what is in effect the abolition of parole and the remission system.
Release dates are one of the considerations in that change. Unless either release dates are a matter for discussion or there is the possibility of supervision continuing outside the period of sentence—which, as I said before, comes back to the reviewable sentence proposals of the Butler Committee—we shall not get very far in discussions.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I wish to make it clear, in view of what my noble friend said, that I fully accept that what she said is exactly what she said earlier to me and, I assume, to my noble friend Lord Belstead.
I must also make it clear that, in welcoming the fact—as I hope I did at the end of the discussion on Clause 7—that the Minister is willing to consider the restoration of parole, I should not be taken as in any way accepting the limitations of her argument that there
668
should be no movement in the release date. I do not think that my noble friend thought for a moment that I was accepting those limitations.
Maybe the Government will not agree, but I hope she did not think that I in any way implied that I did not intend to continue to press her to reconsider the matter, although I accept that she made it clear that at the moment the Government's intention to look at this matter was based merely on restoring parole. I would argue that, if the question of the restoration of parole is considered, some area wider than the 84 per cent. should be covered.
Baroness Blatch: I understand what my noble friend is saying. Perhaps I can separate the two matters. In agreeing to consider the matter further for the Report stage, I have made two things very clear. We are not prepared to go down the road of contemplating automatic release; nor do we wish to go down the road of earlier release than that we have been talking about. I shall continue to be pressed by my noble friend because it would be entirely characteristic for him to continue to press me. However, the only way in which this amendment can be accepted within the sentence is that a violent offender would have to be released at the 50 per cent. point of sentence. The whole purpose of the Bill is that we shall not release violent offenders, or indeed anybody, into the community at 50 per cent. of the sentence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: All of these matters have knock-on effects on each other. If it is indeed the case that we cannot persuade the Government either by force of argument or by force of numbers that they are mistaken, we shall have to look at the other options available to us. One of those options is reviewable sentences and the possibility that supervision might continue after the end of the sentence. That cannot be wholly ruled out.
The Minister challenged me on the definition of violence. There are plenty of definitions of violent offenders, as she well knows. I am sure that in discussion we can reach an acceptable definition, just as there are acceptable definitions of sex offences.
The noble Baroness challenged me on the question of whether I meant four years now under the present situation or four years then. I thought that I had made it clear in the example I gave that I meant the four and six years rather than the four years and two years, eight months. But, again, that is a matter for negotiation. I do not feel strongly about it. I think she will realise that there will have to be amendments at Report stage which will seek to redefine the definition of serious offences in terms of the length of the sentences.
The noble Baroness's fourth challenge was that I had omitted to say that the courts should give reasons for extended supervision periods. I readily agree with that. Of course they would have to do so. I cannot imagine that it would have to be on the face of the Bill, but, if necessary, a further amendment could be introduced to that effect. However, I shall consider whether it should be on the face of the Bill.

669
I emphasise again that this amendment would merely give a discretion to the courts to award a longer supervision period. Since we all agree that that would be desirable, I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of man or woman to reach a conclusion about a suitable wording to achieve it. In hope of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 to 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 [Continuity of sentencing]:
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 16, line 19, leave out from ("to") to end of line 21 and insert—

("(a) two-thirds of any term of four years or more which, at that time, it would have held to be appropriate if the offence had been so committed; or

(b) 60 per cent of any term of less than four years which, at that time, it would have held to be appropriate if the offence had been so committed.").

The noble Lord said: If, in moving this amendment, I were to say that it was my intention to divide the Committee, I believe that I should be listened to with a degree of derision. Therefore, I can assure the Committee that that is not my intention. But that does not mean that there is not a serious point behind the amendment, which is to try to meet what the Government say are their intentions.
We now come to a clause which attempts to meet the contention of the Government that one can move to real time sentencing without in fact increasing the period spent in prison by those whom the courts sentence to imprisonment. To achieve that end, it is the intention of the Government, as clearly set out in this clause, that when this part of the Bill comes into effect courts should impose sentences shorter than they are imposing at the moment. The Home Secretary will then be able to say that the time spent in prison equates with the length of the sentence passed—not by bringing the time spent in prison up to meet the length of the sentence passed but by reducing the length of the sentence passed to equate with the time spent in prison.
This was first spelt out in the White Paper, where the Government said in terms that that was their intention. The White Paper states that it is expected that judges will,
"take into account, when passing sentence, the abolition of parole and the changes in early release arrangements".
It further states that:
"the Government does not expect these proposals to result in a general increase in the period of time offenders serve in prison".
As I said, to achieve that end the Government have said in that section that in future when coming to sentence the court will be required to ask, "Now, had I been sitting in 1997 in the early months of that year before the passing of this Act, what is the sentence that I would have passed? And, having decided in the year 2002 what is the sentence I would have passed in 1997, I must, since this Bill is now in effect, reduce that sentence by two-thirds."
If one is dealing with cases in which a sentence is about four years, then I accept that, by saying the sentence should be 66 per cent. of the sentence which would be passed at the moment, the Government achieve their aim that the sentences passed for the longer-term offenders are likely to accord with the period they at present spend in prison. They will equate the 66 per cent. sentence to the 66 per cent. of the existing sentence that those who do not achieve parole serve, and whether or not parole is achievable is undefinable in advance.
But what of those who at the moment come out at the 50 per cent. point because their sentences are shorter than four years? There, the Government have said that the sentences should be reduced by 66 per cent. to take account of the fact that, rather than coming out at the 50 per cent. point of their sentence, they are in future apparently to come out at the 84 per cent. point. But, having done those mathematics, the fact remains—as the Minister agreed earlier today—nevertheless the effect is to increase all prison sentences for those sentenced to up to four years (which, as she said, is the vast majority of offenders) by 11 per cent. Therefore the purpose of this amendment—which says that for sentences up to four years, the court should give a sentence of 60 per cent. of the sentence it would otherwise have given—is to try to meet that problem. If it gave 60 per cent. rather than 66 per cent. of the sentence it would have given, then the period in prison, if the person received the full advantages of early release, would equate to the 50 per cent. of the sentence that is served at the moment.
Of course that is nonsense, and I accept that it is nonsense. That is why I said I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division. I wish to make the point that, if the Government say that their intention is that sentences should not be increased, then they should be saying that courts must give 60 per cent. of the sentence they would pass rather than 66 per cent. I hope that by raising this issue I shall persuade the Government at least to consider the problems they may be causing by the increased pressure which will be brought to bear on our prisons.
Perhaps I may make one final point. I was interested to hear and accept totally the point made by my noble friend, though I was surprised when she said that the predictions of the future prison population had taken account of the fact that the Bill's effect would increase by 10 per cent. the time spent in prison by those sentenced to up to four years. I say that because the White Paper said a key assumption was that, when imposing a sentence other than the mandatory minimum sentences, courts would take full account of the changes. Therefore it was not intended that there should be a general increase in the time served in prison.
It would be reasonable to assume from that point that the Government's proposals were neutral. I believed that that was the intention until it was pointed out to the Home Secretary that what was said in the White Paper would in fact lead to a reduction in sentences rather than the reverse, as a result of which the proposal for 66 per cent. was included in the Bill. Of course I accept

671
that that is so, but I still believe that the additional pressure put on prisons is unnecessary and that the money could be better spent elsewhere.
At this late hour I am encouraged by one thought. If one looks at the end of that same chapter on resources, paragraph 13.7 deals with how these matters might be implemented. It states:
"The remaining proposals for honesty in sentencing and mandatory minimum sentences for domestic burglars could then be implemented [subject to the building programme) two years later—in October 1999".
Should, regrettably, another political party be in government at that stage, the provisions may not see the light of day. Should, as I desperately hope, my own party be in power at that stage, I trust that by 1999 it will have been persuaded that the provisions introduced in 1992 were so sensible that it would be unwise to alter them after all.
Lord Hacking: Perhaps I may intervene for a few moments. I am very glad that my noble friend told us at the beginning of his address to the Committee on this amendment that we should not take the amendment seriously. I was therefore happy to hear him say that what we should be taking seriously is the need of the Government to have to place Clause 22 in the Bill at all. That need arises out of what I believe to be a most regrettable change in the Government's penal policy in introducing new measures which (but for this clause) would result in, if the Bill goes all the way to enactment and enforcement, prisoners serving different sentences in prison for the same offence.
We must look at the clause itself and how it would operate. I have to say to my noble friend and to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that their amendment does not help one whit in the actual operation of the clause. If a judge was thinking of passing a sentence of three years, six years or nine years, it would be a matter of fairly easy arithmetic for him to apply his mind to Clause 22(1) and (2) and reach a period of imprisonment which was at a rounded figure. But if the learned judge was thinking of a different period of imprisonment—for example, five years—he would then face a somewhat difficult arithmetical calculation.
I do not tell the Committee that I am necessarily right, without a calculator and sitting in the Chamber as the noble Lord was speaking, in my calculations, but I have calculated that if the judge was wishing to impose a five-year sentence or would have wished to impose a five-year sentence, before the Bill came into force, and therefore had to turn his mind to Clause 22, the actual result of that would be that under Clause 22(2) he would have to apply a sentence of 3 years, 108.32 days. One would hope that he would not go to that detail but that is the consequence of the kind of arithmetical calculation that the judge—I have to put it this way—would absurdly have to apply.
I took the period of five years for a reason. When my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was
672
originally having his first thoughts—if I may describe it in that way—about this new sentencing policy he actually said at a Conservative Party conference that, "Five years will now mean five years". Therefore, one must assume that five years is a period of imprisonment that the Home Secretary had in mind when he was introducing this Bill. That is why I chose the period of five years and made the calculations, which I put to the Committee, on the basis of five years. Indeed, in the law courts, five years is the kind of rounded figure that judges choose when appropriate for the offence.
So the basic question which I understand my noble friend to be asking and which I certainly ask of the Committee, is this: Does this change in penal policy make sense? Is it meeting a public demand that more should be done to deal with the problems of criminality now, at the end of the 20th century and at the beginning of the 21st?
When my noble friend the Minister addressed the Committee earlier on this matter she said, stepping aside from the views of the judiciary, that she was travelling on the upper deck of a London bus. I speak as a lawyer, but she did not choose to say that she was on a Clapham omnibus and, therefore, that she would have had next door to her "the reasonable man" who was somehow identified in the 1930s, I believe, by Lord Atkin—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is enjoying this little legal seminar—in order to establish the test of reasonability in civil cases.
But what I am concerned about, with my noble friend, is that I believe she misjudges the views of her fellow passengers. All I can do is to encourage her, in a very humble way, to start talking to our fellow passengers on the upper deck of the omnibus even if she is not travelling on the Clapham omnibus. If she talks to them I believe that she will find that her fellow passengers will say, at the point of sentence, when somebody has committed a very serious crime, "Yes, there should be a severe sentence. They should be passed at 10 years, 15 years or even longer". I believe that she will also hear from them that in certain cases that period of imprisonment should mean exactly that—10 years or 15 years. The most painful example of that is the Moors murder case, where the view has been taken by successive Home Secretaries that a life sentence for the two accused means a life sentence.
However, when my noble friend is travelling on the omnibus, I believe that she will find many fellow passengers who say, "There is a time for clemency; there is a time for the operation of the parole system; there is a time to let people out; that the public need for the condemnation of the offence and the passing of a severe sentence has been spent and that we now should move on because we cannot stay there. The Chief Whip is acting as the conductor at the moment and he is wanting to collect the tickets. I say to my Government Chief Whip that this is the only intervention that I have made in Committee this evening, and therefore if I have taken a little time I apologise to the Committee. But I have a very serious point, which is that Clause 22

673
identifies the mistaken policy of the whole Bill and produces an absurdity. That is why I believe that it should not be there.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no particular objection to legal lectures, but I am not very keen on them at nearly 11 o'clock at night. I suspect that my attention span is shorter than it might be at other times of the day. I shall confine my remarks to Clause 22 and not to the generality of the Government's policies.
It is a self-contradictory clause, which purports to say in subsection (1) that people should spend the same time in prison as they would have served if the offence had been committed before the commencement of this part of the Bill. Subsection (2) fails to achieve that because it fails to recognise that there is a difference in the release procedures between those sentenced to more than four years and those sentenced to less than four years.
The amendment which has been moved and to which I have added my name, is a gross over-simplification. To correct the matter should not be to put in two-thirds for over four years and 60 per cent. for over four years. It should be an algebraical formula which reflects that part of the spectrum of sentences which is over four years and that part which is under four years. But there is no doubt—and Mr. David Maclean in the Commons acknowledged this—that, mathematically, subsection (2) does not achieve the objectives of subsection (1). Therefore, purely rationally and objectively, this amendment is better than the Government's proposals, even though it is not sufficiently accurate.
I am sorry to say that my fear is much more that judges will not find it possible to reduce the nominal sentences so that there is not an increase. I find the memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill totally unsatisfactory. It states:
"It is estimated that the proposals in Parts I and II for mandatory custodial sentences and new early release arrangements would eventually result in an increase of around 11,000 in the prison population".
It is an insult to Parliament to add together the totally different effects of Part I as regards mandatory minimum sentences and Part II as regards early release arrangements and to give only the total effect without distinguishing between the two. That is insulting to Parliament. If those are different influences on the prison population, they should have been given separately in the memorandum on the financial effects of the Bill.
I am sorry that this question has only just occurred to me but since we have made some changes in Committee to the mandatory minimum sentencing procedures, it will now be necessary to table Written Questions in order to establish what is the differential effect of those two parts of the Bill on the prison population. I shall table those Questions. In the meantime, this amendment, although imperfect, is certainly an improvement on the self-contradictions in Clause 22 as it stands.
11 p.m.
Earl Russell: I listened with fascination to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. He reminded me vividly of my former headmaster attempting to demonstrate the difficulties of long division in Roman numerals by doing it on the blackboard and waiting for the bright mathematician at the back of the class to put up his hand and say, "Sir". We do not appear to have a bright mathematician in the Committee at the moment. But the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, has illustrated with quite painful clarity the difficulties of operating the procedures laid down in Clause 22. Of course, I have heard many people speak to precisely that point. I have never understood with such clarity quite how difficult an operation we are asking our judges to perform.
It is very much like the operation that some of us attempted to perform when we converted to decimal currency. I very soon discovered that it was quite impossible to convert the new prices at which I was looking into what they would have been in old prices and, first and foremost, it was because prices in different commodities inflated at different rates. In very much the same way, sentences for different offences inflate at different rates. First one offence and then another attracts the spotlight of attention and sentences go up.
Therefore, I do not think that this job can be done at all. The clause asks the judge to impose the sentence that he would have considered appropriate if the offence had been so committed. It is asking the judge to answer a hypothetical question. I understand very well why Ministers do not like answering hypothetical questions. It seems to me that that argument can apply equally well to judges. The judge might well reply, perfectly logically, "Well, I wouldn't have started from here in the first place". If he had been in a different situation, he would not have been thinking the thoughts that he is then. I do not see that he can know what sort of sentence he would have imposed if this Bill had not come into effect. The implications of that for the costings of this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, points out, are very serious. I was equally fascinated by the noble Lord's point about the costings of the two parts of the Bill. I will look at the Written Answers with a great deal of interest.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has illustrated the nonsensical nature of this provision. One sees that in subsection (2) it is provided that,
"the court by which a person is so sentenced at any time shall impose a term which is equal to two-thirds of the term which, at that time, it would have considered to be appropriate".
The position would be a little difficult if the court were not a judge at that time. If in 10 years' time there is a completely new judiciary, what is it supposed to do? It cannot look at the experience of 1997 and consider what it would have done at that time. I suppose that it would begin to consult the books. Thomas on Sentencing—no relation—would become the Bible from which everything moved. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, said that he did not seek to move a serious amendment but to illustrate the absurdities of the position. He has done

675
it extremely well. I conclude by sharing with noble Lords the picture that comes irresistibly to mind of the bus with the Minister comfortably and sedately sitting on the top deck, the conductor being the Government Chief Whip and the driver the Home Secretary, with hair all over the place, driving into the brick wall of an election—hopefully.
Baroness Blatch: As my noble friend Lord Carlisle has pointed out, for a sentence of less than four years the 60 per cent. formula will result in a prison term closer to the term that would currently be served than the two-thirds formula in Clause 22 as it stands. There is no dispute about this. Arithmetically, 60 per cent. would produce a more accurate and precise approximation to the status quo than two-thirds for prisoners serving less than four years.
But Clause 22 cannot be regarded as simply an arithmetical exercise. It is part of the sentencing process and accordingly has to be readily understood by the public and offenders and easily operated by the courts. From that perspective the 60 per cent. formula proposed in this amendment is considerably less satisfactory than two-thirds. I shall explain why.
Prison sentences are typically imposed by the courts in multiples of three months: that is to say, three months, six months, nine months, 12 months, 18 months and so on. To ask a judge or magistrate to impose a sentence equal to two-thirds of the sentence that he would previously have imposed is therefore an easy calculation to make and results in a perfectly sensible result. A sentence of 12 months becomes eight months; a sentence of 18 months becomes 12. But to ask a judge or magistrate to sentence at the 60 per cent. level is a very different matter. A 12-month sentence would translate into seven months and six days, while an 18-month sentence would become 10 months and 24 days. Such a result would plainly import a somewhat spurious degree of precision into the sentencing system, but that is exactly the result that the amendment would have if strictly applied. It is in my view an unnecessarily complicated piece of fine tuning.
Our objective in framing Clause 22, as amended, is to provide the courts with simple, sensible and straightforward guidance on how to take account of the changes in early release arrangements. In my view that is exactly what Clause 22 now does. By contrast, the 60 per cent. formula proposed in this amendment would add considerable complexity to the Bill. It would create two slightly but not significantly different systems for adjusting sentences, depending on whether the court would previously have imposed a sentence of less than four or more than four years. This is likely to lead to confusion and uncertainty. If strictly applied it will result in what can best be described as very untidy sentences. What we have set out to do in Clause 22 is to provide the courts with simple and practical guidance which will result in a reasonable approximation to current effective sentence lengths.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Hacking, there is no contradiction in what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at the conference. Five years
676
should mean five years. When the proposals in the Bill are up and running, five years will mean, both to those in the court and the public who look on, five years. That will be altered only by the number of days earned by the defendant himself under the early release scheme. Remand will be spelt out in court, unlike now when it is spelt out in prison and can create even more confusion. The important thing is that the sentence shall be more closely related to that which had been given.
Secondly, with regard to what my fellow bus passengers will say, in all my moving around the country, and I do a good deal of it, I have not yet met anyone during my visits who would agree that an offender should receive a sentence of perhaps 10 years, be eligible for release at five years and be automatically released at the two-thirds point. People simply do not support that. That is being said to me day after day after day. If Members of the Committee oppose me in that view, they obviously do not travel in buses, or certainly do not travel up and down the country meeting some of the people whom I meet. It is the most strongly held view that people receiving a sentence walk free from courts frequently at the halfway point of sentence. People do not always see too much evidence of what happens to them post-release, especially those who walk free from sentences of less than four years.
I am puzzled and somewhat amused by the constant references to the fact that judges will not feel it possible to reduce the sentence, they will not feel able to do so, they will go up tariff. I have been arguing on occasions that we should trust the judges. The judges believe at this moment that only a certain amount of a custodial sentence should be served; they know when they pass the sentence what that should be. We have taken custody and supervision together, and custody and supervision together will certainly add up to a sentence at least comparable to and slightly tougher in some cases than the present situation. Therefore, it is appropriate that the judges should look at the two-thirds formula. I have said that it would be easy to apply.
As for the poor lost souls—these judges who will be all at sea because they were newly appointed post the Bill—I have to ask, what does a newly appointed judge do now? He looks across at his fellow judges; he has guidance; he has books to which he can refer. I do not know whether judges learn on the job or whether they have some training before they go into the courts, but the truth is that judges will always come newly into the system and will always have to pick up whatever the sentencing formula is at the time.
Reference was made by my noble friend Lord Hacking to the fact that the Government's proposals would mean that different sentences would be attracted for the same offence. That happens today. In fact, because the judges have such discretion—and we have limited it to a very small extent in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill—they will hear similar offences in different parts of the country, and people will receive different sentences. We have always said, "Vive la différence" in that sense, that it is the judge's view about what the sentence should be. We are saying that if the judge, as indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said earlier, wished to apply under the present system the longer

677
sentence, he would take that into account, apply the two-thirds formula and then pass the sentence. I see no difficulty with that at all. We do not see these judges as being all at sea or lost souls under the new system.
The amendments were used as a mechanism for making different speeches. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was right; the speeches that have been made have borne very little relationship to applying the 66 per cent. formula. I have to say that we would not wish to see the differential. We believe that taking the general two-thirds formula would make it much easier for the courts to apply.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Despite the lateness of the hour, perhaps I might make two points. The first is to say that I expected the answer that the noble Baroness gave; I was not surprised by it. I made it clear that my purpose in moving the amendment was not seriously to expect that the Government would accept it, but to point out what I saw to be the illogicality in the clause. Of course, I accept her answer on that point.
The other point I wish to make to the Minister is a serious one. It is something which has worried me more and more as the day has gone on. The Minister repeatedly said, and I accept it, that the public are outraged that people are sent to prison and come out so early. First, I wonder whether that is their outrage or whether it is the length of the original sentence. When one hears someone say, tragically, that the death of his child was caused by dangerous driving and that the
678
person concerned received only two years, which means he will be out in 18 months, I am not sure whether his outrage will be assuaged if in future the court gives only 18 months. I am not sure that it is the difference between the sentence passed and what is served. I believe that the outrage is caused by the length of the sentence passed.
The point which sadly divides us on this side of the Committee—certainly myself, the Minister and the Home Secretary—is the repeated comment that today people are outraged at the suggestion that the person sentenced to three years will come out after 18 months. They say, "It is absurd, it is ridiculous, it is outrageous". I repeat that we have had a system of early release since 1837. Until 1992 people were coming out having served one-third of the sentence rather than today having served one-half. Why have people suddenly become outraged when they have not been outraged during the previous 90 years? I believe that, to an extent, it is because in various ways—I cast no aspersions—they have been conditioned to he outraged. The system was accepted and was working perfectly well until the matter came to the forefront of the political debate. I shall not carry out my threat to divide the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

  European Parliament: Members' Salaries
  European Parliament: Members' Salaries
  Occupied Territories: Human Rights
  Occupied Territories: Human Rights
  Occupied Territories: Illegal Settlements
  Occupied Territories: Illegal Settlements
  Occupied Territories: Demolition of Palestinian Houses
  Occupied Territories: Demolition of Palestinian Houses
  Israel: Compensation for Expropriated Land
  Israel: Compensation for Expropriated Land
  Gaza: Students' Access to Tertiary Education
  Gaza: Students' Access to Tertiary Education
  NATO Enlargement
  NATO Enlargement
  Reza Barzegar Massoumi: Conviction
  Reza Barzegar Massoumi: Conviction
  Atrush Camp, Northern Iraq
  Atrush Camp, Northern Iraq
  Turkey: Use of Torture
  Turkey: Use of Torture
  Globe Theatre
  Globe Theatre
  Art Trade: Self-regulation
  Art Trade: Self-regulation
  Lorry Weights: Proposed Increase
  Lorry Weights: Proposed Increase
  Construction Contracts
  Construction Contracts
  BSE and Organophosphates
  BSE and Organophosphates
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: VPC Review
  Organophosphorus Sheep Dips: VPC Review
  Tri-Service Defence Medical Training Organisation
  Tri-Service Defence Medical Training Organisation
  Army Foundation College
  Army Foundation College
  Data Protection Legislation: Enforced Subject Access
  Data Protection Legislation: Enforced Subject Access
  Prevention of Terrorism(Temporary Provisions) Act 1989: Report
  Prevention of Terrorism(Temporary Provisions) Act 1989: Report
  Ashworth Hospital: Health Advisory Service Review
  Ashworth Hospital: Health Advisory Service Review