Sitting of 20 February 1997

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

    European Union Police Force
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the Government's policy in respect of an EU-wide police force. [15277]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): A European Union police force is neither necessary nor desirable. Member states' police forces already co-operate closely and Europol will work increasingly with them to support their investigations. However, Europol will not conduct its own investigations or make arrests: those are properly matters for national law enforcement agencies regulated by national law.
    Mr. Booth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that on 29 January the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), said that if Labour ever came to power he would allow the police in Britain to be to some extent under the control of the European Court and the European Parliament? Will my right hon. and learned Friend condemn that nonsense?
    Mr. Howard: Yes, I certainly will. My hon. Friend is right. The shadow Foreign Secretary was
    "suggesting that some justice and home affairs issues, such as police co-operation … might be 'unbundled' and 'partially communitised', allowing the European parliament and court of justice to have a say in them."
    That appeared in the Financial Times on 29 January 1997. Silence then ensued from the right hon. Gentleman until the matter was raised on Second Reading of the Police Bill on 12 February. Then, in a flurry of activity, a hasty denial was concocted and put out by the Opposition.
    Mr. Cousins: Does the Home Secretary believe that the international money laundering and drugs business—a £1 billion industry—needs the tightest possible co-ordination between police forces to deal with financial and commercial fraud? That does not happen now. Should not the Home Secretary drop his ridiculous play acting to be the next Leader of the Opposition and get down to the real work of tackling massive international fraud?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must do all we can to tackle international fraud and money laundering, but if he thinks that the way to
    1028
    tackle those problems effectively is to give the European Parliament a say in them or to make them subject to the European Court of Justice, he could not be more mistaken.
    Mr. John Greenway: Despite that answer, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be totally wrong to regard Britain as dragging its feet over European issues of law and order when in fact we are ahead of most other countries in ratifying the convention to create Europol, and when the measures in the Police Bill mean that Britain will have a better method of disseminating information to Europol than exists in other countries?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. We were the first country to ratify the Europol convention, which means that we are in the forefront of effective European co-operation in these matters. Indeed, at an earlier stage in the process, when it looked as though the whole Europol project might founder on fundamental disagreements between France and Germany, the United Kingdom was able to bring them together and broker an agreement so as to make progress on Europol possible.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Does not the idea of an EU-wide police force raise some interesting possibilities? Might it not mean, for instance, that members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary would begin to serve in the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Howard: I suspect that mixed feelings might greet that proposal and also what I imagine would be its concomitant—the Gardai having operational responsibility in Northern Ireland. When those implications are pointed out, even countries on the continent of Europe which purport to favour communitising the third pillar think several times before pursuing such projects with any enthusiasm.
    Mr. Garnier: If we were to have an EU-wide police force, would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that police force should be allowed in court to comment on the failure of a defendant to speak to that police force while it was investigating a crime?
    Mr. Howard: As I have made clear, I am not in favour of a Europe-wide police force, but I take some comfort from the fact that the introduction of our reform to the right to silence in this country in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—which was bitterly opposed, spoken against and voted against by the Leader of the Opposition when he was shadow Home Secretary—has led to a reduction of almost 50 per cent. in the number of suspects who refuse to answer questions put to them by the police. As a result of that change, guilty men who previously would have walked free from the courts are now being convicted in the courts of this country almost every day.
    Mr. Straw: As it has been the long-standing and agreed policy of the Labour party that matters of border control, immigration, asylum and police should all be dealt with intergovernmentally and that there should be no question of any Europe-wide police force, why does the Home Secretary seek to invent our policy in order to attack us? Does he recall that, on 12 February, as reported at column 358 of Hansard, he claimed that my right hon. Friend

    1029
    the shadow Foreign Secretary had issued a press release indicating a change of policy? There has been no change of policy and no such press release exists.
    Mr. Howard: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is a simple one: the shadow Foreign Secretary gave an interview to the Financial Times, an account of that interview was published in the Financial Times and that report said that the shadow Foreign Secretary had suggested
    "that some justice and home affairs issues… such as police co-operation might be 'unbundled' and 'partially communitised', allowing the European parliament and court of justice to have a say in them."
    No denial of that report was issued until we drew it to the attention of the House on 12 February.

    West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning West Midlands fire and civil defence authority. [15278]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): There have been two such representations in the past six months: one about the fire brigade's bid under the capital challenge pilot scheme, which I am glad to say resulted in an award of £3 million to build a new fire station at Handsworth, and the other about civil defence grant.
    Mr. Purchase: Is the Minister unaware that the grant to the West Midlands fire service is now less in real terms than it was in 1992, that it has lost an aggregate of £16.5 million since the last election? Is he unaware of the great stress in the fire services resulting from having to deal with so many different problems—motorway crashes, difficult access and, in some cases, abuse on difficult estates? Is he completely unaware of the stress that firefighters feel, or is it just another case of our being unable to trust this Government—especially when they are playing with fire?
    Mr. Sackville: I have no doubts about the difficulties of the job, but the hon. Gentleman should remember, first, that the national standards for levels of fire cover are agreed, not by us, but in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, on which all the fire service organisations are represented. Secondly, the standard spending assessment for the West Midlands service went up this year by 6.9 per cent. which will allow additional spending of over 6 per cent. I see no commitment from the Labour party to spend any more on fire services.

    DNA Database
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many samples there are on the national DNA database; and how many matches have been made between suspects and samples. [15280]
    Mr. Howard: As at the end of January 1997, the national DNA database held more than 112,000 profiles
    1030
    taken from suspected or convicted persons and more than 9,000 crime scene stain profiles and there had been more than 2,000 matches between suspects and scenes of crime.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that DNA testing is an important tool in our armoury to fight crimes against individuals? Does he also agree that its vital importance was shown in one famous case where a 78-year-old lady had been raped by a drug addict and, thanks to DNA testing, the suspect's alibi was put aside, with the result that he was convicted and is now serving 10 years in prison? Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that DNA testing gets the full backing that it deserves, along with all those other tools that we are currently using, such as closed circuit television and ensuring that there are more police on the beat?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Criminal Evidence (Amendment) Bill, which he is guiding through the House and which will enable the DNA profiles of about 7,750 serious sexual or violent offenders and those who commit burglaries with convictions prior to April 1995 who are still in custody to be added to the database. That will increase the protection available to my hon. Friend's constituents in Ribble Valley and to others throughout the country.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: What is the percentage incidence of matching error?
    Mr. Howard: I cannot give an immediate answer to that question, but I am perfectly prepared to let the hon. Gentleman have it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) laughs from the Opposition Front Bench as though that would invalidate the tremendous success of the DNA database, illustrating yet again the frivolity of the Labour party's attitude to these important issues. The DNA database is a tremendous success: it is the first national DNA database in the world and it is likely, in the fulness of time, to revolutionise the way in which the police can tackle crime and protect the public. Yet all that Members on the Labour Front Bench can do is giggle.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Deva: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people claimed asylum in (a) 1995 and (b) 1996; and if he will make a statement. [15281]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): A total of 43,965 applications for asylum were made in 1995 and 27,930 in 1996, representing a 36 per cent. decrease on the previous year. This substantial fall in the numbers claiming asylum clearly demonstrates the success of the measures that we have taken to deter undeserving applications.
    Mr. Deva: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that this year marks the 25th anniversary of the resettlement—under a Conservative Government—of the Ugandan Asians who were kicked out of Uganda by Idi Amin? Is she aware of what a great success story they are in this country—unlike the Kenyan Asians, who were not allowed to settle in this country by a Labour Government?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend demonstrates how important it is that we give asylum to genuine asylum

    1031
    seekers. That has always been the policy of Conservative Governments and, indeed, it will remain the policy of Conservative Governments. As my hon. Friend has demonstrated, the Opposition talk much about more care of asylum seekers, but their record does not match their words. I support my hon. Friend's view of the contribution made to the economy by those who settled under the concession that the Conservative Government gave at that time; I welcome very much their contribution to the economy and I thank my hon. Friend for reminding the House of it.
    Mr. Gerrard: If the Minister is so anxious to assist genuine asylum seekers, why is it that in 1996, although three quarters of the people granted asylum were in-country applicants, she took benefits away from precisely those people through the Asylum and Immigration Bill?
    Miss Widdecombe: Our view has always been that those who seek asylum in this country should tell us honestly what they are about at the point of entry from the ports. It does not follow that there is never such a thing as a valid in-country applicant; we have never said that. Some in-country applicants have entered validly and circumstances have then changed in their home country, so there is no particular point to be made on that score. The point that we would make, however, is that far too many loopholes were being exploited by people who entered the country in one guise, turned around and claimed asylum and then, despite having convinced immigration officers and entry clearance officers that they could keep themselves, turned to the state for support. We did not believe that that was reasonable.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, between 1986 and 1996, there was a tenfold increase in the number of asylum seekers wanting to come to this country, nine out of 10 of whom were bogus, but that the number fell by nearly 50 per cent. when we tightened benefit arrangements? Does she agree that any political party which trumpeted to the world that it was tough on the abuse of benefit and then connived at and tried to support the ripping off of the British taxpayer to the extent of £300 million per year would be hypocritical in the extreme, and was that not Labour party policy?
    Miss Widdecombe: My hon. and learned Friend sums it up admirably. It is worth reflecting that the reason why there was such a vast increase in asylum applications in this country at that time was that the rest of Europe had already decided to toughen up on its procedures because they were being so abused. It is significant that, whereas applications in this country doubled over that period, they halved in the rest of Europe. That made it clear that we had become the focus for abuse, and it is our duty to the British taxpayer to avoid and combat abuse wherever possible. Labour Members talk about being tough and fair, but they have been unable to tell us a single thing that they would do which would benefit genuine asylum applicants and at the same time deter bogus ones. They have consistently dodged that important question.
    Mr. Henderson: Before the right hon. Lady gets too carried away with self-congratulation in playing her asylum card, will she acknowledge two statistics? First,
    1032
    in 1996 the waiting time for dealing with an application increased from 10 months to 12 months. Secondly, the number of people waiting to have an appeal heard has increased from 3,500 at the beginning of 1995 to more than 20,000 today. Do not those statistics show that the system is still ineffective and unfair? It is ineffective because those who will be granted asylum have to suffer worry and anxiety, while those who will not be granted asylum are allowed to stay here for months and sometimes years before they are removed.
    Miss Widdecombe: It is true that genuine asylum applicants sometimes have to wait too long because the queues are clogged up with bogus applications. It was in the interests of genuine asylum seekers that we undertook those measures. Opposition Members ha
    Let me correct the hon. Gentleman's statistics. In 1996, 38,960 decisions were taken: that figure is not down, but up by 44 per cent. on the number taken in 1995. The number of adjudicator appeals determined in 1996 was 13,790—nearly twice as many as in 1995. That is as a result of the extra money and extra case workers that we have put in. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does his homework a little better.

    Youth Workers Agency
    Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of (a) establishing and (b) running for 12 months the proposed agency for recording and divulging information on the records of people who wish to work with young people. [15282]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): It is our intention that the Criminal Records Agency will be self-financing. We intend to recoup the costs of setting up and running the agency by charging applicants for criminal record certificates a very modest fee.
    Mr. Rowe: While I accept the Government's good intentions and welcome the setting up of the register, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the objectives of the "make a difference" initiative is to make it easier for volunteers to come from classes other than those that are well off? New recruits will be put off volunteering if we say, "Thank you so much for volunteering, but it will cost you £10 before you even begin." Will my hon. Friend look closely at that matter and see what he can do?
    Mr. Kirkhope: I know how concerned and interested my hon. Friend is in voluntary agencies. It is as a result of the Government's wish to see voluntary agencies prosper and for those involved in their work to be certain of the security of others involved that we have set about establishing the agency. The fees concerned are extremely modest: £5 for a basic certificate and £8 or £10 for an enhanced certificate—for instance, when young children are involved, which seems reasonable. I should like to be able to offer my hon. Friend greater comfort. We have agreed to table an amendment to the Police Bill,

    1033
    which will have an order-making power so that, when financial circumstances allow, we can revisit the matter with a view to giving assistance where necessary.
    Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister recall that some years ago we started setting up a national criminal records computer? I do not know how far that got or whether it was ever brought fully into play. If it is fully in play—I see the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), nodding—we already have the source. Surely it is not beyond the wit of a prospective volunteer to go into a police station and obtain a certificate of no known convictions. In that way, no charge would be payable.
    Mr. Kirkhope: All such matters have cost implications. We want a national agency to be available to help the private and voluntary sector, in particular. It is true that there is a possibility of information being available through the public sector, but because of incidents that have unfortunately occurred too often recently in the voluntary and private sector, it is essential that protection should be available on a national basis to organisations that want to obtain it. We believe that the agency will be extremely helpful in giving security of mind to parents and others concerned with the work of voluntary bodies.
    Mr. Brazier: I welcome that important step forward in protecting the nation's children. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is also giving sympathetic consideration to the needs of the other key group affected—organisations which cater for adults with learning difficulties?
    Mr. Kirkhope: We are bringing in an amendment to ensure, as my hon. Friend said, that those who care and have responsibility for vulnerable adults will also be able to benefit from the agency.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I share the Minister's desire for procedures that will offer protection, but I am not happy with the answers given on an earlier occasion, which suggested that charitable bodies will be first in line. They will be subject to double taxation: not only has their income been reduced by the lottery, but they are to be charged for these warrants. I ask that further consideration be given before the proposal is implemented.
    Mr. Kirkhope: It is individuals, rather than organisations, who would be asked to make a small investment. That is not to say that organisations that can afford to assist would not do so, but it is the responsibility of individuals. Had we resourced the entire list of organisations in the sector, the cost might have been anything up to several hundred million pounds. We shall review the position when resources allow and consider particularly vulnerable areas for assistance.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is essential for adults to come forward to help with youth organisations, and that that has been of great benefit as it brings together young and old? Does he accept that society as a whole should pay for the proposed agency through taxation? I do not wish in any way to deter people from coming forward to help in a voluntary capacity with
    1034
    the entire range of youth organisations, and I am sure that that view is shared by Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Kirkhope: If I thought that the sum of £5 would deter large numbers of volunteers, my hon. Friend would of course be right. We believe, however, that that is a modest sum to find. We do not want to deter volunteers. The Government are playing their part in bringing forward proposals for the agency which we think are overdue and will work well.

    Alison Halford
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the European Court of Human Rights and Ms Alison Halford, former assistant chief constable of Merseyside. [15283]
    Mr. Howard: As Ms Halford's case is currently before the European Court of Human Rights, it would not be right for me to comment on it.
    Mr. Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree to see me and Ms Halford to discuss this complicated matter? Will the Department make an apology to my constituent for tapping her office telephone, on the understanding that she was an excellent crime buster and not a criminal? Will the Department seriously and urgently consider compensation for my constituent, who has suffered a grave injustice? Some uniformed officers have a great deal to answer for in that distressing case.
    Mr. Howard: No. The hon. Gentleman's constituent has taken her case to the European Court of Human Rights and that litigation must take its course.
    Mr. Marlow: As Home Secretary in a mature democracy whose courts have an unrivalled reputation throughout the world, has my right hon. and learned Friend ever been tempted to seek to withdraw the United Kingdom from the jurisdiction of that foreign court?
    Mr. Howard: I am frequently tempted by all sorts of things, but the advantages of our continued adherence to the European convention on human rights and the European Court outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore, I think that we should continue to adhere to that convention.

    Police Forces (Wales)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the establishment of police forces in Wales; and which forces are employing police officers up to their establishment. [15285]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): At the end of September 1996 there were 6,522 police officers in Wales, including 166 more constables than in 1992. It is for individual chief constables and police authorities to determine the number of officers in the force, having regard to the resources available to them.
    Mr. Griffiths: My information is slightly different from that of the Minister. Nevertheless, the increase that

    1035
    he says is correct amounts to only about 1 per cent. of the total in Wales. The number of police in the Gwent and South Wales forces, which serve more than two thirds of the Welsh population, has actually decreased. Will the Minister confirm that the police in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom have responsibility for the security of the slaughtered carcases and rendered remains of cattle as a result of the BSE crisis? If they are not responsible for that security, who is?
    Mr. Maclean: I am glad that I can update the hon. Gentleman's information, because I am afraid that it is wrong as well as out of date. The Dyfed-Powys force, which has received extra resources over the years, is heading towards a record high number of officers. It is the same in Gwent—and not just because 200 officers have been transferred from South Wales. The North Wales force also has a record high number of officers—as would South Wales, but for the 200 transferred with the Rhymney valley.
    All the police forces in Wales have received exceptionally generous funding from this Government. They have 424 more officers than in 1979, and 166 more since 1992. They are on course to have a further 300 officers as a result of the funding that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has promised.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Minister will be aware of the sex abuse inquiry taking place in north Wales. Is he aware that that will cost the police force there more than £1 million from its current budget? What assistance can he provide to that already cash-strapped police force?
    Mr. Maclean: It is nonsense to say that the North Wales police force is cash strapped: it has received very generous funding. However, the hon. Gentleman should know that there is provision for a police force to apply to the Home Office in certain exceptional circumstances if events affect its budget. I am willing to hear representations at any time from the chief constable of the North Wales force about the matter, but he would need to satisfy the well established criteria for supplementary funding.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the number of police officers serving in the Metropolitan police. [15289]
    Mr. Howard: The Commissioner assures me that the settlement for the Metropolitan police for 1997–98 will enable him to increase officer strength to 27,400 during 1997.
    Mr. Timms: In reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker), the Minister provided figures on 18 February at columns 532–35 showing that the number of Metropolitan police constables has fallen across London since 1992. In the past year, the number of constables has decreased in the Forest Gate district which serves my constituency and in London as a whole. Did the Home Secretary see the article in The Daily Telegraph last month which reported that London's only local stolen vehicles squad is to be disbanded—even though it raises £500,000 per year—because of cuts? Why do the Government continually promise so much and then fail to deliver?
    Mr. Howard: Let me put the hon. Gentleman right on the facts. Since the last election, more than 800 extra uniformed constables have been made available to Metropolitan police divisions for operational duties—an increase of 6 per cent. Furthermore, the proportion of time that divisional constables spend on patrol has increased significantly in recent years.
    I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be more interested in congratulating the Metropolitan police on their results in the London borough of Newham, where total notifiable offences have fallen by more than 10 per cent. in the past three years, recorded residential burglaries by more than 20 per cent., recorded sexual offences by nearly 70 per cent., and recorded violence against the person by more than 20 per cent.
    Mr. Tracey: Although I would always be one of the first London Members to encourage my right hon. and learned Friend to increase the number of police officers in London, surely the point is that there are 4,500 more police officers in London than there were under the last Labour Government, and spending on the Metropolitan police, taking account of inflation, has gone up by nearly 90 per cent.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The strength of the Metropolitan police is more than 20 per cent. Greater—one fifth as much again—than when we took office. That is the background against which questions such as that asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) need to be considered.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I preface my remarks by asking the Home Secretary to join me in sending condolences to all at Walworth police station? Two of its officers and the son of a third officer were drowned in the Solent last night. Only one officer survived. The whole of the force serving my constituency and much of south-east London will be devastated by the loss of people from three families. As we all value police officers so much, when will the number of officers in London be restored to that of five years ago?
    Mr. Howard: I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in extending my most sincere condolences to the families of the officers who lost their lives last night and to all those who worked with them, who will have been deeply affected by that loss.
    On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East. More than 800 extra uniformed constables have been made available to Metropolitan police divisions for operational duties since the election—an increase of 6 per cent. The Commissioner assures me that the settlement for 1997–98 will enable him to increase officer strength to 27,400 during 1997.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the pressures on the Metropolitan Commissioner to deploy more officers to central and south-east London to deal with crime—particularly terrorism—need to be widely recognised and understood? Does he accept that that creates concern in some areas of outer London, from which police officers have had to be

    1037
    redeployed? What additional funds is he making available to the Metropolitan police to deal with the particular problems that they face in policing our capital city?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The demands that the Commissioner has to meet are many and various. The way in which he deploys his resources to deal with those demands is, of course, an operational matter for him.
    For the coming financial year, 1997–98, the Metropolitan police will receive an extra £55 million—a 3.4 per cent. increase on the 1996–97 allocation. That is a very good settlement.
    Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary should stop deliberately confusing the terms "constable" and "police officer". The Prime Minister promised additional police officers. The Home Secretary cannot claim credit for the police settlement, when the total Government contribution to the Metropolitan police is increasing by only 1.7 per cent., and, according to his figures, he is putting an additional 16 per cent. burden on local council tax payers.
    Is it not a sign of the Home Secretary's failed stewardship that, as I learned today, the March intake of recruits to be trained as constables in the Metropolitan police has been cancelled to save money? Those 75 constables will not go on to the streets of London. Is he aware of that cancellation? Does he blame himself or the Prime Minister for the broken promise of extra police?
    Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's question is utterly astonishing. As recently as 29 January, he told the House:
    "The amount of money available"
    under a Labour Government
    "will certainly not change."—[Official Report, 29 January 1997; Vol. 289, c. 472.]
    The Labour party says that if it were ever to get into government, it would not provide any more money. Will it put an end to the hypocrisy of Labour Front Benchers popping up day after day in the House asking for more to be spent on everything?
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge that, notwithstanding the fact that we have spent more money on the police force in the capital, the process of civilianisation has managed to put more policemen on the beat in proportion to the number of officers who are brought into the service? Perhaps he would like to correct the nonsense.
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Since 1979, we have not only increased the number of police officers by 20 per cent., but have improved the quality of the policing of the Metropolis by increasing substantially the number of civilians who do jobs that previously the police had to do, thus freeing police officers for operational duties on the streets.

    Asylum Applicants
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his policy on the detention of asylum applicants. [15290]
    Mr. Howard: Detention is used very sparingly, and only when there are good grounds for believing that a
    1038
    person will not comply with the terms of temporary admission. We have no plans to review our policy on detention: its carefully targeted use is vital if we are to uphold our immigration laws.
    Mr. Cohen: Did the Government's use of prolonged detention not cost taxpayers £20 million last year? Did it not flout the opinion of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who believes that detention should be used only in exceptional circumstances and for a maximum of 48 hours? As more than 20 per cent. of asylum seekers were detained for longer than 48 hours, does that not make a mockery of the Government's claim that detention is used as a last resort? Instead of the Government taking unlimited judicial powers, should there not be a maximum time limit on detention and judicial safeguards?
    Mr. Howard: No. At any time, only about 1 per cent. of those with asylum applications outstanding are held in detention. Detention is used sparingly, and for those who would otherwise abscond. If we did not use detention in that way, it would make a mockery of our immigration controls.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: May I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that the vast majority of people in this country think that he and the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), have behaved entirely reasonably on this matter? May I condemn the campaign of personal vilification of them that has been conducted without restraint?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but my right hon. Friend and I have broad shoulders. We take considerable comfort from the fact that the changes that we have made to our asylum and immigration laws, which were bitterly opposed by the Labour party, have led to a halving of the number of applications for asylum in this country, and to substantial savings for the British taxpayer.
    Mr. Corbyn: What steps has the Home Secretary taken to review the cases of the people on hunger strike at Her Majesty's prison in Rochester, who are seeking asylum in this country? What policy will he pursue to deal with the problem of people who go on hunger strike to draw attention to their just grievances against him and his Department?
    Mr. Howard: All such cases are of course kept under review, but I do not think that it would be at all right for us to give special preference to certain cases because those involved happen to go on hunger strike. We try to deal with every case as quickly and justly as possible.

    Drug Abuse (Prisons)
    Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what strategies the Prison Service has in place for combating drug abuse in prisons. [15291]
    Miss Widdecombe: The Prison Service drugs strategy was launched in April 1995. It balances tougher controls,

    1039
    including mandatory drugs testing to limit the supply of drugs in prisons, with a greater range of treatment options for prisoners identified as drug misusers.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worst aspects of illicit drug use in prisons is the pressure that it puts on particularly vulnerable prisoners? Does she agree that, if it were thought that a more restricted visiting regime was the only way of stamping out drug misuse, such a regime should be introduced, even if it produced the inevitable squealing from civil liberty lobbies?
    Miss Widdecombe: Prisoners who are found with drugs that are believed to have been passed to them during visits can already be put on closed visits for a period. We also now have cameras in most visiting rooms, visitors are carefully searched, and prisoners are searched both before and after visits. We are also making more use of drug dogs. We have a tough policy in place to combat the use of drugs.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February. [15307]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is the Prime Minister aware that, despite all the Government's attempts to massage and manipulate the figures, national health service waiting lists are again at record levels? There is a waiting list of 179,000 in my area of the north-west alone. Could it just be that the Government's policy of replacing 50,000 nurses with 20,000 managers and doubling the price of bureaucracy has something to do with this crisis?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.
    Mr. Mackinlay: No, he is not.
    The Prime Minister: Yes he is, and I will explain precisely why.
    Waiting lists are broadly the same as last year. They have fallen very dramatically during the present Parliament. If the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara) would care to look at the figures for the period before the health reforms and the patients charter, he will see that more than 200,000 people had waited for more than a year, of whom 80,000 had waited for more than two years. At the end of December, only 2 per cent. of patients—22,000—had been waiting for more than a year, and the number who had waited for more than 18 months was down to 123.
    1040
    The fact is that more people are being treated, they are being treated more swiftly, and they are being treated better.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February. [15308]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that last month the Treasury repaid £6,000 million of debt? Will he also confirm that, if anyone sought to spend an extra £30,000 million of public money, they could do so only by increasing taxes, increasing borrowing and increasing interest rates, all of which would put an end to the economic recovery that is the envy of the whole of the rest of western Europe?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct on both counts. Certainly, if anything remotely approximating to £30,000 million were spent in the next Parliament in addition to current spending plans, taxes and interest rates would rise, and I have no doubt that it would have very severe effects on the economy as a whole. As for debt, I was delighted to see that £6 billion had been repaid in the past month—
    Mr. Skinner: Who put it up?
    The Prime Minister: I will just remind the hon. Gentleman that we have a lower debt ratio than any other major economy in Europe. I will remind him that, in every single year since we came to power, the debt ratio has been lower than in any single year in which he supported a Labour Government.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Chancellor that although, of course, the Government are hostile to a single currency on a non-convergent basis, the Government—I quote the Chancellor—
    "doesn't have a hostile attitude to the single currency … The position remains that we have an open option."
    Those words were repeated by the Deputy Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister repeat those words and say that he agrees specifically with his Chancellor and his Deputy Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, if there were not arguments in both directions, we would not have kept our options open. Of course I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister has said in very clear terms that he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Will he disown Conservative central office, which has been briefing that, in effect, he has closed the option of joining a single currency?
    The Prime Minister: No one has been briefing to that effect. The Cabinet set out its position some time ago. It has been reaffirmed on a number of occasions. I reaffirm it again today. It was set out perfectly clearly. The right hon. Gentleman can forget the minor textual exegesis and

    1041
    stick with the facts: that the policy was set out perfectly clearly and that that remains the policy. I hope that the leader of the Labour party might now care to examine the different statements of members of his shadow Cabinet over recent weeks.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February. [15309]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the superb and often inadequately recognised work carried out by the Prince of Wales's group of charities? Quite apart from offering practical help to more than 150,000 young people, it has established more than 60,000 jobs. Will my right hon. Friend endorse the project that I visited in my constituency this week, where the Prince's Trust rehabilitated a park? By such projects young people take practical steps to serve their local community, while at the same time establishing self-reliance.
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that. Voluntary service plays a very important part in the fabric of life in this country, and I know of no nation in the world in which the sum total of voluntary service matches that of the United Kingdom. The work done by the Prince's Trust and other voluntary bodies is absolutely magnificent, and the Government will continue to give their support to it.
    Mr. Ashdown: Let us see. Last week, the Health Secretary told us that the Conservatives would abolish a Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Secretary said, oh no, they would not. Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government were hostile to a single currency and the Chancellor said, oh no, they were not. Has it yet occurred to the Prime Minister what is so plain and evident to everybody else—that his divided Cabinet has given up fighting for the interests of the country and has started instead to fight for his job after the election?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's commitment openly and certainly honestly—I concede that—to put up the rate of income tax will certainly help to keep me here on this Bench after the election.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does not my right hon. Friend have sympathy for the victims of the failed cultural revolution? In Islington, for example, it is estimated that up to 50 per cent. of children are educated outside the borough. What does he have to say to those poor parents who are now driven to flee from a Labour administration and become educational refugees across the face of London?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it was the leader of the Labour party who said, "You can't tell what a Government is like until it is in power." In Islington, Labour is in power, and my hon. Friend points out vividly what it is like. If parents are fleeing Islington, as we understand they are, it certainly is a new version of the term "school run".

    Sanctions (Libya)
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with President Clinton the consequences for (a) the imposition of sanctions on Libya and (b) the case against Libyan nationals of the dismissal of James Thurman from the service of the United States Government. [15310]
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so. The case against the two accused Libyans does not depend on any evidence that Mr. Thurman might give.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has Thurman been reassigned to other duties for fabricating forensic evidence?
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly not aware that that is the case. If the hon. Gentleman has any information that it is, or any information that he thinks bears on this matter—
    Mr. Dalyell: It is in the New York Times.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am not an avid and daily reader of the New York Times. If he has any information that is pertinent to this case, and would care to provide me with it, I will certainly undertake to have it carefully examined.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As senior Scottish advocates have said that it would be impossible for the two accused to have a fair trial in Scotland because of press publicity, and as the Libyan Government have now stated that they will hand over the two accused to the Arab League for committal to trial in The Hague or anywhere else, would it not help those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie to have the issue resolved? My right hon. Friend is, as we all know, basically a straight, decent person, so will he endeavour to solve the problem and stop simply engaging in the throwing of insults? Could we not solve it in the interests of those who lost their relatives and friends at Lockerbie?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly want a solution to this problem. We would like a solution as much as the relatives, but we need a proper criminal trial and there are genuine and practical difficulties in trying to establish such a trial in a third country. I think that many hon. Members, including—if my hon. Friend will permit me to say so—me, would, on grounds of principle, find a trial in a third country very difficult to accept. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I shall tell hon. Members why. It could suggest that a trial in Scotland or the United States would not be fair.
    I am not prepared to accept that premise in terms of a trial in Scotland. Nor do I think that it would be remotely attractive for us to allow alleged terrorists to dictate where they may or may not be tried. That would be a bad principle. The Security Council resolutions say that they should be tried in Scotland or the United States—two countries with a particular interest in the matter.
    I have to add that I am very doubtful that the Libyans would deliver the accused for such a trial, even if one were to be set up, but, for the reasons that I have set out, the trial should be either in Scotland, which would be the preference, or in the United States.

    Engagements
    Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February. [15311]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McKelvey: Does the Prime Minister share my genuine concern about the outrageous activities of the directors of Camelot in attempting to take gambling on the lottery into every home in the land and extend their links with rather devious gambling projects abroad? Would it not be possible for him to stop this development? Otherwise, he will leave a legacy of children who were brought up in the midst of gambling mania.
    The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the lottery is very tightly regulated and there will be no changes to the structure or content of the constituent games without the specific involvement of the director general. The Government have no intention of allowing the good name of the lottery to be jeopardised. I think that the hon. Gentleman would share my pleasure at the sheer scale of the resources produced by the lottery for good causes. Today, for example, the heritage lottery fund is awarding £140 million to 24 of the nation's best loved museums.
    Mr. Stephen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that efficient professional administration is vital to the success of the national health service? Does he recall that, when we decided to modernise the system by getting rid of the whole regional tier of NHS bureaucracy, the Labour party was against it? What does he therefore think of its promises to save money on NHS bureaucracy?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that there were substantial savings to be made by the abolition
    1044
    of the regional health authority tier, and that those savings were opposed by the Labour party. The health service is one of the most efficient health services in the world and, in terms of management expenditure, it is now 25 per cent. more efficient than in 1979.

    Electoral Registration
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will introduce proposals to encourage registration on supplementary lists of those missing from electoral registers before the announcement of the date of the general election. [15312]
    The Prime Minister: I see no need to do so. The vast majority of eligible electors are registered and a well-established claims procedure exists for those who are not.
    Mr. Barnes: Why will the Government not publish the number of people who are currently on electoral registers? What have they got to hide? Are the figures as bad as they were last year, when at least 2 million people were missing from the registers? Why cannot we have a massive campaign to put people on supplementary lists, which could be added to lists of those who are eligible to vote at the general election? The Halifax building society organised a massive campaign for what it called its "big vote". The general election is the biggest vote of all, and all our people should be entitled to exercise their vote.
    The Prime Minister: I, of course, agree with that. The Conservative party has done all it can to ensure that people are registered to vote at the general election. As for the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked, the 1996 electoral registers for the United Kingdom contained just under 44 million names—the highest number ever. New registers came into force on 16 February, and the figures for them should be available by the end of March.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows: MONDAY 24 FEBRUARY—Opposition Day [6th allotted day].
There will be a debate on the national health service on an Opposition motion.
TUESDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Until about 7 pm, Second Reading of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Bill [Lords].
Proceedings on the following Bills, which are consolidation measures: the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]; and the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Remaining stages of the National Heritage Bill [Lords]
Remaining stages of the Civil Procedure Bill [Lords]
Remaining stages of the Sex Offenders Bill.
WEDNESDAY 26 FEBRUARY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act.
Remaining stages of the Contract (Scotland) Bill.
Remaining stages of the Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill.
Remaining stages of the Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 27 FEBRUARY—Debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 28 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
Once again, I am unable to give much information about the following week, but on Monday 3 March I expect to propose that we take the remaining stages of the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
The House will also wish to know, Madam Speaker, that on Wednesday 5 March there will be a debate on the Court of Auditors reports in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 5 March: European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Documents: (a) OJ C340, Court of Auditors' Report for 1995; (b) OJ C395, Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance for 1995; (c) Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance for 1995: European Development Funds. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) and (b) HC 36-xii (1996–97); (c) HC 36-xiv ( 1996–97).]
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman has announced that Labour's choice of debate in Opposition time on Monday is the national health service. Will he ensure that the Secretary of State for Health is prepared to give full answers about why
1046
his stewardship of that office has led to the longest waiting lists in hospitals? Despite the Prime Minister's assurances earlier this afternoon, the official figures show that there are now more than 1 million people waiting for their operations, and that in the last quarter there has been an increase of 21,900 in those waiting longer than a year for their operation. May we have a fully informed debate on Monday rather than one in which those questions are dodged?
As the Labour party has provided time for a debate on health, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on another aspect of Government policy that is causing misery to millions transport? In recent days—the fiascos have been coming fast and furious. We have had the crisis confronting London Underground because of the "will they, won't they?" question about its privatisation. The services provided by South West Trains have been in disarray because of the company's utter incompetence, which led to 70 drivers being sacked and the cancellation of 39 trains a day. Recently, we have had the obscene profiteering of four fat cats who bought Eversholt Train Leasing Ltd. at a knock-down price and who have made massive personal profits. Surely the House has a right to debate those issues.
Will the Leader of the House tell us what has happened to the Government's proposals for a building societies Bill? The matter has been buried despite the promises that have been made over the past two years. Can he tell us why it has been buried, and what the Government intend to do to allay the fears and uncertainty in the building society industry?
Is the Leader of the House aware that the Department of Trade and Industry has terminated the trades fair support scheme? The scheme, which generated £400 million in new exports and covered its own costs, was of enormous benefit to many firms across the country, including Sinclaire Fabrics, in my constituency. Those firms now believe that Government policy is undermining their export effort. As the termination has not been debated in the House, may we have such a debate so that the House can discuss the scheme's valuable contributions, and so that the Government might reconsider their position because of the concern among the public and hon. Members?
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the Secretary of State for the Environment's barmy scheme to revive the stately home? Such a debate would afford the Secretary of State an opportunity to explain why he is more concerned about the housing arrangements and planning difficulties of a handful of millionaires than he is about affordable homes for thousands of homeless people in Britain.
Mr. Newton: Taking the last point first, I think that it was a rather odd one for the hon. Lady to raise. Last week was national empty homes week, in which the Government were making a major effort to continue the progress that is being made in reducing the number of empty homes across the country. The background, of course, is that Labour authorities are among the worst performers, and the number of empty local authority homes has risen, whereas the total is falling.
Obviously I will bring the hon. Lady's remarks on the trades fair support scheme to the attention of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. However, the Government are attempting to find more effective ways in which to support our export effort, and we have certainly not ceased to do so.

1047
On a building societies Bill, it has always been our hope that—following the publication of a draft, further consultation and the publication of another draft Bill—we might be able to make progress in this Session. I certainly do not rule that out, and I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's remarks.
Although the hon. Lady practically made a speech on transport that could have been made in a transport debate—which I think would have many attractions—she, perhaps rather unusually, got her facts wrong. She said that drivers had been sacked. However, it was a voluntary redundancy scheme, which is something quite different.
On the hon. Lady's Eversholt point, one matter that she did not mention was that the rise in share prices in the intervening period has been rather more. The rise in the Financial Times index over the relevant period has been slightly more than the rise in the price of the firm.
As for the NHS debate, I have never known my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to be less than well and fully briefed. I am quite sure that he will be able to dispose of any question that she or any other hon. Member would like to ask him.
Sir Fergus Montgomery: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 135?
[That this House, believing that airline passengers, United Kingdom trade and the British aviation industry can only benefit from an expansion of services from United Kingdom airports where demand already exists, particularly regional airports such as Manchester, requests the Secretary of State for Transport to take every opportunity to liberalise access for airlines wishing to serve these airports, so that regional travellers can use their own airports wherever possible to the benefit of economic development in those areas and slots can be freed at London's airports for services which will enhance one of the world's largest hubs; and particularly urges the Secretary of State to pursue this policy during the forthcoming talks with the Singapore Government so that both United Kingdom and Singapore carriers can operate between their two countries and beyond without predetermined restrictions in order to meet growing demand in timely fashion.]
The all-party early-day motion is about the liberalisation of air transport services between the United Kingdom and Singapore, and has been signed by 125 hon. Members. Negotiations between the United Kingdom and Singapore have now been going on for 15 months, without any progress being made, and the next round is due to start on 3 March. May I ask my right hon. Friend to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—who is next to him on the Treasury Bench—the importance of that early-day motion, and to ask him to do all that he can to resolve the matter in the forthcoming talks? May we also have a debate on the issue, so that those of us who feel strongly about it can have a chance to express our views?
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend will have noted by his glance, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has taken direct delivery of the point and I shall therefore have no need to pass it on to him. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider it.
Mr. Simon Hughes: In addition to a repeated bid for the annual debate on the
1048
policing of London, may I ask the Leader of the House in all seriousness for a debate in Government time on what we can do to bring people such as the killers of Stephen Lawrence to justice? There has been an inquest and a finding of unlawful killing; the Daily Mail alleged on its front page that five young men are murderers; clearly, someone knows what happened; the juries acquitted not on a substantive hearing but on a technicality; and there might even be consensus in the House on speedy legislation to allow the people involved to be tried again substantively if the evidence permitted. Please can we do something, because it seems to whole sectors of the community, not just the black community, that justice is not being done?
Mr. Newton: First, I note the hon. Gentleman's renewed request for what has become an annual debate on the policing of London, which I shall continue to bear in mind. As for the unhappy case of Stephen Lawrence's death, I do not think that I can add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, but I am sure that both he and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will look very carefully at the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on the value of libraries in the educational and cultural life of our children and in the continuing education and cultural life of all adults, so that I might bring to the House's attention the great value of Pitshanger library and libraries in Perivale, Hanwell, Greenford, Northolt and other parts of my constituency which are threatened by Ealing Labour council with either closure or serious cuts in services? Such cuts would be to the great detriment of the life of the community that I have the honour to represent, and they should be resisted.
Mr. Newton: Listening to my hon. Friend fairly regularly on these occasions, I have come to the conclusion that there is no limit to the iniquities of Ealing borough council. I and the whole Government, not least my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage, certainly share my hon. Friend's view about the importance of libraries. He will be aware that the Government have published a document on the matter this very week.
Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Faulds: I am so grateful for that warm welcome—again, please. Madam Speaker, may I inform you in privacy that my wife and I this morning had only very slight hangovers and we are most grateful to you?
May I be less demanding of the Leader of the House this week than I was last week? Is he not well aware, as the people who are concerned about foreign affairs in this House are, that there are increasing dangers to peace in Turkey, in Greece, in Albania, in Kosovo and in Cyprus and it really is essential that these matters are debated before the House is prorogued, because there are real dangers to peace in that part of the world?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman put this point to me last week, and I do not remember exactly what I said;

1049
perhaps he might take it as having been said again, but I do not in any way dismiss the importance of the point to which he has adverted again. He will be aware, for example, that the Foreign Secretary's visit to Cyprus shortly before Christmas very much reflected our commitment to achieving a solution to the Cyprus problem.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 545 on asylum seekers, which has so far attracted 40 signatures from all parts of the House?
[That this House welcomes the decision of the Court of Appeal on 17th February, which notes the special circumstances which make asylum seekers eligible for food and shelter under the National Assistance Act 1948; and calls on the Government to accept the Court's decision, fully compensate local authorities for the costs involved in discharging their duties to asylum seekers under the Act and work constructively with these authorities to ensure that an adequate and consistent level of support is provided to enable them to live decently while pursuing their applications.]
Is there not a need for an early debate, following the Court of Appeal's decision on 17 February, so that we can ensure that local authorities such as mine in Hillingdon do not have to bear asylum seekers' accommodation and subsistence costs? Should that not be a national responsibility, shared equally by all the citizens of this country?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords on that case. It would therefore be inappropriate for me to say a great deal. Manifestly, that seeking of leave to appeal shows that the Government do not accept that the provisions of the National Assistance Act 1948 apply to adult asylum seekers who are not elderly, infirm or disabled and have no need for community care services. We shall pursue that case.
Mr. Tony Banks: May we have a debate as early as possible on tax exiles? I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 546.
[That this House welcomes the undertaking given by the multi-millionaire Sir Andrew Lloyd Webber that he will quit Britain should Labour win the General Election; believes such a promise provides an extra incentive to vote Labour; and looks forward to Sir Andrew keeping his promise.]
I tabled that early-day motion based on a newspaper story that said that Sir Andrew intended to quit this country if Labour won the general election. I have now received a statement from him saying that he is deeply committed to this country, has never been resident abroad and would never leave Britain unless forced to do so by punitive taxation. As there is as little chance of a Labour Government introducing punitive taxation as there is of my writing a hit musical, Sir Andrew will clearly be staying in this country. He is a great composer and an English gentleman, who will be able to enjoy the fruits of his labour under a Labour Government.
Mr. Newton: If there was not punitive taxation under a Labour Government—happily, I do not expect one—it
1050
would be the first Labour Government in history under which there was not. I look forward to a Conservative Government and to attending the hon. Gentleman's musical.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I follow the question of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who I note is no longer here? It would be wrong to try to change the idea of double jeopardy, but in memory of Stephen Lawrence it might be a good idea to have a debate on encouraging more parents to bring up their children in the way in which Doreen and Neville Lawrence brought up Stephen, Stuart and Georgina. We ought to draw attention to the way in which parents bring up the children who carry knives, stay in groups that take part in murderous attacks and create a wall of silence to deny the family of the murder victim and the rest of us knowledge of what happened that night.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right to comment on the importance of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). He is also right to underline the fact that these problems cannot be solved by a stroke of the pen or a single Act of Parliament.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a children's computer game that will shortly be released on the market? The game simulates driving a car that mounts the kerb and kills people. The more people the child kills and the older those people are, the more points the child gets. Will the right hon. Gentleman draw this to the attention of the Home Office and get the computer game banned at once?
Mr. Newton: The answer to that question is unequivocally yes. From the account that the hon. Gentleman has given—I am reliant on that account—I hope that those concerned with the game might think again.
Dr. Robert Spink: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate next week on the local government settlement and the level of council tax being budgeted for by Essex county council, which wants to make cuts in the fire service, cuts in education, cuts in the library service and cuts in other essential services? Those cuts are not necessary, because of the high level of reserves on which the council is sitting.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will remember that it is not long since we had a debate on Essex fire services and related matters, in which he took part. As a fellow Essex Member of Parliament, I understand and share his concerns, not least about some of Essex county council's proposals for school transport.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Leader of the House ensure that Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are allocated the supply day due to us? A previous debate was lost because of a mistake by others. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that that practice does not continue and become blatant discrimination against Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National Party? If the normal channels are blocked, will he unblock them?
Mr. Newton: I know of no blockage in the usual channels. We have provided one Opposition day for the minority parties. I am aware that they are likely to be due another. I bear his point in mind. The hon. Gentleman will also know that, under the conventions of the House, it is for the Leader of the Liberal Democrats to decide how the minority party days are allocated.
Sir James Hill: I expect that my right hon. Friend has noticed early-day motion 378.
[That this House welcomes the joint appeal by the church councils of both parts of the Sudan entitled 'Here We Stand United in Action for Peace' noting particularly their appeal for international help to oversee a cease-fire and a referendum; and encourages the Foreign Secretary to respond positively.]
The motion expresses the concern of the Church councils on what can only be called the genocide in southern Sudan. Is it possible, through the United Nations, to initiate a peace movement, more humanitarian aid and perhaps even an investigation by the Security Council of the United Nations on how to stop that dreadful warfare?
Mr. Newton: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office explained to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) last November, it is certainly our view that the Sudan needs constitutional arrangements that are acceptable to people in all parts of the country. The British Government wish to do everything that they can to bring that about. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will look carefully at my hon. Friend's proposal.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Now that all British Rail services, both passenger and freight, have been either sold or franchised, doubts have arisen in railway constituencies such as mine about the future of British Rail itself. More than 60 former employees of British Rail Engineering Ltd. carriageworks in York have died from asbestos-related diseases, and their widows have submitted claims for compensation to British Rail. I want to know, and those widows need to know, who will pay compensation in future if British Rail ceases to exist. Can the Leader of the House answer that question? If not, may we have a debate so that the Minister responsible can make a statement to the House?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I am not in a position to give an immediate answer to his question. I see that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has temporarily left the Chamber, but I shall bring the question to his attention, and I am sure that he will write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on the future of the Tote? If such a debate were to take place, would my right hon. Friend like to speculate on the odds-on favourite to speak for the Opposition—the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) or the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott)?
Mr. Newton: As I am a cautious man, I will not bet on which one of those three it would be.
Mr. Paddy Tipping: During last Monday's debate on BSE, one serious question remained unanswered; it involved the storage and disposal of BSE waste. Given that only 4 per cent. of the waste has so far been incinerated, may we have a statement next week on the storage, transport and disposal of BSE waste, to meet the urgent concerns of many neighbourhoods?
Mr. Newton: In the wake of this week's debate, I cannot promise a statement next week, but I shall bring the point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Leader of the House will of course know that the assessors will be revisiting the wreck of MV Derbyshire in the next few days, and will probably be there for about 40 days or more. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that as much information as possible will be given to the Derbyshire Families Association about the return of the assessors to this country, and that the assessors' findings will be made widely available to the media and the rest of the country?
Mr. Newton: It is a pity that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has been unable to stay throughout these exchanges, but I am sure that he will study this one. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that my right hon. Friend and I have done everything that we can to be helpful to him in recent years over his concerns. I am sure that that approach will continue.
Mr. Max Madden: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 497?
[That this House notes with concern the Amnesty International Urgent Action Bulletin of 7th February that the conditions of detention of Ms R. McAliskey may amount to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment; notes the conditions of detention of the pregnant Ms McAliskey have led to a deterioration in her physical and psychological health and gives cause for concern; notes with despair the proposal that, if still in custody at the time of her confinement, she will not be able to use the mother and baby unit at Holloway Prison if it is being used by other prisoners; supports Amnesty International's view that the possible decision to separate mother and child would damage permanently the mother-child bonding relationship; supports the view that if the extradition application is successful, the child should, if the mother so desires, accompany her to Germany; calls upon the Government to review urgently the conditions under which all Category A prisoners, whether convicted or on remand are held; remembering that no matter how grievous the crime for which they have been convicted or the charges which are levelled against them, their human rights too have to be respected and treated with dignity; and believes that it is a measure of society's humanity how those who have offended or alleged to have offended against society are treated whilst held in custody. .]
It concerns the case of Roisin McAliskey, who is eight months pregnant and has been detained in Holloway since November. Many people have never understood why the extradition proceedings she faces could not have been brought in Northern Ireland, where she lives. There is

1053
increasing concern that her continued detention and the state of her health represent a victory for personal and political vengeance over natural justice and compassion. Will the Leader of the House have urgent discussions with the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary to find a way to release this young woman from prison on bail—considerable sureties have been offered—or to transfer her to Northern Ireland, where she will at least be near her family and friends?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have noted that the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe), is in her place and has heard what he has said. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary considers that the conditions under which category A prisoners are held are the minimum required to prevent their escape, and has no plans to change them significantly.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House ask the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement about NATO expansionist policies in eastern and central Europe, particularly after the Albright visit, because hon. Members of all political persuasions are worried about what is happening? Many of us believe that world peace is being threatened by people who do not understand what they are doing.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns will be noted, but I am not in a position to promise either a statement or a debate at this time.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recall that some weeks ago I raised the delicate subject of Mohammed Al Fayed appearing before 1 million people on television, waving envelopes of money that he claimed explicitly were asked for and given to Members of Parliament? There was a significant statement from you, Madam Speaker, on the subject. I realise that it is difficult and that lawyers are involved, but is there any likelihood of the matter being brought to a head, so that the good name of Parliament can be maintained?
Mr. Newton: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, you, Madam Speaker, made an important statement following his previous raising of the matter. However, particularly bearing in mind my position as Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and some of the matters that are with the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, I cannot add much to what you said, Madam Speaker, or comment beyond what I said previously.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on the deteriorating quality of parliamentary answers, including the one I received yesterday from the Leader of the House, who said that he could not possibly inform me which were the most expensive answers to parliamentary questions for which calculations had already been made, yet the Library could tell me within about two minutes?
In 1989 I tabled a question asking Baroness Thatcher to list the failures of her reign as Prime Minister. The answer was disappointingly brief and probably cost about
1054
30p. However, a pursuant answer from the former hon. Member for Pembroke filled 23 columns of Hansard and cost £4,500. How can the Government persist with the excuse of disproportionate cost, and why is it beyond the wit or ability of the Minister's Department to provide me with the other nine most expensive answers which I am sure were given to other Conservative Members?
Mr. Newton: If I remember rightly, because I looked carefully at the question—I rewrote the answer myself and must therefore take complete responsibility for any deficiencies in it—the hon. Gentleman was asking for information over a 12-year period. I think that he underestimated the sheer practical problems of doing what he wanted.
Ms Liz Lynne: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 504 in my name?
[That this House regrets the waste of taxpayers' money involved in the Child Support Agency advertising campaign throughout the Greater Manchester area; notes that on 12th February the Advertising Standards Authority published a report stating that the claim made in one advertisement 'Dear Parent, Even after you pay maintenance you will always have more income if you are in work' was not an acceptable claim and that the advertisers have been asked not to use the claim again; notes further that the report made by the Advertising Standards Authority is a carefully considered decision following a reconsideration of their original decision; and therefore calls upon the Government to refrain from publishing any further inaccurate advertisements relating to the Child Support Agency and instead to start using taxpayers' money for a much needed nationwide advertising campaign directed at encouraging the take-up of income-related benefits amongst pensioners.]
There has been a misleading campaign by the Child Support Agency in the Greater Manchester area. As the Advertising Standards Authority has asked the CSA not to repeat the claim, may we have an urgent debate on the matter?
Mr. Newton: The answer to the latter point is no. As the hon. Lady is obviously aware, the Advertising Standards Authority report is the subject of an appeal by the Department of Social Security, which takes the view that the report failed to recognise the way in which the benefits system operates.

Business of the House
  BILL PRESENTED
    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT)
    Mr. Tony Benn, supported by Mr. Peter Shore, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ms Mildred Gordon, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mrs. Teresa Gorman, presented a Bill to amend sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 to return full and unfettered powers to the United Kingdom Parliament over all legislation enacted by the European Communities which has had, has or would otherwise have legal effect in the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 112].

The Constitution
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
Madam Speaker: Because of the large number of hon. Members who wish to speak, I have had to limit speeches—other than those from Front Benchers, of course—to 10 minutes throughout the debate.
3.59 pm
The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Last summer, the other place had a two-day debate on the constitution. It was a worthwhile and constructive occasion, and I hope that today will prove to be so as well.
We have no written constitution in this country—it evolves. It has changed in this Parliament, and it will change in the future. I agreed with the leader of the Labour party, when he said last week:
"The idea that the British constitution should never change and evolve and develop is completely absurd."
I entirely agree with that—of course it is right—and I made precisely the same point myself when speaking in Wales. The point is not whether our constitution should change, but how it should change and at what pace it should change.
We have given a new role to the Welsh and Scottish Grand Committees; we have devolved powers to schools and hospitals; and we have reformed procedures in this House and increased Government accountability to Select Committees. I am in favour of more change. We have agreed to set up a Northern Ireland Grand Committee similar to those for Scotland and Wales.
I favour further reform of the procedures in this House. We have set out our proposals to ensure that new legislation is better considered, with a two-year parliamentary programme and more draft legislation for consultation. As the two Houses are complementary, I see a case for similar examination of the other place. We will continue the process of improving public services, because we wish to give people more choice and opportunity.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Prime Minister: I want to make progress—I shall give way a little later.
All that change has been gradual; it is sensible, and it has been thought through before it has been produced. We on this side of the House have always advocated a Europe of nations. Labour's plans would undermine the strength of the nation state. Like many on the continent, Labour seems to be advocating a Europe of the regions, but England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not regions—they are four nations within a united kingdom. A Europe of the regions would be the sure way to enable a bureaucracy to bypass national Governments. It is the wrong way forward, and it is not for us.
1056
That is only one reason—it is by no means the principal reason—why I do not favour a tax-raising parliament for Scotland.
Mr. Tony Benn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will let me make a little progress, I undertake to give way later.
Mr. Benn: It is on the European question.
The Prime Minister: Oh, all right.
Mr. Benn: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in that capacity, what democratic justification there could be, in principle, for handing over his powers on public expenditure, taxation and interest rates to a central bank in Frankfurt, so that the responsibility that he now exercises—accountable to Parliament and the people—would no longer be exercised through the ballot box? Has he read the book of Genesis and of how Esau handed over his birthright for a mess of pottage, and has been remembered ever since as having made the biggest mistake of his life?
The Prime Minister: I have, but I am not sure that I would draw a direct relationship between that story and the treaty of Rome, although the right hon. Gentleman might do so. There was a pained expression on the faces of the Labour Front Benchers as he asked his question. As he knows, if we had not obtained the opt-out that I obtained at Maastricht, we in this House would not have the option to make at some stage in the future the decision that the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to make.
Let me return to saying what I was about to turn to. I do not favour a tax-raising parliament for Scotland, or a toothless Welsh Assembly, or 10 regional assemblies, taking powers either from this House or from local government or from both—it is uncertain where they would come from. Nor do I favour unpicking the House of Lords, changing the voting system and ceding further powers from this House to Europe.
The Labour party has given in to the temptation to put party before country. [Interruption.] There is no nice way of expressing that, nor does there deserve to be. The plans drawn up by the Labour party, with the Liberal Democrats in tow, are a blueprint that would undermine the unity of the United Kingdom and erode the authority of this Parliament. As they stand, any Member of this House should be ashamed to endorse them.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: A moment ago, the Prime Minister recognised the nationality of Wales and Scotland, but the provisions that he suggested might be available for changing the government of those two countries were all encapsulated within this institution in London. Does that mean that, if the Conservative Government are elected to power, for however long they are in office, there will in effect be an English veto on any aspirations of Wales and Scotland to national autonomy, and that the only alternatives for Wales and Scotland are the status quo or full self-government?
The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the last time the people of Wales had the opportunity to

1057
choose, they chose by a majority of four to one not to have devolution, but to remain part of the United Kingdom.
The plan to set up an income-tax-raising parliament in Scotland, partly elected by proportional representation, on the bogus mandate of a referendum with two questions, before the legislation has even been considered, is deeply flawed. So is the plan to have an assembly in Wales without tax-raising powers, and a pre-legislative referendum with one question.
In essence, it is proposed that Parliament would be presented with what is little more than a public opinion poll and told to endorse it, however absurd examination of the subsequent proposals showed them to be; and if this Parliament exercised its constitutional right and radically changed the legislation, as well it might, there is no plan in the minds of the Labour party or the Liberal party for a subsequent referendum to discover whether that change would be acceptable. I believe that this is an abuse of the way in which constitutional change should be approached.
Mr. Tony Banks: A moment ago, the Prime Minister talked about putting party before country. Is he not doing precisely that by keeping the whole country guessing about the date of the next general election? Is not that all about putting party before country? Does he not find it outrageous that one person should have the power to decide when the rest of the country will be allowed to vote? Would he support fixed-term Parliaments?
The Prime Minister: A straight answer to the hon. Gentleman is no, and I will waste no more time on him.
Mr. John Maxton: Will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister: I will give way a little later, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
We have in the House constitutional parties that favour separatism—an independent Scotland and an independent Wales. Devolution plans, for them at least—and for others—cloak separatist ambitions. The Labour and Liberal parties may well believe that they are buying off the separatists. I believe that they are selling out to the separatists. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Let me now consider their plans for Scotland.
Of the 129 members of a Scottish Parliament—
Mr. Maxton rose—
The Prime Minister: Just a minute. Of its 129 members—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order.
The Prime Minister: Of its 129 members, 56 would be placemen, drawn from lists approved by party leaders, with no accountability to constituents or responsibility for them. There would be gender quotas—a politically correct idea, which many people would find patronising.
There will be no revising chamber—no second chamber. The House of Lords would not be permitted to scrutinise Scottish legislation; neither would anything
1058
replace it. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see Labour Members hoot. Nor would anything replace it. Five million British subjects, on the threshold of a new millennium, would be brought under unicameral Government—the object of suspicion to every democrat for centuries. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is what they propose. No checks; no balances—that is the plan, and it is a complete rag-bag.
Mr. John Home Robertson rose
The Prime Minister: I am sorry. I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).
Mr. Maxton: As the Prime Minister is talking about devolution, will he explain why he is prepared to devolve power to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland and Wales?
The Prime Minister: I shall come directly and in detail to Northern Ireland, to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. It is—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is a fair point, and I will discuss it in detail.
If I may return for a moment to Scotland, the other question unanswered is whether, in any legislation, there is to be Royal Assent. I am not sure, and I hope that it can be made clear.
Then, of course, there is the—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why should there be?"] I did not hear what was said; perhaps it was not worth hearing. Then there is the West Lothian question.
Mr. Home Robertson rose
The Prime Minister: I wish to make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.
Mr. Home Robertson: What about the East Lothian question?
The Prime Minister: West Lothian is more logical that East Lothian. I shall deal with West Lothian.
The Labour leader has the opportunity to make history today: he can answer the West Lothian question. How could Scottish Members of Parliament in this House continue to legislate on matters in England, if English Members had no control over the same matters in Scotland? I hope that we will get an answer.
More insanely than that, those Scottish Members of Parliament voting on, say, health and education, and law and order, in England would not be able to vote on the same issues affecting their own constituents, because that would be the privilege of the Scottish Parliament.
Let me illustrate the point more clearly. The shadow Chancellor, who, alas, is not here this afternoon, would not be able to vote on health, education or other important matters relating to his constituents in Dunfermline, but he could get stuck into Dagenham or anywhere else in England, closing down grammar schools, abolishing GP fundholding practices and all the other regressive nonsenses that Labour supports. I do not understand how anyone can defend such unconstitutional nonsense.
Several hon. Members rose
The Prime Minister: In a moment. I shall finish this passage, and then give way first to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel).

1059
We have long known that those difficulties exist. The Labour leader himself has honestly admitted that "the anomaly is there" and said that the answer to the West Lothian question is—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Campbell-Savours, I am sick and tired of hearing you shout out from a sedentary position—[Interruption.] Order. There was a great deal of pressure last Thursday on the Leader of the House to bring the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to the Dispatch Box today for this important debate. I want to hear the debate in silence. I call the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister: Let me, Madam Speaker—
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question.
The Prime Minister: I think that we have heard enough from the hon. Gentleman for the moment.
Let me repeat what hon. Members may not have heard. The Labour leader has honestly admitted that "the anomaly is there", and said that the answer to the West Lothian question
"is the answer we've always given".
But what is that answer that he has "always given"? And where is it? It is as elusive as the Loch Ness monster. Has anyone seen it—or heard it? Will we hear what it is today?
Then, of course, there is the position of Scottish Members of Parliament who might be appointed as Ministers at Westminster. Will the leader of the Labour party confirm the statement of the shadow Foreign Secretary who, when responsible for health, said:
"Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling health affairs, it is not possible for me to continue as Health Minister administering health in England"?
The same principle would apply to education, the legal system, local government, home affairs and so on.
Since the 19th century, all devolution schemes have foundered on the question whether to withdraw voting rights from Westminster Members of Parliament representing nations with devolved Parliaments, or whether to reduce their number. The Liberal Democrats, to their credit, recognise that. They are already advocating a cut from 72 to 60 Scottish Members. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) does
"not believe it will be possible to get a devolution Bill through Parliament without a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs to 57 or less."
The Labour leader has said:
"of course there are consequences in what we plan; we don't ignore them."
So what are those consequences, and what does he plan?
At present, Scotland has more Members of Parliament than a strict justification on grounds of population would produce. The Labour Opposition wish to keep them in Parliament, because, without them, they would have a diminished chance of a UK majority. So, in their party interest, they are prepared to gerrymander the electoral system. The powerful office of Secretary of State for Scotland would also be abolished, lessening the voice of Scotland in the House and in Whitehall.
Sir David Steel: I recognise that the Prime Minister believes strongly and
1060
genuinely that creating any devolved Parliament could lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. I hope that he would respect the reverse view, which is that, without devolution, we risk the break-up of the United Kingdom. No anomaly that he has so far mentioned is as great as the present one, where 580 non-Scottish Members of Parliament determine purely Scottish legislation, such as the poll tax, which we had in Scotland before it was introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the poll tax and the grievance that it was introduced in Scotland first. The tartan tax is to be introduced in Scotland only.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I wonder whether the Prime Minister had time to look at a survey published in The Scotsman on Monday, which showed that three quarters of Scots believe that the Tories are an English-based party with little relevance to Scotland. That included a third of Tory voters, although that was admittedly a small sample. After almost seven years of his prime ministership, why do so many Scots believe that he leads an anti-Scottish party? Might it be something to do with his implacable hostility to legitimate Scottish aspirations?
The Prime Minister: I know that the hon. Gentleman would wish to peddle that line, but if he looked at what has happened to the quality of life in Scotland during the 18 years of Conservative Government, he would see the extent to which it has improved. If he looks at the growth of employment prospects, he will see the extent to which they have improved. If he sees the improvement in the education system or the health system, that has happened under Conservative Government during the past 18 years. If he were totally frank, he would acknowledge that that was the case.
I come to the point led into by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale—the infamous tartan tax. Why should people in Scotland pay income tax at a starting rate 15 per cent. higher than in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Or lower.
The Prime Minister: Or lower? The hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) clearly thinks that the extra public expenditure voted by the House to Scotland per head of population would continue, so that the Scottish Parliament could offer lower taxes to the people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. He knows that that is unreal.
The Labour party has just put up posters giving a five-year pledge by the Labour leader not to put up income tax rates. However, Labour would put them up in Scotland, where it is pledged to establish a tartan income-tax-raising Parliament within a year, which would put up tax rates. That is a little insensitive of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. The Islington elite clearly forgot about Scotland, and certainly forgot about the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), although I suppose that that is part of the Labour constitution. The hon. Gentleman should move to Islington.

1061
Perhaps today the Labour leader will clarify the situation: income tax up in Scotland or not? If he has no plans to raise tax, why shackle his party to a policy that enables tax to be raised? What would the tartan tax do to jobs, investment and pensioners' savings in Scotland?
An increase of 3p in the basic rate of tax would leave someone on average earnings in Scotland £6 a week worse off. For a married couple who both worked, it could be double that. It would cost families £300 with one person in employment, and perhaps as much as £600 with two people working. Scottish pensioners who saved all their lives or contributed to pension plans would be worse off, just because they live in Scotland.
If that injustice goes ahead in Scotland, how would it work? How much would it cost? Would not the Inland Revenue have to set up a separate tax regime for Scotland? Does not a separate tax regime acknowledge the blatantly separatist implications of Labour's plans for a different tax system? Separate tax regimes define separate nations.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Prime Minister: I am not the only one who thinks so. As another critic said:
"The moment powers to raise taxation are offered and taken … the fracture of the United Kingdom will have begun."
They are not my words—although I agree with them—but those of Mr. Neil Kinnock when he was a Member of Parliament. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Workington has shouted at me from a seated position often enough over the years, so he can stay seated today.
Would the tartan tax be levied according to where people live, where they work, or where their company is located? Could it become the tweed tax, spreading across the border? If someone from Islington was employed by a Scottish company, would he pay the tartan tax?
I shall give the right hon. Gentleman a practical example to chew on and respond to. Take the case of an important Scottish company, Kwik-Fit. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to listen, as he may wish to respond to this point. I am sure that the conversation of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is diverting, but he can talk to her later. Kwik-Fit has 4,000 employees in England and 1,200 in Scotland, but all are paid from the payroll in Edinburgh. Would they all pay the tartan tax, or would Kwik-Fit be expected to apply different tax rates to different employees? [Interruption.]
When Labour Members do not like it because they do not have the answers, they try to drown it out. I repeat: would Kwik-Fit be expected to apply different tax rates to different employees? If not, employees in England would pay the tartan tax. If they did not, they would face a tax rise if they were transferred to their head office in Scotland. What would that do to the competitiveness of an extremely successful Scottish company? Opposition Members have not thought about any of that.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We have.
Mr. Major: Good, then the Leader of the Opposition will give us the answers this afternoon.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Major: No, we want the organ grinder, not the monkey.
1062
What of Scottish Members of Parliament who advocate the tartan tax? Would they not be exempt from paying that tax? Within three months, the people of Scotland and the rest of Britain will have to vote on those crazy proposals. They have a right to answers, and, if those answers are not forthcoming today, they will be entitled to draw their own conclusions.
If anything could be as much of a mess as Labour's plans for Scotland, it must be its plans for Wales. Wales is to have an assembly instead of a parliament.
Mr. Home Robertson rose—
Mr. Major: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I am now talking about Wales. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Perhaps I shall give way in a minute.
What is it about the people of Wales that means that Labour would not trust them with the powers that it is prepared to give to the people of Scotland? When the shadow Welsh Secretary, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), talks of a Welsh assembly not having tax-raising powers, he adds "initially". He says that Labour's plans for Wales are "clear and becoming clearer". What is becoming clearer—
Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the Prime Minister to refuse to give way to a Scottish Member of Parliament who wishes to ask a question about Wales, when the Prime Minister is arguing about the United Kingdom?
Madam Speaker: It is entirely up to the right hon. Gentleman to develop his speech in his own way. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will be called to speak later in the debate.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Member for East Lothian knows that I have given way often enough in my speech, and shall do so again.
The shadow Welsh Secretary talks about a Welsh Assembly not having tax-raising powers initially. However, it is becoming clearer to the people of Wales that, in due course, they too will have to pay higher taxes for the privilege of living in Wales. I shall tell hon. Members why, and I quote:
"No level of Government has been denied some control of revenue raising … indeed, the lack of such a power and the conflict this could provoke is a more significant danger than having it".
In essence, not having a tax-raising power is more dangerous than having a tax-raising power. That is not my view, but the view of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). If the Labour leader does not repudiate that view, we know the fate for Wales—increased taxation.
Plans such as those mean that conflict between devolved Parliaments and the House would be inevitable. The outcome would be to damage the unity of the United Kingdom and lead to its fracture.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Why does the Prime Minister persist in his nonsense of claiming that the choice before the people over Wales is for or against a devolved assembly? The choice is whether we have a vote or not. The Government are offering Wales no choice and

1063
no vote. That is what the people will decide in the general election. The Prime Minister is trying to stop Wales having a choice on devolution.
The Prime Minister: Wales had a choice and expressed its view very clearly in the past.
Let me now move to what is proposed for England. A parliament for Scotland—[Interruption]. An assembly for Wales—[Interruption.]. The more Opposition Members shout, the less they have the answers to the questions that I have put. There is a lot of sound and fury. We will see whether we get the answers. Then there are to be new assemblies for the regions of England.
Where is the appetite for a whole extra tier of government?
Mr. Graham Allen: Ask the people.
The Prime Minister: "Ask the people," says the hon. Gentleman. I bet that they would be very pleased with more bureaucrats, more politicians, more taxes.
Labour say that they will set up regional assemblies
"if that is what local people want"
Presumably that means yet more referendums.
Mr. Tony Banks: What is wrong with that?
The Prime Minister: The Labour leader says that he is not in favour of referendums—that is one thing that is wrong with it. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman shares very few views with his leader, so it is unsurprising that he does not share that one.
If some regions choose to have an assembly, what will happen in those regions that do not? What would the assemblies do? The shadow Environment Secretary is very vague about that. He says that they will have "a say" over health. What that means, heaven alone knows. He is not certain, but just possibly he might want them to monitor water and electricity companies. He goes on to say that their demand for "more services" would be "unstoppable". What services? What nonsense! He has not the faintest idea what they are going to do.
The real reason for establishing regional assemblies across England has nothing whatever to do with good government in England; rather it has to do with giving the Labour party a spurious justification for keeping the present number of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament in the House, even after establishing a parliament in Edinburgh and an assembly in Cardiff. That chaos—more government, more regulation—is the price that England would be asked to pay as the Labour party tries to appease separatism and tilt the electoral system in its favour.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Has the Prime Minister not noticed that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee pointed out that the people of England have £17 billion of public expenditure per annum spent by his placemen and women through quangos, and the regions and the people living in the regions have no say in what the quangos are doing?
The Prime Minister: If that is a new Liberal policy to abolish them all, I am very interested to hear it. No doubt
1064
they want to set up whole new elected tiers of bureaucracy. I note very carefully what the hon. Gentleman asks.
Let me turn to the point originally raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland remains one area where the Opposition parties have constantly supported Government efforts, and that has given the peace process added strength. I have publicly thanked them for that often enough, and I willingly do so again today. Unfortunately, some of them attempt to use the special circumstances of Northern Ireland to promote other views.
The hon. Gentleman asked why we can contemplate an assembly for Northern Ireland but not for Scotland and Wales. [Interruption.] It is a fair question, and if Opposition Members will listen, I will give them a detailed answer. The best answer is that given by the shadow Scottish Secretary, who said:
"We would be unwise to draw a parallel between Scotland's … desire to have a parliament and anything going on in Northern Ireland."
I shall elaborate the point. He is right, because the circumstances are not comparable. That is only the background to why the hon. Gentleman made that statement.
What we have suggested for Northern Ireland is radically different from the plan that the Labour party has for Scotland and Wales. There is no suggestion of an assembly with tax-raising powers. There are no pluralist politics in Northern Ireland, as there are in Scotland and Wales. There is no representation by parties likely to form a United Kingdom Government. What we are seeking in Northern Ireland is a widely accepted accommodation based on consent. That would provide the surest possible foundation for maintaining Northern Ireland's place firmly within the United Kingdom. That is our wish. Labour's flawed proposals for Scotland and Wales would ultimately drive them out of the United Kingdom, and we oppose that.
Labour also proposes to fiddle with the House of Lords, despite the fact—
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Mr. Donohoe rose—
The Prime Minister: I shall not give way to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) until he has learnt better manners. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe).
Mr. Donohoe: Will the Prime Minister's proposals for Northern Ireland lead to a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in the House?
The Prime Minister: When Northern Ireland had an assembly in the past, it had 12 Members of Parliament and constituency sizes were about 50 per cent. larger than constituency sizes across the rest of the United Kingdom. There is already over-representation in Scotland: there are 72 Scottish Members, as against 17 for Northern Ireland. Its powers were not comparable with the powers that would go to a Scottish Parliament.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, if Northern Ireland had

1065
proper representation in the House, comparable to that for Scotland, we would have 23 Members of Parliament? Does he further accept that the plan is to return devolved local administration with powers to Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that the signing over of certain consultative positions to the Dublin Government is an anomaly in a kingdom that expects to rule itself?
As a graduate of Trinity college, I would have understood if the Government were guiding the appointment of a person to the senate of Trinity, but why, in the name of all that is wonderful, do we have to consult in quangoland on appointments to the senate of Queen's university, the numbers of which must be sent to Dublin?
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right about the comparable number of Members of Parliament. Indeed, there would be rather more English Members of Parliament on a comparable basis were we to have the same population representation as Scotland. As I said a few moments ago, we are seeking to provide the surest foundation for maintaining Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom. That will remain our constant policy.
The Labour party also proposes to fiddle with the House of Lords, despite the fact that it works well as a revising chamber and as a forum for debate. There are times when we hear a little less from Labour Members about the House of Lords, such as last week, when they used it to undermine our plans to get tough on drug dealers, violent criminals and burglars. The House of Lords is all right then. What the shadow Home Secretary will not do in this House, he has his colleagues do in the other House if he possibly can. When the House of Lords so misbehaves itself that it agrees with the Government, Labour says that it is a bastion of unacceptable privilege.
Labour proposes to change the House of Lords in a two-stage reform. First, it would remove the right of hereditary peers to sit. For stage two, with characteristic firmness of purpose, it undertakes to work it all out later. Labour risks creating the largest and most powerful quango in history, to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). It would be a House filled with hand-picked appointments, which would give a whole new meaning to the term "trade union barons": an Islington focus group writ large. If those people are not to be appointed, will they be elected? If so, would the Upper House set itself up in opposition to this House? Who would arbitrate between them? Indeed:
"The prospect of a second Chamber challenging or replicating the power of the first would produce instability and inefficiency, and is to be avoided."
That is my view, but that is also how the Labour party put it in its document. So it admits the dangers, but it still proposes the change.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Prime Minister has already referred to a revising Chamber two or three times, saying, for instance, that one would not be available in Scotland under Labour's plans. Is he happy with the fact that, on Tuesday, this House reversed the decisions of the House of Lords on every amendment?
The Prime Minister: This House is sovereign. It is because the hon. Gentleman does not believe that that he follows the politics he does, but I do believe that this House is sovereign.
1066
The final lunacy in Labour's plans is, of course, reform of the voting system. The Liberal Democrats have long favoured that, for reasons that I well understand. It is true that the "first past the post" system does them no favours, but I think that it is right for the country. Proportional representation would deliver permanent coalitions, for ever depending on back-room deals with minority parties that would withdraw support whenever it suited them. [Laughter.] It is interesting to see that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) knows that that is true.
Labour's view, however, is very murky. We are told that Labour flirts with the idea of a referendum on proportional representation—one of the dozen or so referendums that it now plans in order to keep the Liberal Democrats happy. But, at the same time, the Labour leader uses his familiar tactic of sending people out into the Lobbies to whisper that he personally is opposed to PR. We know that he says one thing in public and another in private; now we see that he says different things in private whenever it suits him. Today, he can tell us his position in public.
We are told that constitutional reform would be a priority for a Labour Government. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that Labour Members confirm that. Constitutional reform would be a priority—not jobs, not taxes, not health, not law and order, but gerrymandering the constitution with these barmy propositions.
Our constitution is the foundation of our democracy. It is the base on which our freedoms appear, and our economic prosperity. That is why I defend it. I would change it only cautiously, and after careful examination. If the case were to be made, I would support it, but no case has yet remotely been made for the changes proposed by the Opposition.
The constitution should not be a political plaything for party gain. Ours is a united kingdom, a proud nation state, part of a Europe that is and should remain a partnership of nations and not a federal state. Labour's constitutional proposals would affect not just Scotland and Wales, but the whole United Kingdom. They would affect this Parliament. They would affect the way in which this nation is governed. The damage they would do is massive, and the benefits they would bring are dubious. They are rightly an election issue, and we shall make them so.
4.38 pm
Mr. Tony Blair: Judging by what we have just heard, this is the first Opposition day to be delivered to the Conservative party for nearly 18 years. We take it as something of a compliment that the Prime Minister should table a motion to debate our policy rather than his own. If I may say so, as an Opposition speech, the Prime Minister's speech was a classic of its kind; but, if the Prime Minister wants to make more such Opposition speeches, he should summon up a little courage and call a general election.
In his speech, as in several speeches of the same kind, the Prime Minister did not have one positive proposal to make. He asked a series of questions but never dealt with the issue of principle: is the status quo on our constitution satisfactory? In a further spasm of oppositionitis, he failed to answer this question. If what we are proposing is so wrong, why will he not commit his party to reversing it?

1067
If a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly are notions so at odds with the British constitution, why does he not pledge himself to abolishing them? If hereditary peers are so justifiable and their abolition so perverse, why does he not pledge himself to reinstate them?
The phrase that was missing from the Prime Minister's speech was "a thousand years of history". We did some historical research and discovered that a thousand years ago, the leader of this country was one Ethelred the Unready. An historian commented at the time that the Government were weak, the country was in a state of unrest, there was trouble over Europe, and shortly afterwards we were invaded and spent the next 200 years speaking French.
Mr. Tony Marlow rose—
Mr. John Redwood rose—
Mr. Blair: This is indeed a feast of opportunities. I shall give way first to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood).
Mr. Redwood: Why was the right hon. Gentleman unready on Monday for his own debate, why did he run away from that debate, why did he lose it, and why did he make no comment afterwards?
Mr. Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman is to be a future candidate in the Tory leadership stakes, he will have to do rather better than that.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Blair: I should like to make a little progress and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Of course 1,000 years has been not a period of constitutional paralysis but a period of massive constitutional development and change—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Rubbish".] Conservative Members say, "Rubbish," but I shall mention some of the changes. I know that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) may wish to return to the days of Ethelred the Unready. Over the past 1,000 years there has been the Magna Carta; the first Parliament, the Union between England and Wales in the 16th century; the civil war; the glorious revolution; the Union with Scotland in the 18th century and the Union with Ireland in the 19th century. There was the 19th century reform Act which introduced better voting rights; universal suffrage and the Parliament Act 1949.
I remind the right hon. Member for Wokingham that, if the Prime Minister thinks that nothing has changed in the past 1,000 years, he should remember that it was under the Conservatives that we signed the Single European Act and the Maastricht treaty. I do not know how much they wish to be reminded of that. It is not true either to say that they have not recently changed the constitution. The Conservative party changed it for the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). They changed it for him, but they will not change it in accordance with the wishes of the people of this country.
Let us be clear about that thousand years of change. The Tory party, when it existed, opposed most of the change. It was a Tory Prime Minister who in 1830, before the Reform Act 1832, said that the unreformed Parliament
1068
possessed the full and entire confidence of the country. It was a Tory Prime Minister who, in 1911, said that the House of Lords could not be improved on and that the idea of reforming it was the most dangerous one ever to be put before the country. It was the Tory party which, in the early part of this century, opposed women's suffrage. The Tory party has always wanted to hoard power in the hands of a small elite.
Mr. Marlow: We have had the knockabout; perhaps now we can have answers to some of the important questions. If there were to be a Scottish Parliament with powers in Scotland over health and education, would the right hon. Gentleman allow his Scottish Members of Parliament to vote on English health and education? If he cannot answer that question, all his devolution proposals have no credibility whatever.
Mr. Blair: I can answer it, and I will. I shall come to those issues in my speech, and the hon. Gentleman will get clear answers.
Apart from the flimsiest of fig leaves, the Prime Minister stands before us effectively as the candidate of no change. All is well. Keep it roughly as it is—1,000 years of history and change and then the end of history. Perfection is then reached and nothing more need be done. How bizarre a position when we think that, today, for many people outside the House, politics and our political system are probably less respected than they have been for generations. We have the most over-centralised Government in the western world.
Over the past few years, Parliament has been beset by allegations of sleaze and disreputable conduct, such that the Prime Minister had to set up two judicial inquiries—one into the conduct of Members of Parliament and the other into the conduct of Ministers. The House is probably held in lower regard than many of us would like, the system of holding Government to account is poor, and, after 28 pieces of local government legislation, it is a scandal that more money is spent by unelected, unaccountable quangos than by directly elected local government. This is happening less than three years before the start of the 21st century. By all means let us debate the detail of change, but we must answer the need for change in our country.
Mr. Tim Renton rose—
Mr. Blair: I shall come to devolution and the House of Lords in a moment. I shall shortly give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and I ask him to sit down for a moment.
Before I deal with devolution and the House of Lords, I shall consider devolution in a small way, in London, and speak about the way that it is governed.
London is the only capital city of any comparably sized country in the western world without its own strategic authority. I say again that, by all means, let us debate what type of change there should be, but when we ask Londoners and look around London and see what the absence of proper strategic planning has done, can any of us doubt the need for a proper, strategic, co-ordinating authority?
I return to Scottish and Welsh devolution. We believe that decentralisation is right and proper. Indeed, there is an inconsistency in the Conservative attitude to that.

1069
Conservatives say yes to subsidiarity in Europe but no to it in the UK. The Prime Minister reserved his loudest condemnation for devolution.
Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman not in danger of adding to the contempt of Parliament to which he refers by his constant evasion, and that of the members of his shadow Cabinet, of the West Lothian question? I remind him that the question was first asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) 20 years ago. The hon. Gentleman sought an answer from the Labour party then at the same time as he published a book entitled "Devolution: the end of Britain?". Will the right hon. Gentleman give a specific, clear answer? For example, why should the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) be able to vote to abolish grant-maintained schools in my constituency when I shall not be able to vote on abolishing them in his?
Mr. Blair: As I have said, the Prime Minister reserved his loudest attack for devolution. [Interruption.] Conservative Members want the answer to the question by the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) and they are about to get it. May I have a little patience, please?
The protestations can be kept in proportion if we remind ourselves that, in the 1970s, the Conservatives proposed a Scottish Assembly, to be elected by proportional representation, with law-making and revenue-raising powers and with no reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. I am about to give the same answer that the Conservatives gave then, so the right hon. Gentleman can listen to it.
Let me remind the House of what was said in the Tory Scottish manifesto of 1974:
"Devolution is our policy and is the direct opposite of separatism. It can free Scotland from the frustrations of centralisation."
I say, "Hear, hear" to that. Who was it who declared at Edinburgh, at a rally of the Conservatives:
"The establishment of a Scottish Assembly must be a top priority to ensure that more decisions are taken in Scotland by Scots"?
It was one Margaret Thatcher, now Baroness Thatcher. Who was it who in the same year wrote passionately of the need of the Tory party to prepare itself for a future
"where a Scottish assembly is a permanent feature of political life, as it inevitably will be"?
It was the man who is now Secretary of State for Scotland. Who said that
"people had forgotten that it was the Tories who first developed the whole concept of a Scottish assembly … The party has an opportunity to recharge the batteries … and the proposed new Scottish assembly can be the catalyst"?
It was his predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: I shall in one moment. Let me just complete this, because I know the right hon. Gentleman would like the full list. Who was it who said in answer to the West Lothian question:
1070
"We would strongly oppose any suggestion of bargaining Scottish representation at Westminster in order to obtain parliamentary approval to the Devolution Bill"?
It was the Foreign Secretary. Naturally, the Conservative party is entitled to change its mind, but let it no longer insult our intelligence and that of the British people by pretending that a policy that it used to espouse in virtually every detail means the end of civilisation as we know it.
Mr. Forsyth: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The Conservative party in Scotland did advocate a Scottish Assembly in the 1970s, but it was because we could not answer the West Lothian question that we abandoned the policy.
He has still failed to answer the question: how could he justify to the House Scottish Members of Parliament coming down here in greater numbers than would be appropriate for England and voting on English business when they had no say on the same business in their constituency? It was because we could not answer that question that we abandoned the policy. The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question or abandon his policy.
Mr. Blair: That is complete and total nonsense. That is not the reason why the Conservative party abandoned the policy. That is precisely what the Conservative party says Northern Ireland Members of Parliament should be able to do, so it says that it is good enough for Northern Ireland, but not good enough for Scotland.
Let me just give the answer to the Secretary of State for Scotland, because that was an unwise intervention. This issue came up in the 1960s when Stormont was in existence, when a Labour Government were in power, and when the Conservative party used to try to defeat the Labour Government on the basis of help from Unionist Members of Parliament, as indeed Winston Churchill did in the 1950s. When a Labour Member raised the West Lothian question, the Conservative party said:
"Every Member of the House of Commons is equal with every other Member of the House of Commons and all of us will speak on all subjects and let us hear no more of this nonsense."
Mr. Forsyth: The whole point about the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for a Scottish Assembly is that Scottish Members of Parliament would not be equal to other Members. They would not be able to vote and speak on those matters that affected their constituents and, in that way, he would sow the seeds of the disintegration of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Blair: That is complete rubbish. That is a separate point altogether. The West Lothian question is about English Members of Parliament not being able to vote on Scottish matters. The right hon. Gentleman is raising the issue of Scottish Members of Parliament in relation to those matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but that is because they have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That is the very purpose of devolution.
Sir Hector Monro: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: No. I want to come back and deal with the Secretary of State. As he has asked me two questions, let him answer a third. If the referendum in Scotland goes in favour of the Scottish Parliament, will he then support it?
Mr. Forsyth: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could answer why the last Labour Government thought, rightly,

1071
that a referendum would be appropriate only after the House had considered the legislation, so that people knew what they were voting for. Is not a pre-legislative referendum asking the people to vote for a pig in a poke?
Mr. Blair: Not at all. It is precisely what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing in relation to Northern Ireland. That is precisely the case.
Mr. Forsyth indicated dissent.
Mr. Blair: It is.
Let me remind the Conservative party of what it proposes for Northern Ireland: a law-making assembly with around 90 members elected by proportional representation. There is no proposal to reduce the number of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. Had we not pledged ourselves to a referendum, the Conservatives would have opposed the legislation on those grounds.
I asked the Secretary of State for Scotland that question for a reason. This is what he said last June. This is not going back to the time when he may think he was a victim of teenage madness; it is going back just to last year. He said:
"It is high time Labour committed themselves to seeking endorsement for their programme through a referendum of the Scottish people."
[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] No, the right hon. Gentleman never said, "Ah." Two days later, we announced a referendum, and he denounced us for it.
Mr. Forsyth rose—
Mr. Blair: Sit down. Wait a moment. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. We cannot have two right hon. Gentlemen on their feet at the same time. Who is giving way to whom?
Mr. Blair: I am sorry.
Mr. Forsyth rose—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing rose—
Mr. Blair: I want to be generous to the Secretary of State, but he could not perhaps answer my first question. Let him answer this question when he comes to intervene again. Is it now clear from the Government's position that, if there is a Scottish Parliament and it has the will of the Scottish people, the Conservative party will not abolish it?
Mr. Forsyth: The right hon. Gentleman chose to misrepresent what I said. I made it perfectly clear that, if Labour proposed major constitutional change, the House should have a chance to consider the legislation and there should be a post-legislative opportunity. The idea of a pre-legislative referendum was denounced by the hon. Members for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), who rightly said that it would be constitutionally improper to have a referendum on a proposal that had not been considered by the House.
Mr. Blair: I do not think that we quite got an answer to the question about abolishing a Scottish Parliament, but never mind.
1072
We support devolution; we oppose separatism. The enemy of the Union is no change, not devolution. To insist that the only choice open to Scotland is separation or the status quo is to defy wit, instinct and history. Of course we can celebrate and recognise the differences in our nations within the United Kingdom, because the unity of the United Kingdom should be based not on conformity, but on diversity.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Blair: I suppose I must.
Mrs. Ewing: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because I have been trying to intervene for some time. He has made many references to the concept of referendums. Is he opposed to the idea of a multi-option referendum in Scotland, which would include independence for Scotland?
Mr. Blair: With all due respect to the hon. Lady, that is her policy, but it is not ours. We are not in favour of that. I simply say that the Scottish National party and the Conservative party are at one in believing that the choice for Scotland should be between wrenching Scotland out of the United Kingdom or the status quo. I say that the best way to guarantee a fair deal for people in Scotland is sensible devolution, not separation, and not the status quo.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Blair: I shall give way for the last time, to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker).
Mr. Walker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Does he realise that, by repeating the agonies that we have gone through in Scotland over the impossibility of finding answers to matters such as the West Lothian question, he only draws clearly to the mind of everyone, myself included, other proposals? He will realise that I have never favoured what he is promoting. I am one of the people who suggested that we could find suitable mechanisms through the House to address the key matters. The day after the Queen's Speech, the Labour party could use the Scottish Grand Committee to pass all Scottish legislation, however controversial. That was the Alex Douglas-Home proposal, which I supported.
Mr. Blair: I am sorry to have to remind the hon. Gentleman, but to quote from his election address of 1974, he said:
"Give the people of Scotland more say over their own affairs with a Scottish Assembly."
Hon. Members: More, more.
Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your protection. If the Opposition are to quote what I supported, I want it quoted in full. My address included remarks about the Scottish Grand Committee, the mechanism that I recommended then, and now.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that is not a point of order for me; it is a matter of argument across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Blair: I think that it is fair to say that, as a Conservative in Scotland, the hon. Gentleman probably does need your protection, Madam Speaker.

1073
Let us turn from the West Lothian question to the Lord Lothian question. Let us state some facts about the other place. The large majority of those eligible—
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Blair: The large majority of those—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have another point of order.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would answer the West Lothian question, but he has not done so yet. He has obviously moved on in his notes. May we have a short adjournment so that he can go back in his notes to find the answer to the West Lothian question?
Madam Speaker: I hope that I am not going to get any more bogus points of order. I want to get on with the debate.
Mr. Blair: The large majority of those eligible to vote in the House of Lords are hereditary peers. The vast majority of them are Conservatives. Indeed, there are more Tory hereditary peers than all the life peers of the other parties put together. It is perhaps hardly surprising then that the Tory campaign guide, which was published last week, states
"The hereditary principle 'an asset to democracy' … hereditary peers bring colour, tradition, youth and a wealth of experience to Parliament."
That was topped by Viscount Cranborne, who said:
"Increasingly the amateur politicians who make up the hereditary peerage are coming to represent the common man in Parliament."
Just why do Citizen Cranborne and the other Conservatives like the House of Lords so much? Why does the Prime Minister say that it works? Of course it works for the Tories—they have a majority of hereditary peers. In 1995–96, the Government won 96 out of 106 Divisions; 66 of them, more than two thirds, were won by the votes of hereditary peers. In case it is said that Labour Governments and Tory Governments suffer equally, that is not the case. On average, in a Session under a Labour Government, that Government suffered 68.5 defeats, but, under this Government, there have been 13.5 defeats.
The poll tax would never have got through the other place but for the hereditary element. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will be delighted to know that I have found my place in my notes. Let us consider what the Conservative party supports. Let us consider the hereditary peerage of Brocket. The first Lord Brocket bought the title from Lloyd-George; the second Lord Brocket was one of Britain's leading Nazi sympathisers; and the third Lord Brocket is serving five years for fraud. Before he went to gaol, he came to the House of Lords, spoke in favour of the poll tax and urged a crackdown on law-breakers.
To justify law-making powers on the grounds of birth is bad enough, but to try to justify such powers on the basis of a permanent Tory majority is almost admirable in its brass neck. Can one imagine if it were the other way round? Let us just suppose, as reasonable people—as we all are, of course—that the majority of hereditary peers
1074
were Labour. I bet that the joys of democracy would erupt among those on the Conservative Benches. There were times, of course, when they threatened to erupt. Who was it who told the Tory party conference that hereditary peers were "silly"? It was the Secretary of State for Wales. Who was it who wrote in 1981:
"Hereditary peers no longer command enough respect from the nation as a whole to justify their exercise of legislative powers … The House of Lords should be elected on a system of proportional representation, with life peers elected on a regional basis"?
Who was it who wrote that? First, Citizen Cranborne, who has obviously changed his mind, and one William Waldegrave, one Ian Lang and one Tristan Garel-Jones. More than that, let me come to the most absurd part of the argument advanced by the Conservative party
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): If the right hon. Gentleman is so interested in what I said 17 years ago, rather than trying to answer the West Lothian question that has been put to him by my hon. Friends, will he tell us whether he agrees with everything that he said 17 years ago, or indeed with anything that he said 17 years ago?
Mr. Blair: The Welsh Secretary has made a very fair point. His problem, however, is that those are not simply the views that he expressed at the 1980 Tory party conference: they are the views that he has espoused over the years.
Mr. Hague: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: In a moment.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) should not persist. He will obviously not be allowed to intervene now.
Mr. Blair: I should be delighted to give way to the Welsh Secretary again. When he gets to his feet, however, perhaps he will tell us whether, if he agrees with the hereditary principle now but disagrees with what he said 17 years ago—I understand that he can have his change of mind—
Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Blair: If the Welsh Secretary agrees with the hereditary principle, will he commit the Conservative party to reinstate it if we abolish it?
Mr. Hague: It is very generous of the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to have changed my mind over the past 17 years. However, I am intervening on his speech, he is not intervening on mine. He said that those are views that I had espoused "over the years", implying during the past 17 years. Can he name an occasion on which I have done so in the past 17 years, and tell me whether he agrees with his election manifesto of 14 years ago?
Mr. Blair: It would be interesting to know when the Welsh Secretary stopped thinking that it was the right thing

1075
to do. Can he tell us whether the Conservative party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] If he cannot tell us, can any of the prospective Tory leadership candidates tell us whether, if we abolish hereditary peers, the Conservative party's policy is to reinstate it? If they think that it is right to do so, why are they not committed to it?
Moreover, if the hereditary principle is right, why does the Prime Minister not appoint more hereditary peers? He has been Prime Minister for six years. If the principle is right, it should be followed; if it is wrong, it should be abandoned. It is to pile absurdity upon monstrosity to say that law-making by birth is right, but only for people born up to a certain time in history.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: No.
Did the strain of blue blood suddenly dry up around 1970? By all means, let us debate the replacement and the nature of a reformed second Chamber, and let the Conservative party—as I believe that many of the more sensible Conservative Members would like to do—join in that debate. The reason why they are not prepared to commit themselves to abolishing a Scottish Parliament or to reintroducing hereditary peers is that, deep down, they know that it is a sensible and serious debate.
Let us not insult the democratic intellect—an insult that conceals a naked, self-serving Tory interest—and try to dress it up as serving the interests of the common man. We should be attempting at every point to modernise our Government for today's Britain through sensible reforms, to let our constitution live and breathe. It is a means of achieving progress for our country, not an obstacle to progress.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Patrick Cormack: Those are matters of enormous concern. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that, in the unlikely event of his becoming Prime Minister, all those constitutional measures would be debated in Committee on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Blair: They will be debated in the normal way, according to the conventions of the House. We have always made that clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "On the Floor of the House?"] They will be debated in the normal way. We have made that clear. I ask the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) whether, if we are elected—[Interruption.]
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The right hon. Gentleman knows that the convention has always been for constitutional measures to be dealt with in Committee of the whole House, on the Floor. Yes or no?
Mr. Blair: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, the convention is as the House decides—[Interruption.] That is the convention. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little order in the House. We are debating important constitutional issues; let us all hear them clearly.
Mr. Blair: I must say that it was the Prime Minister who said that the House was sovereign. It will be done in the normal way, according to the conventions of the House.
1076
I return to the question of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire, and tell him that, if we are elected, I hope that Conservative Members will drop their absurd scaremongering campaign on constitutional change.
Mr. Salmond: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: No; I must make some progress.
We also propose a freedom of information Act to open up our secretive processes. After the Scott inquiry, can anyone be in any serious doubt that such an Act is necessary? We need to roll back the tide of quangos and to have a revival of proper democratic local government. We need change in our parliamentary procedures to make them more accountable, and an examination of party political funding is long overdue. Not all that change can be made at once, of course, but the direction should be clear: decentralisation in place of central control; the assertion of the rights of the citizen against the state; and the modernisation of our democracy.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is not about to give way?
Mr. Blair: Yes, Madam Speaker; I have to make progress.
Madam Speaker: That is quite clear. The hon. Member for Chingford will therefore resume his seat.
Mr. Blair: Our purpose should be the modernisation of our democracy, with its great and proud traditions.
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Cranley Onslow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it not help the House if you reminded the Leader of the Opposition that it is customary for him to sit down when you rise to your feet?
Mr. Blair: If anything demonstrates why our institutions need reform, it is the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tom King rose—
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Blair: I am sorry, but no; I want to make progress. Conservatives Members can organise as much disruption as they want, but the case will be heard.
Mr. King rose—
Mr. Duncan Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Order. I have just made it clear to the hon. Member for Chingford that the Leader of the

1077
Opposition is not giving way. Since I made that clear, however, he has been on his feet three times, trying to intervene and to disrupt.
Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have not finished. The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he will not give way. It is the custom of the House that, once that has been clearly stated, hon. Members do not continue to pressurise.
Mr. Duncan Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was simply working on the basis that we have already established that the right hon. Gentleman regularly changes his mind. Therefore, I thought that he might change his mind also on this matter.
Madam Speaker: I like to see a sense of humour in the House.
Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister and the Conservative party now set their face against any type of change. They say that that is to preserve the British constitution, but I say that it is more to preserve the Tory party and their own interests. They no longer form a Government—they form a self-preservation society.
The motion is a Government motion effectively on Opposition policy, which is extraordinary. It is part of the Government's negative campaign designed to scare people. The truth is that the Prime Minister has little vision of the future. He cannot tell us why anything should be done, but he can give us 1,000 reasons why nothing should be done. His weapon is fear. It is not just fear about the constitution but fear about everything—the nonsense about signing the social chapter and then 500,000 jobs go; the nonsense and lies from the Conservative propaganda machine about a hidden £30 billion spending campaign; although his party used to espouse it, he said that devolution is the "most dangerous idea" ever put before the British people. Make it up, say it with passion and repeat it—that is his course. He believes that it worked for him before—[Interruption.] The Conservatives believed that it worked for them before and will work again, but I think that they are mistaken.
To make the weapon of fear work, the Prime Minister needs credibility. When he attempts to frighten people, they remember—Mr. David Hunt (Wirral, West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that Opposition Members are complaining because the Prime Minister's parliamentary private secretary has passed the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) a note. I have very good eyes and I know exactly what happens in the House; I saw what happened, do not worry.
Mr. Hunt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and I have calculated that he has
1078
been asked 16 key questions in this debate. Is it possible for you to communicate to the right hon. Gentleman that he can continue his speech until he has answered them?
Madam Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order; it is a point of argument.
Mr. Blair: That is all that the Tories have left—a few dirty tricks, and that is about it. Just look at them—has anyone every seen a party more obviously preparing for opposition?
I said that the Prime Minister's only weapon was fear and that the problem with his wielding that weapon was credibility. Why? Because people remember. They remember the man who took us into the exchange rate mechanism and said that it was the basis of his policy, and then it collapsed around his ears; the man who said that he would never raise tax before the last election and raised it 22 times; the man who said he would be at the heart of Europe and is now at the margins of Europe; the man who said he would end the beef war by last November but still cannot tell us when the ban is going to be lifted; the man who set up the Scott inquiry because of the worry about Ministers' accountability and then ignored the findings because they did not suit him.
The Conservatives no longer frighten, because they are no longer believed—they are not believed about themselves and they are not believed about us. Across the country, fear is being driven out by hope of change: hope that Britain need not be like this and can be better, hope that our constitution can be modernised
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Blair: They do not like it. If they are so confident of their case, and if they believe that they can win the arguments on devolution, the economy and the state of our society and the health service, let them have the courage to call a general election. Frankly, that is all that they have left.
5.24 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Prime Minister said at the start of the debate that he intended to make the constitution a major issue of the general election. Well, on the basis of this debate so far, I sincerely hope so. I do not think that I have ever heard a debate in the House on such a serious matter in which the Government have put together such a tawdry, thin and intellectually unconvincing case. Nor, I am bound to say, have I heard a debate greeted with responses from Conservative Members intended more to disrupt than further the debate than we have heard in the past half an hour. If ever there was a case of using scaremongering tactics and disruption to overcome the opposition when one's argument is thin, we saw it today—and that was not from the Opposition but from those who are supposed to be in government.
The Prime Minister made two points—he made them very badly, but he made them. The first was that Britain today is so well governed that nothing, or at least nothing substantial, needs to be done. I noticed that during the Leader of the Opposition's speech there was outrage among Conservatives at the suggestion that constitutional legislation may not be dealt with on the Floor of the House. However, Conservatives cannot argue—wrongly, in my view—that this Parliament is sovereign but then

1079
argue that this Parliament can control the next. That is a ludicrous proposition. Of course, we cannot give an undertaking as to how the next Parliament will deal with the matter.
Among the tiny measures of change included in the Prime Minister's speech was a significant one—that Parliament would sit for Sessions of two years. Really? That is up to Parliament to decide, not the Prime Minister. The next Parliament will decide that. It is as inappropriate for the Prime Minister to seek to bind the next Session of this Parliament as it would be for the leader of the Labour party to do so. The leader of the Labour party gave a perfectly reasonable answer to a serious question.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question that I asked the Leader of the Opposition? Does he believe that constitutional measures should always be dealt with on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Ashdown: That is for the next Parliament to decide, but let me see whether I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. If he is correct, how is it that a major constitutional matter in this Parliament was not debated on the Floor of the House? I refer to the Maastricht treaty. If we could change the role of the House at that time, why not in future, too?
Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Ashdown: I have given way once and want to make progress.
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You know better than anyone that the Maastricht treaty was indeed debated on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. It is not for the occupant of the Chair to comment on any particular answer, but I have a long memory of the Maastricht treaty.
Mr. Ashdown: The point at issue is that the House cannot bind the actions of the next Parliament. That is a principle related to the sovereignty of the House, one that the Conservatives keep talking about and to which I shall return later.
Mr. Jacques Arnold rose—
Mr. Ashdown: No; the hon. Gentleman must forgive me for not giving way at this stage. I want to make some progress.
The Prime Minister's first argument is that Britain is so well governed that nothing, or at least nothing substantial, needs to be changed. His second is that our constitution is so fragile that, if we were to change anything, we would risk changing everything, and the whole lot would simply fall apart.
Let me take the Prime Minister's first proposition first—that, since nothing substantial is wrong, nothing substantial should be done and our politics should, substantially, stay exactly as it is. I invite any hon. Member to leave the Chamber, go out on to the streets,
1080
stop any member of the public and put that proposition to them. They would get a very blunt, very frank and very different answer.
No one outside this place thinks that politics—the way in which we govern ourselves—is working effectively. They see a system that produces fiascos such as the poll tax or the dangerous dogs legislation because we cannot hold the Government to account and because of the way in which the House passes laws; they see people buying influence from political parties because the rules governing party funding are such a mess; they see scandals such as the arms to Iraq affair and the secrecy and abuse of power that was exposed by the Scott inquiry; they see Parliament tainted by scandals such as cash for questions; they see the introduction, for the first time in our history, of a watchdog to uphold parliamentary standards, because we are incapable of upholding them; they see Members who are presumed to be no longer honourable enough to give evidence without doing so on oath; and they see politicians speaking in a language that most people do not understand and behaving in ways that most people find bewildering at best and offensive at worst.
Those are not the signs of a healthy system that does not need change—they are the signs of a rottenness that has to be rooted out. That is a comment not just on the failings of the Government, but on the failings of the political system. Closed off, over-centralised and out of touch, our political system is not succeeding—it is failing and needs to be modernised. The public and outside observers know that. Are we in this House the only people in the country who do not know it? We should be debating not a question designed to protect the status quo, but how we can modernise our political system so that it is suitable for the next century, not rooted in the last one.
Look around outside the House and see how other institutions have changed in the past two or three decades. Modern firms trading in the global marketplace where Britain has to trade have stripped down the vertical hierarchies that our political system so lovingly preserves. They have devolved power and encourage decentralisation. They share decisions. This place would rather die than share a decision—and probably will in the end. Businesses respond to change; we resist it. Anything that would change the nature of our job and the way in which we work is immediately declared to be an attack on the heritage of the nation—by which, of course, we mean ourselves.
We in this place have become the nation's foremost conspiracy for job preservation. We would knock any trade union into a cocked hat. We need to change here, too, so that, instead of excluding people, we involve them; so that, instead of being closed off, our politics is opened up; so that, instead of power being obsessively centralised in Westminster and Whitehall, it is dispersed, and people are given responsibility to decide more for themselves in their local communities.
Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) that one answer to the West Lothian question is that matters affecting English constituencies should be voted on only by English Members in an English Grand Committee?
Mr. Ashdown: My right hon. Friend tells me that he said that there could be an English Grand Committee.
Let us deal with the West Lothian question straightforwardly and, I hope, comprehensively. The issue is simple: should the number of Scottish Members of Parliament be reduced if there were a Scottish Parliament? We are clear about that. The answer is yes. The level of representation should be similar to that for the rest of Britain.
Mr. Forsyth: That is not what Labour says.
Mr. Ashdown: That is up to the Labour party. It can argue its case. I am giving my party's view—a view that we have always held.
Mr. Forsyth: By how many?
Mr. Ashdown: Let us say a figure in the order of 12 or 13.
The West Lothian question is a non-question. It is no more a question than is the West Belfast question. When Stormont existed, did Northern Irish Members of Parliament vote on education and health matters concerning England, Wales and Scotland? Of course they did. That was not a difficulty then, and it is not a difficulty now.
Let me move on a bit.
Mr. Forsyth rose—
Mr. Ashdown: No, I have answered the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Forsyth rose—
Mr. Ashdown: No, I have answered the right hon. Gentleman.
Go out and ask members of the public. There is ample evidence of what their response will be. Ask them whether they want a freedom of information Act—which the Government resist. Some 81 per cent. say yes. Why? They know that open government means better government.
Mr. Forsyth: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman has asked his question and he has had his answer.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the Member who is speaking does not give way, the other Member must resume his seat.
Mr. Ashdown: It is pretty bizarre—the right hon. Gentleman has a whole winding-up speech ahead of him.
Ask the public whether they want a Bill of Rights and 79 per cent. say yes. Why? They understand the need—God knows they do under this Government—to protect their individual freedoms against the arbitrary abuse of
1082
power. Ask the public whether they are happy with the way in which Parliament works. Only 34 per cent.—a little more than a third—are happy about the way in which this place works, but 50 per cent. are happy about the way in which their local council works. After all the withdrawal of power and all the time that the Government have spent deriding local councils and insulting them, the fact remains that far more people trust their local council and the way it works than trust this place. Yet the Prime Minister tells us that nothing should be changed.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I must make progress. If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene later, I shall give way.
Ask the Scottish and Welsh people whether they want more control over their Scottish and Welsh affairs, and the answer again is a resounding, overwhelming yes. They might reject it, but all that we ask is that they should be given the choice. Scotland is the only nation in the world with a separate legal system, but no legislature to determine the laws in that system.
Similar areas and populations all over Europe have their own assemblies, and remain firmly and proudly parts of the nation state to which they belong. I think of Bavaria, with its capital Munich, or Catalonia, with its capital Barcelona. I think of their regional autonomy and regional assemblies, but I do not see Germany or Spain splitting apart. Rather I see countries that have benefited and been strengthened because of the decentralisation of power, the accommodation of diversity and the fact that people are more responsible for the decisions that are made locally.
None of those countries has come unstuck over their equivalents of the West Lothian question. That is because the West Lothian question is no more a problem than was the West Belfast question when Northern Ireland had an assembly at Stormont. None of those countries sees greater self-determination for the historic nations within their borders as a threat to national unity. They see, rather, a means of preserving that unity. None of those countries has a problem devolving powers to raise or reduce tax levels.
The Prime Minister's argument was bizarre. Every parish council in this land has the power to raise tax. Is the Prime Minister's case really that we cannot trust to the Scottish people in a Scottish Parliament powers that are given to every English parish council? That is bizarre and makes no sense.
The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me which body other than this House has the power to raise income tax, which is what we are talking about?
Mr. Ashdown: For someone paying taxes, council tax also has to be paid. A tax is a tax. I know that the Conservative party has tried to deceive and betray the country on income tax, pretending that it is the only tax that exists, but everybody knows that that is not true. They know that their local councils can raise and lower taxation and that that has a real impact on their household budgets.
It is not a Scottish Parliament that poses a threat to the United Kingdom—quite the opposite. It is the continuing and contemptuous rejection of the Scottish and Welsh will

1083
for more control over their affairs that poses the real threat to the Union. I do not normally find myself in agreement with Lord Tebbit, but he was right when he said a few days ago:
"We will not save the Union by mocking the idea of a Scottish nation."
A week ago, the Prime Minister talked about a thousand years of British history being undone in a thousand days as if nothing in our constitution had changed for a thousand years. I hope that he will have time for a history lesson before the great debate gets under way in the general election campaign. Such claims are nonsense.
The Prime Minister fails to understand that the lesson of our history is exactly the opposite of what he claims. Our constitution is not a museum piece, but a living thing that has been changing, evolving and constantly renewing itself down the centuries. It is unrecognisable today from what it was 1,000 years ago; that has not been its weakness, but its strength. To argue, as the Prime Minister does, that tampering with our constitution would mean the collapse of Government, national disorder and the end of the United Kingdom as we know it, is rampant scaremongering that flies in the face of our history. Far from protecting our constitution, it denies its very strength.
The great irony and hypocrisy is that the very Government who tell us that the country will fall apart if anyone touches so much as a hair of our constitution are the same Government who have cut down our proud system of local government, destroyed parliamentary accountability in one area of government after another, and established such a tangle of arm's-length agencies that nowadays no Minister is responsible for anything.
They are the very Government who have created a jungle of unelected quangos, stuffed full of party political appointees. Those quangos now spend billions of pounds—one third of all public money—and meet in secret; their members are not required to declare their interests and have no accountability to the people they serve. How dare the very Government who have taken so much democracy out of our system tell us that we cannot change our constitution to put more democracy into it?
But then, resisting reform and democracy is what the Conservatives have always been about: it is what they have always done; it is their traditional role. Let us consider the following words:
"Our system of representation possesses the full and entire confidence of this country".
Was that the Tory party chairman railing against proportional representation? No, it was the Duke of Wellington opposing the extension of the franchise in 1830. Let us consider another quotation:
"Touch one atom of our glorious constitution and the whole is lost."
Was that the Prime Minister firing up the party faithful at a Conservative party conference? No, it was Lord Eldon, a Tory grandee, defending the rotten boroughs in 1832.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I bet his grandson is sitting up there now.
Mr. Ashdown: He probably is.
Who said the following words:
"Constitutional change … would endanger the very fabric of Britain … it would destroy in years what has been built up in centuries"?
1084
Were those words said by a die-hard Tory opposing votes for women and the suffragettes to the very last? No, this time it was the Prime Minister.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: No, the hon. Gentleman must forgive me—I shall not give way.
Resisting reform is what Conservatives have always done. In the end, they have always lost, because the case for reform, the need for change and modernisation has always been too strong.
Despite Lord Eldon's protests, despite the scaremongering and despite the protests of the massed ranks of Conservative politicians to the Great Reform Act of 1832, that Act was passed. I assume—although I am not entirely certain—that no Conservatives here today would wish to see it repealed. Despite Lord Eldon's fears, that event did not become the constitutional equivalent of dropping the atomic bomb; it led to the gradual extension of the right to vote in this country, including, after bitter struggles, votes for women—and ultimately it led to the universal adult suffrage that we have today. I assume that no Conservative here today would like to see that reversed.
Mr. David Nicholson rose…
Mr. Ashdown: There is one; I knew that there would be—from Taunton, no less. I was going to say that I cannot vouch for every Conservative party conference delegate, but it seems that I cannot even vouch for the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).
Mr. Nicholson: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about previous, successful and acceptable attempts to extend suffrage. Is his party committed—as I believe it might be—to introducing voting at 16?
Mr. Ashdown: The Liberal Democratic party is clear in its commitment: it is committed to votes at 16—as indeed we were to votes at 18, when we were undoubtedly opposed by Conservative Members.
At every stage along the way, opponents of reform scaremongered about the consequences of reform—from their defence of rotten boroughs to their opposition to votes for women. They scaremongered using precisely the same terms as the Prime Minister has used today, but time and again they were defeated because people understood in that age that the systems were not working—just as the system is not working today. People understood the need to modernise and improve our system of government.
Mr. Michael Lord: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way, as I want to make progress and other hon. Members wish to speak. I have given way enough.
It is now clear that the Prime Minister is determined that the Conservatives will play their historic and traditional role, the role that they have always played: the reactionaries against change, the opponents of modernisation and the preservers of the status quo. They miss the national mood. Reform has risen up the political

1085
agenda precisely because it is so obviously needed in this country. Reform will always best be achieved if it is carried out not by one party, but on a cross-party basis. It is not too late for Conservatives Members to join the debate with that thought in mind—the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) has already said that he would like to do so, and he is very welcome.
I know—and Conservative Members know—that many Conservatives support a freedom of information Act; other Conservatives support the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into British law. Many Conservatives believe, as Edmund Burke believed, in the importance of local decision making in the "little platoons" of our local communities.
There are Conservatives—there are even some in the Chamber—who support proportional representation.
There are even senior Conservative Ministers who—as the Leader of the Opposition so graphically showed—in days gone by supported the idea of a Scottish Parliament. That idea was clearly identified in the Conservatives' 1974 manifesto, on which the Prime Minister stood in the former constituency of St Pancras, North. But to listen to the tone of Conservative opposition today one would not believe that they ever argued for such things.
Mr. Maxton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I am nearly at the end of my speech, and I want to leave time for other hon. Members.
The moment is right for our country to reflect on the workings of our constitution and our political system. It is the right moment to think of sensible reforms that will make our constitution and political system work better. It is the right moment to ensure that Britain enters the next century with a constitution fit for the modern age, not one preserved as a museum piece from a previous one. With this Parliament now in its dying days, that task must fall to its successor. The Liberal Democrats, at least, are determined to ensure that Britain does not have to wait another five years for the reforms to our political system that our country so desperately needs.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should remind hon. Members that speeches are now restricted to 10 minutes.
5.47 pm
Mr. Tim Eggar: When I listened to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), I was very surprised that he appeared unable even to seek to address the West Lothian question. It had never occurred to me that he would come to a debate of this importance without a well-rehearsed answer to that question. But having listened to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and his extraordinarily inadequate response to that question, I reflected on the wisdom of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield.
I recognise that this debate is primarily about devolution and I was delighted to hear the passion and commitment that came from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. His decision to speak this afternoon has
1086
been justified by the way the debate has gone and by the inadequacies revealed in the speech by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield.
I shall restrict my contribution to a discussion of the future of the House of Commons.
When I entered the House in 1979, we were embarked on a review of the Select Committee system—the so-called St. John-Stevas reforms. They were broadly welcomed and, by and large, they are believed to have worked. In the intervening 18 years, however, we have not really sought to address our way of working. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) proposed some sensible reforms which have made our lives easier, but even their keenest advocate could not describe them as fundamental. We need a fundamental review of the way in which the House operates as a result of the change in the composition of the House on Conservative and Labour Benches.
Whether we like it or not—I do not—we are in the era of the full-time, career politician. That is a major constitutional departure. Not so long ago, the majority of Members on both sides of the House were part timers and proud of it, and we were not worse legislators as a result. We now have a legislature of 650 Members. In all honesty, how many of us believe that, even if we wanted to, we could all be fully engaged in activities in the House?
We have to think carefully about whether we should substantially reduce the numbers in the House. Most comparable legislatures have about 400 Members of Parliament who do their jobs very effectively. If we were to move to 400 Members of Parliament, we would each have an electorate of about 100,000, give or take a few. That would be an appropriate number if we retained—as I wish we would—the first-past-the-post system.
As we have become a full-time-career House, virtually everyone wishes to become a Minister and join the Executive. I do not believe that that is a fundamentally good position for a legislature. We need to think carefully about whether, as well as reducing the numbers in the House, we should seek to raise the status of senior Members, in particular Chairmen of Committees. For example, it is extraordinary that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is not rewarded by at least Minister of State status. I should like a system whereby, for example, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health was as important a policy maker and contributor to the health debate as the Minister of State for Health.
If we are a full-time-career House—and that is inevitable, although not desirable—we need to raise the status and position of senior Members. In other words, we need to produce a career pattern within the legislature, not just within the Executive. I hope that the House will reflect on that.
I also wonder whether we need so many members of the Executive. Comparable Governments elsewhere in Europe generally have two Ministers per Department. That is more than adequate for the political job that Ministers are inevitably called upon to do.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Eggar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have only 10 minutes. I should love to give way, but the 10-minutes rule makes that difficult.

1087
I would go further. I wonder why, almost uniquely in Westminster, the Prime Minister of the day can appoint Ministers only from the House or occasionally the House of Lords. In other systems it is expected and accepted that a Prime Minister can appoint Ministers from outside the legislature.
I can think of no reason why a Minister who had been so appointed could not speak at the Dispatch Box, although of course he could not vote. There would be no reason why such a Minister could not take a Bill through a Standing Committee although again he could not vote. In an increasingly complex Government at a time when government is becoming ever more difficult, it is only right that there should be a wider pool from which the Executive could be recruited.
That leads to another issue. If we had fewer Ministers and some of those Ministers were from outside the legislature, we would have to re-examine the present assumption of the total party independence of senior civil servants. I value the British tradition of civil servants' independence, but when the boundaries between policy and management have become ever more blurred—that is inevitable—I wonder whether it is any longer tenable for junior Ministers to be responsible for quite low-level decisions while senior civil servants, at least theoretically, are in charge only of management and administration.
We should discuss whether permanent secretaries or deputy secretaries at Departments of State should be appointed on contracts for the duration of a Parliament, it being fully understood that a new Government would not automatically renew their contracts. In practice, two or three senior civil servants at the top of each Department would become part of the Administration rather than the independent civil service. That would produce considerable advantages, particularly in terms of the quality of management in the civil service and the implementation of policies.
As I looked around and propounded my fairly radical views, I saw on both sides of the House a look of scepticism and bewilderment.
5.57 pm
Mr. John Morris: This is a wide-ranging debate and I shall concentrate on my nation of Wales in the context of its place in the United Kingdom. I start with the obvious proposition that the Conservative party, as always, is against constitutional change, whether it is in Wales, Scotland or the House of Lords. It is the traditional defence of the status quo.
Before I deal with the Prime Minister's speech to the Conservative Welsh conference at a hotel somewhere across the border in north Wales, let me say why devolution is needed in Wales.
It was my privilege on two occasions in 1976 and 1977 to speak from the Government Dispatch Box on the Scotland and Wales Bill and then the Wales Bill. I promised the House that, whatever happened, we would return to the issue in due course. Now, 20 years have gone by and we make it clear that, at the earliest opportunity after the next election, we will fulfil the promise that I made to the House 20 years ago.
In 1977 we believed that extending democracy through participation and accountability in Wales would help to preserve and strengthen the unity of the United Kingdom.
1088
It will not harm the unity of this kingdom, but enhance it. The quality of decision making will be improved because the decision makers, drawn from all over Wales, will be attuned to the needs of Wales.
Decentralisation of power to the Welsh Office was the precursor of devolution, and in my time, with the addition of agriculture, industry and education, we doubled that office's size. However, it was never the intention that those new responsibilities would permanently be carried out by one man. It is certainly one of the most difficult tasks and it is probably even more difficult in Scotland. When one weighs the red boxes that come at the weekend and tries to master the functions of eight functional colleagues in England, it is no little task. I believe in democratic accountability. The Principality is entitled, within the context of the unity of the kingdom, to have substantial control of its own domestic policies, particularly in environmental and social matters. Let the voters of Wales decide those matters.
The Conservatives have always been against change. They were against the establishment of a Secretary of State for Wales. It was Harold Wilson who appointed the first, more than 50 years after it was deemed desirable for Scotland. Mind you, it was typical of the Conservatives that, once the office had been created, they kept it clutched it to their bosoms and gave it to their nominees, one after the other. Incidentally, that is the answer to the Secretary of State for Health and his threats.
What have we had since? A series of Secretaries of State for Wales, but not one with an electoral base in Wales. Mr. Peter Walker, then the right hon. Member for Worcester, and the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt) came and went. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—of all people—was appointed, but refused to sleep in Wales. Mind you, the fact that he kept his time in Wales to a minimum meant that he did less damage. At the end of the financial year, despite the appalling situation in Wales, he returned some of the money that had been hard won by the Welsh Office to the Treasury, and he thought he would get some brownie points from the Prime Minister. Now we have the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who has allegedly improved on his predecessor by learning the Welsh national anthem, but nothing has really changed.
What did we have before we had Secretaries of State for Wales? We had a series of appointed Ministers who were asked to add a few minutes each week to their existing responsibilities. We had David Maxwell Fyfe—known familiarly in Wales as Dai Bananas—who was the right hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby; Keith Joseph, then the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East; and Dr. Charles Hill, then the hon. Member for Luton, who was also known as the radio doctor. They and others came and went, looking after Wales in their spare time.
The Prime Minister talks of a thousand years, but I doubt he knows what has really happened in that thousand years—he has certainly got the dates of the Acts of Union wrong. We took 400 years to right the wrongs done to the Welsh language in the Act of Union of 1536, whereby one could be deprived of one's office for speaking Welsh. Throughout history, the story is the same. In 1846, three commissioners sent to look at the conditions in Wales said that our depravity was the result of using the Welsh language. Even in my grandfather's boyhood, the "Welsh Not" was passed from one child to

1089
the next when they were caught speaking Welsh in school. Those are the parts of our history with which the Prime Minister is totally unfamiliar.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morris: Not to that hon. Gentleman.
The way in which Wales is now governed is exactly like that of a colony with its governor—a nominated appointee, with the executive role of Government carried out by quangos and nominated councils. The Conservative party has been the minority party in Wales since 1852—the last 140 years of the Prime Minister's 1,000 years—so what do the Conservative Government do? They scour Wales for suitable nominees to carry out the executive roles of Government.
Who do they find? While having a splendid lunch in Swansea, Mr. Peter Walker met a man who happened to be agreeable to him and set him up as the chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and, to give him even greater comfort, also made him Welsh governor of the BBC. He then discovered that the chairman had committed more hours than the working week allowed to both those functions. The Public Accounts Committee found the chairman—and the board—of the WDA out and he had to be sent packing. That is the calibre of person who is found during the casual trips made by Welsh Secretaries to Wales.
It is not good enough to be treated as a colony. If we believe in democracy, the constitution must develop to meet the needs of the people. Does anyone really believe that the extension of democracy will not enhance and improve our constitution? The Leader of the Opposition spelled out in detail the way in which the constitution has developed over the years, opposed time after time by the Tory party. The Tory party has not changed its spots, but the time will come when there will be an extension of democracy in Wales and Scotland.
6.5 pm
Mr. Tim Rathbone: We started the debate with some pretty sorry contributions from the other side of the House, with the haughty, preachy and dodging speech from the Leader of the Official Opposition, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), followed by the sophistry and rumour-mongering of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). Speaking from my experience of the Liberal Democrats in my area of Sussex, I know that they are experts in scaremongering.
Compare those speeches with that of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which was straightforward and thoughtful—[Laughter.] The speech may not have struck sparks with Opposition Members, but it was a straightforward, thoughtful and positive argument against change.
I do not actually share my right hon. Friend's views on constitutional change, and I want to develop some thoughts along those lines. Constitutional reform has not kept pace with reform in other areas in this country. There has been too little improvement, and that has contributed to the complete lack of respect that so many people outside this House have for people inside it, and to the
1090
lack of interest in good government. That feeling is not healthy scepticism, but all too often downright mistrust. On that basis, above all else, I argue for a Bill of Rights.
Conservatives believe that the Government are the people's servant, not their master. The Government do not dictate, and we have therefore cut back regulations and controls during our period in office; we have reduced state ownership and increased personal ownership; and we have widened choice and returned power and trust to people. The British constitution, being unwritten, is flexible, which is an advantage; however, rights are not inalienable but conditional, and I believe that we must have a yardstick against which decisions can be made in respect of setting one right over another right.
We can extend the commitment that we made in 1957, when we were one of the first signatories to the convention on human rights in the Council of Europe. That was six years before the treaty of Rome created the European Community. The convention allows individual petition to a court in Europe; would it not be so much wiser to have that same right of individual petition to a court in this country? We have to acknowledge, however, that a Bill of Rights is not an automatic safeguard. It tends to play a minor role in protecting human rights, and we must therefore take further steps in order to make it effective. I shall suggest one or two for consideration.
Should there not be a human rights assessment in every Bill? Should not the Speaker, the Attorney-General or a Committee of Law Lords certify compliance with that statement? Or perhaps there should be a Special Standing Committee to review the matter, with the help of a human rights commissioner or commission, or perhaps a Joint Committee of both Houses—a hybrid of a Select Committee and a Standing Committee—should advise after the first Second Reading, in whichever House it took place.
That is skimming the surface, but I believe not only that we need a Bill of Rights because the country would benefit from it, but that the House should build into its procedures a way of applying that Bill of Rights to our everyday law making.
There has been much talk about reform of the House of Lords. The second Chamber in the British parliamentary democratic system is more important than that in any other democratic system in the world. The anachronism of a hereditary and appointed second Chamber in a long-established democracy is without question. However, I am deeply worried about the reforms outlined from the Labour Benches, because they ensconce in that Chamber the position of placemen and placewomen, doing away with the wisdom, on almost any subject under the sun, of hereditary peers and senior members of the citizenry who are appointed as peers, and there is no improvement in accountability.
Mr. Ernie Ross: They are still elected.
Mr. Rathbone: They are not elected to the second Chamber. No part of the Labour party recommendation says that they will be elected. That would change my approach to the Labour party's suggestions. They have to be elected. I believe that they have to be elected on a different basis, and to a different time scale, to that on which we are elected in this chamber.

1091
There is no knock-on effect against the monarchy. One need only consider the majority of the other member states of the European Union that have democratic monarchies and an elected, not hereditary, second chamber.
Interestingly, in a recent Sunday Times poll, two thirds of Members of the Upper House supported such reforms. It is not a new step for a Conservative Government. Conservative Governments introduced life peers in 1958, women peers in their own right in 1958, and hereditary peers in 1963—although the pressure of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) helped in that process—and the same year a Conservative Government gave the right to disclaim peerages.
Finally, I shall mention the basis of the system by which we are elected to this House. Electoral reform is not new—it is not a passing fad—although it has been highlighted recently in party political debate. We have made quantitative reforms in the past century: broadening the franchise, embracing all males, then all females, lowering the voting age, allowing those on holiday or living abroad to vote in the way they can now. Now we need qualitative reform to make the value of each vote more equal.
The election as a result of which I entered the House in February 1974 was a marvellous illustration of how our first-past-the-post system could give a wrong outcome, because, countrywide, the Conservative party received far more votes than the Labour party, yet the Labour party won more seats in the House of Commons—only by a narrow majority, but it shows how disproportionate our system has become.
I believe that there are four criteria for choosing an electoral system. For a firmly rooted democracy, there should be a close relationship between a representative and his constituency, so I argue for a system that maintains the single-member constituency.
For national unity, there should be representation of minorities, especially nationally based minorities, of which we already have some members in the House, to encourage broad-based national parties' representation in areas where sizeable but no majority support is found. That could be said to be true for the Labour party in the south of England; it is certainly true for the Conservative party in Glasgow and other areas in the north of England. For ease of understanding, the system must be simple for the voter, but let us not complicate that process of analysis; a complicated system of elections can allow the voter to exercise a simple choice. All those criteria should be borne in mind.
To argue for such changes is not disloyal to the Tory past as the party committed to protect individual rights as well as responsibilities, and to support properly founded constitutional democracy. Ownership of an equally valid vote and the opportunity to cast it effectively is the essence of freedom and the cornerstone of national competence, without which I fear that we shall never properly re-create and then conserve a United Kingdom. That important point was mentioned repeatedly by the Prime Minister. Of all people in this country, it is most important to the young of today—the leaders of tomorrow—because they have more to gain or more to endure than most of us. We should always bear that in mind.
6.15 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: This debate will make better reading for the future if we consider the issues against the background, not only of a forthcoming general election, but of a much more serious matter—the crisis of representative democracy, not only in Britain but throughout the western world. Power is too centralised; it is too secretive. It is increasingly authoritarian, not only in the parliamentary system but in the political parties. Fundamental reforms are required.
I want to address primarily the question of Europe, on which I intervened on the Prime Minister, but before I do that I should say that I have introduced two major constitutional Bills into the House, neither of which we have debated.
If we are seriously to look at our constitution afresh, there is a powerful case for saying that we should transform ourselves into a democratic federal and secular commonwealth. I have argued that case. I am not trying to persuade anyone because I do not have time to do so, but we should have a charter of rights; we should have voting at 16. A person who is old enough to be in the forces at 16 or to get a job—if they can—and get married, is of the right age to vote.
I am totally opposed to positive discrimination for women, for I am in favour of equality of representation for women. Every constituency should elect a woman and a man. I am for parliaments, not only for Scotland and Wales, but for England, which disposes of the West Lothian question once and for all. Why should England be denied control of its affairs?
I am in favour, and have been all my life, of a freedom of information Act. I want to liberate local authorities, to liberate the Church of England from the humiliation of having a Prime Minister appoint its bishops and archbishops. I am in favour of the Crown retiring with honour and a good pension to Buckingham Palace, and of the Lords being dispatched, on the grounds that democracy means that we must be able to remove our rulers, and we cannot remove hereditary or appointed Members of the House of Lords.
I have long believed that the Irish people must determine their future, and I believe that we should consider that matter properly and put it to the public in a referendum after the real one—not a pre-legislative referendum.
I admit that I am a republican, and have been for a long time, but I do not believe and never have believed that criticism of the royal family has played any part in that matter, and I watched that awful, cheap and nasty television programme on the monarchy with dismay. The Queen did not ask for the job; she did not choose it; she was born in the right bed of the right parents at the right time. The problem with the monarchy is about the Crown, not the royal family.
The trouble is that Crown powers are enormous. Prime Ministers can go to war without consulting Parliament. The Prime Minister can sign treaties without consulting Parliament. The Prime Minister makes laws in Brussels without consulting Parliament. I was on the Council of Ministers for four years. In 1977 I was President of the Council of Energy Ministers, and every time I agreed to a minor piece of legislation, I was using the Crown prerogative of treaty making.

1093
The patronage that stems from the Crown is enormous. The past 10 Prime Ministers have put 800 people in the House of Lords, and appointed every bishop, judge and Minister.
It is a wholly undemocratic system of patronage, and it lies at the heart of the quango and the culture of subservience—everybody bowing and scraping, and saying, "Yes, Sir John; oh yes, my Lord; oh yes, your Grace; oh yes, your Majesty." It is no wonder that so many people are happy to go into the European Union, given that we have been run by the Romans, William the Conqueror, the Stuarts, William of Orange and the Hanoverians. Being run by Jacques Santer is what we are trained for—to follow foreigners who tell us what to do. That is an aspect of the Crown.
Another matter that I mention in passing is that I must tell a lie to sit in Parliament. It is not an important one. Last time that I took the oath, I said to the Clerk, who was very polite—he did not query it—that, as a dedicated republican, I solemnly declare, and so on. Why should people have to tell a lie to sit in the House in order to represent their constituents? Why do we not have a decent oath, like, "I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth"? If we are the High Court of Parliament, there should be a little bit of truth instead of pledges of allegiance to the Crown. That matter must be dealt with.
My real purpose in rising is to deal with the biggest constitutional question of all, which has only been touched on: our relations with the European Union. I am a passionate European. Like many people, I lost an uncle in the first world war, and a brother and many friends in the second.
I am a passionate democrat, but I am not prepared to accept that the royal prerogative should make laws again through Brussels, which it has been unable to do since 1649. After 1649, Parliament made the laws; after 1972, the Council of Ministers made the laws in secret. The European Parliament is not the one that sits in Strasbourg; the Council of Ministers is the real Parliament. It passes the laws and votes in secret, and we are then obliged to follow it.
It is my conviction that, if we adopt the single currency, it will destroy democracy in Europe, not just in Britain. A new political class has now appeared. Its members have a lovely time in Brussels. They are not elected; they talk to each other and hold press conferences. We can get rid of a Prime Minister on polling day—Jim Callaghan went down the pan, and I hope that the present Prime Minister follows his example—but we cannot get rid of Neil Kinnock on polling day. I mention him only to show that I am impartial—I would not mention Sir Leon Brittan.
People who cannot be disposed of on polling day do not have to listen to anyone. When I go to Chesterfield, every street sweeper, doctor or home help is my employer, but if a commissioner goes to Chesterfield or anywhere else, he is above it all.
As I said to the Prime Minister in an intervention, if a central bank is to run everything, the Treasury will move to Frankfurt. It will then be an offence under the Maastricht treaty for a new Minister of Finance, or whatever he is called, or Prime Minister, even to try to
1094
influence the central bank. If we hand over public expenditure, taxation and interest rates to a central bank, we shall deliberately have abandoned control of our own country.
All that will lead to cynicism. If a change in economic policy cannot be brought about by voting on polling day, people will be impotent, and the result will be that turnout will fall. That will not be the only problem, but the cynicism about modern politics is that we are all converging on a course of action that I do not necessarily follow.
In America, Mr. Clinton, the most powerful man in the world, was elected by one in five Americans. Four out of five Americans did not register, did not vote or voted against him, and he controls the largest nuclear arsenal in the world. What state will we be in if people do not vote because by voting they cannot change their tax laws, public expenditure, interest rates and, I might add, their agricultural and many other policies? That is the danger.
I say that I am a fanatical European because I am: this is just as a big a threat to voters in Germany, France and Spain as it is to voters in this country. If we had commissioners in London instead of a Parliament, would I be an Anglo-sceptic because I was against it? Of course I would not. It is a democratic argument.
At 3.30 today, I introduced a Bill—just printed, it will never be debated—which repeals sections 2 and 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 so that the Commons will have the final word. That is the best way to deal with it. There would be no fuss about it, and every other member state should do the same. It would put subsidiarity on a statutory basis. If people in Brussels knew that all their proposals had to go through all the different Parliaments, they would be much more careful about their headlong rush into a single currency.
I am the Member for Chesterfield, and proud of it, but I know that my constituents own the powers that I exercise. I do not own them. I cannot borrow the powers from them and give them away. As I have said in the House before, and I say it again on the eve of an election, I am not prepared to give away my constituents' power. I believe not in the sovereignty of Parliament but in the sovereignty of the people, which is why I am wearing a tie in honour of Tom Paine. I do not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament; sovereignty belongs to the electorate, and we, as temporary stewards of their sovereignty, have no right to give it away.
I wish to make it clear, as I have in the past and will during the election, that I am not prepared to vote to give away the electorate's sovereignty. People are entitled to ask that question, and they must find their own answer in their own way. We are confronting a democratic question, which is just as important as the West Lothian question and all the issues that have been raised so far in the debate.
6.25 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and I have one or two things in common: he served in the Royal Air Force, and so did I; and some of his views on Europe are not far from mine. The difference is that he was born into affluence and I was born into poverty, so I approach matters from a slightly different viewpoint.

1095
I have never opposed change. What I demand is that change must be viable, properly structured and seen to be fair, because if it is not seen to be fair it will not be sustainable. I have been involved in the constitutional debate for 50 years, and my views today are the result of those years. I am always amused when people quote back to me things that I have allegedly said or done. My constituents will tell them that the problem is that they know exactly where I stand, because I do not change on constitutional matters. I did not do so 50 years ago; I did not do so in the sixties; and I supported the Alec Douglas-Home proposals. Anyone who wants to look at my election literature in depth will realise that.
Today, I look at Labour's proposals. Is it fair for 83 per cent. of United Kingdom voters who live in England to have, as Labour proposes, a Scot as a Prime Minister and Scottish constituency Members as Foreign Secretary, probably Chancellor of the Exchequer, Scottish Secretary, Patronage Secretary, possibly Transport Secretary, some of the Law Officers, and many of the Ministers of State? If that happens, English voters will say that the Scots are running Westminster, and they will be right.
Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I have only 10 minutes, so I do not have time to give way.
English voters will ask whether that is fair. It is fair if we have a unitary Parliament, but, in addition to the Scots running Westminster, Labour proposes to allow the 73 Scottish Members to come to this House to vote on changes in English education, law and order, local government, the environment, and transport and roads. They will be able to vote for change here, and some of them will end up as Ministers in some of those Departments. Will that be seen to be fair, given that English Members cannot vote on those matters affecting Scotland?
Worse still, Scottish Members cannot vote or speak on education, law and order, local government, the environment, roads and so on—all matters that affect their constituencies. They will become part-time Members of Parliament; perhaps they should be paid a part-time salary. Whatever happens, it will not be seen to be fair.
The West Lothian question was not dealt with today.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: No, I shall not give way, because I only have 10 minutes.
As for the West Belfast question, there is a democratic deficit in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland needs local government with all the decision-making powers that it has in the rest of the United Kingdom. It also requires a Northern Ireland Grand Committee. I shall deal with Grand Committees later.
Under Labour's proposals, the Scots would be seen to be running Westminster and also Edinburgh. Would that be fair to the 83 per cent. of voters living in England? That is the question we must ask ourselves. Would it be seen as fair by the people living in England, who, after all, are the majority of the taxpayers and voters by a long wayx2014;83 per cent. is not a tiny proportion.
1096
Would it be fair for Scotland, in such circumstances, to keep all 73 of its Members of Parliament? Would it be fair for Scotland to retain the Goschen-Barnett formula? Would it be fair for the Scottish work force to have to pay the tartan tax, without disadvantaging them in the jobs market? Those are the questions that must be addressed throughout the United Kingdom.
It is interesting that the poster to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew attention states that there will be no increase in income tax in Scotland in five years. How can that make sense, when Labour proposes to give powers to the Scottish Assembly to raise tax? It is crazy.
Would it be fair for people who work for Scottish firms and who are paid from Scotland not to have a say about the tartan tax and the rate at which it would be implemented? We must consider the fairness of the proposals.
I am not opposed to devolution. I am in favour of devolving decision-making as far down as is practical, but it must be structured properly, and it must be seen to be fair by the entire electorate, not just by a few people who want something.
When people say to me, "It's all right for you, Mr. Walker," I remind them that I am a minority of a minority: I am a Scottish Conservative. The Scots are a minority in the United Kingdom, and we receive a minority of the votes in Scotland.
Matters would have been different if we had introduced the Alec Douglas-Home proposals, which I supported. Labour's proposals are unfair, unworkable and—worse than that—they are dangerous. They will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. The backlash will come not necessarily in Scotland, but certainly in England, because of the unfairness of the proposal.
The Liberals' proposals for a federal structure are theoretically viable. The problem is that they have been peddling them for 100 years, and they have not yet sold them to the vast majority of the electorate—the 83 per cent. who live in England. Until the Liberals can do that, their proposals will remain a theoretical possibility.
Labour's proposals are not necessary. We should examine the proposals discussed in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which Labour could implement the day after the Queen's Speech, if they ever became the Government. They could use the Scottish Grand Committee to put through all Scottish legislation.
That could be achieved under a Labour Government, because they would have a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament. It would pose no risk to the Union, it would meet the demands for the Scots to have their own say, and the Scottish Grand Committee could meet in Edinburgh or anywhere else in Scotland, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has shown so clearly. Other Members of Parliament who are Ministers could attend, as has been shown. That is a viable proposition, which could be implemented by a Government with a majority of Scottish Members of Parliament.
We must consider what is practical, viable and fair. Let us get away from all the grand theory. My interest in life is aviation. The world knows about all the plane crashes that have occurred. Theoretically, the planes should have flown; practically, they did not. We must examine the practical aspects.
Would it be practical for English Members of Parliament to go out into their constituencies and tell their constituents what is being proposed? Is it sensible? Is it saleable? The

1097
product is not saleable. Is it saleable for Scottish Members of Parliament to go back to Scotland and say that they want to introduce a system which they know will produce a backlash and cause problems?
The Scots will be asked to vote on the proposal before the legislation has been through Parliament. The idea is crazy. How can one vote on something until one knows the exact contents of the proposal?
Mr. Ernie Ross: It is all in this book.
Mr. Walker: I have read that ghastly book—that is why I can speak about the matter. I read most things. The problem that Labour Members have is that they do not read in detail what is being proposed by their party. It may be all right for them in their closed little niches in Scotland, but they should ask the Scottish people whether they want to buy a pig in a poke. When Tam tells them that, they will believe him and listen. The package is unsaleable, unworkable and dangerous.
6.35 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: The debate is about the constitution. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I give only a brief part of my limited time to devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—not because I think that that is a matter of no importance; far from it.
My starting point is that, particularly in the case of Scotland, there has for many years been growing evidence of the wish of the Scottish people to have more control over their own affairs. We may have misjudged that, but we have already anticipated the problem by saying that the first step is to hold a referendum. If, on the basis of that referendum, the Scottish people do not want to proceed with devolution, it will be scotched there and then. The same will apply to the people of Wales and people in this country.
I am not upset by that. To those who worry about the unity of the United Kingdom and the threat that would be posed to it, I would say that I speak as an Englishman, rather than as a member of any other part of the Union of the United Kingdom, but I genuinely do not feel the slightest resentment at the thought that Scottish, Welsh and other Members of Parliament will continue to take an active part and bring their own experience to debates that concern only England. They are my fellow-countrymen. We are part of the Union of the United Kingdom, which is a real Union indeed.
Our historical experience might lead us to the opposite conclusion from the one that the Prime Minister drew. If, year after year and decade after decade, one frustrates the wish of a national group within the United Kingdom for greater self-government, one is likely to alienate those people, push apart the Union and make them think about the false solution of separation and the establishment of a separate state.
To my Northern Ireland friends, I say that I am not sure what the answer would be. Looking back over the history of Ireland and England since the 19th century and the first proposition of home rule, I wonder whether—allowing for the fact that there had to be two assemblies, not one—if we had been able to offer the Irish people home rule in
1098
the 1890s or even before the first world war, we might still be the Union of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. The fact that that was resisted turned what was then a movement for home rule into a demand for separation and separate existence and identity. The effect may be the opposite of that which the Prime Minister anticipates.
I shall discuss briefly several issues before I come to the really big one—and I am sure that hon. Members know what that is. We must reform the House of Lords: it is laughable to try to pretend that the hereditary tradition and composition can continue. It simply cannot. There is also a case for electoral reform—if we had more time, I am sure that hon. Members would develop that argument more thoroughly. I have never supported proportional representation, but I do appreciate the case for the alternative vote.
We have seen 18 years of minority rule by the Conservative party. It has never exceeded 45 per cent. of the vote in any election, yet the Conservatives have had huge majorities in Parliament. The positions of Members of Parliament are strengthened if they can say that they represent the majority of their constituents, as a result of a single ballot or a second-preference vote. I think that that is an acceptable constitutional reform, which would have some effect on parliamentary representation and on the ultimate numerical strengths in Parliament.
I also seek a general improvement in the methods of making Ministers responsible and accountable to Parliament. There is a case—although I do not have enormous confidence in the likely outcome—for a freedom of information Act. We would have to examine its provisions very carefully, as they might not work quite as people would wish. I think that we should also consider strengthening our Select Committee system. Select Committees have performed very well since the St. John-Stevas reforms, and I think that they could be even more effective if given greater powers and more staff.
Because I believe that the Executive must be made more responsible to Parliament and that only the elected representatives of the people have the right to make the laws that govern our land, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I wish to see a radical change in our constitutional relationship with the European Union. Over a vast and ever-growing area of our national life, the United Kingdom Parliament and Government no longer make the laws or take the big decisions about our economic and external policies. The European Union, the Brussels Commission and, increasingly, majority voting in the European Council fulfil that function. If the laws of our country are in conflict with the superior laws of Brussels, our laws must give way.
I remind the House of the comments of the then President of the Commission, Jacques Delors, to the European Parliament nearly nine years ago—I thought at the time that they gave a terrible warning. On 6 July 1988, he said:
"Ten years hence 80 per cent. of economic legislation, and perhaps even our fiscal and social legislation as well, will be of Community origin".
That was almost 10 years ago, but what is the position today? Hon. Members have attempted to elicit the score, only to be told that the information could not be made available except at inordinate cost.

1099
Nevertheless, some figures have been produced. In a written answer on 28 January this year at column 131, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster revealed that 236 statutory instruments enacted European Community directives in 1992. There were 134 in 1993, 198 in 1994 and 211 last year. Those statutory instruments are equivalent to Acts of Parliament—they are not regulations.
I maintain that the input of Community legislation into Britain is probably greater than that of domestic legislation. I might frighten hon. Members if I tell them the number of EC regulations that have been adopted. Some 1,750 regulations were adopted in 1994, and more than 3,000 in 1995.
In the same speech, Mr. Delors said:
"what I am afraid of is that some of these national parliaments are going to wake up with a shock one day and that their outraged reaction will place yet more obstacles in the way of progress towards European Union."
Is it not time to wake up? We must not strain at gnats and swallow camels in terms of constitutional deformation and loss of democratic power. It is time to reclaim our powers through the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield presented to the House this afternoon.
6.44 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: We always listen to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) with both interest and respect. He has made a serious speech, encompassing some very important points. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not engage him in debate on his latter points—much as I am tempted to do so. I am also tempted by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who made a typically idiosyncratic, but entertaining and fascinating, speech.
I am allowed to speak for only 10 minutes—the limitation is understandable, but it tends to destroy debate—so I shall make only a few points.
No one could seriously claim that Parliament is not in need of some reform when we see acres of green leather around us. It is most unfortunate—to put it mildly—that more hon. Members, particularly Conservatives, are not present to debate this fascinating and important subject.
I intervened during the speech of the Leader of the Opposition to make the important point that all constitutional issues should be debated on the Floor of the House. I believe that any constitutional legislation introduced by any Government should be treated in that way. Although I shall do what I can to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman does not become Prime Minister, in that unhappy event, I hope that he would honour the pledge that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House forced him to make today—we all heard it—and ensure that any constitutional legislation was debated on the Floor of the House.
Several areas need reform. I have always advocated fixed-term Parliaments, and the frenetic events of recent days and weeks have confirmed my belief. Unless a Government are defeated on the Floor of the House in a vote of confidence, they should serve their time—whether it be four or five years. We should quickly incorporate that reform into our constitution.
1100
I am also a strong believer in electoral reform. I do not believe in proportional representation and I do not believe in the alternative vote. I believe strongly in the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituency. Every hon. Member should have 50 per cent. plus one of the vote.
Some 14 or 15 years ago, I introduced a private Member's Bill on the subject of the two-round election. If no candidate receives 50 per cent. plus one of the vote in an election, the electors should be allowed to consider in the intervening week who they want to represent them in Parliament. I think that that would give a new emphasis to the constituency and counter the presidential nature of our elections, which I deplore.
I also believe strongly that mistakes have been made in the past 18 years. I regret the fact that so much power has been taken away from local government. I am totally unrepentant about my consistent opposition to the abolition of the Greater London council. Although I held no brief for that institution—I thought that it was riddled with flaws—it was wrong to deprive this great city of a directly elected strategic authority. I believe that the matter should be put right at an early date.
The very structure of our kingdom lies at the heart of this debate. This is a unitary state. Although our constitution has evolved—I hope that I have said enough in the last two or three minutes to show that I readily accept that improvements can be made to it—to threaten the very fabric of our unitary state is an extremely serious matter. The ill-thought-out plans for devolution in Scotland and Wales would threaten the fabric of our unitary state.
It is no good the leader of the Liberal Democrats trying, as he did, to make false analogies with Spain and Germany, which have a totally different history from this country. They have not evolved in the same way. They do not have the long background of evolution towards a unitary state that we have. I would be very reluctant to tamper with that mechanism.
We have been a little remiss in not giving closer thought to devolution over the past 18 years. I fought very strongly—as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) knows, because we were honourable opponents at that time—against the devolution proposals of the former Labour Government. I believed that they were misconceived and wrong. Nevertheless, I would like to have seen something similar to the appointed but not elected representative assemblies in Scotland and Wales, as was advocated by the late Lord Home of The Hirsel, then Sir Alec Douglas-Home, in one of his papers.
Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Patrick Cormack: No, I do not have time. I am extremely sorry.
Had we gone down that road at that time, we probably would not be having this debate today.
I shall now deal with the bicameral nature of our legislature, because no one can seriously defend the automatic right to sit in Parliament conferred by birth. I have never sought to defend that, and never would. I believe that it would be possible to have House of Lords reform that preserved an hereditary element along the lines of the Acts of Union of 1707 and 1800, because the accumulated experience that certain families have, and the

1101
contribution of youth that the hereditary element brings, is not lightly to be cast aside. Many peers, including Labour peers—including Lord Strabolgi—have put forward a variety of alternative proposals that would preserve an element of that. Those proposals should be seriously addressed and properly considered. I hope that that will be done.
What alarms me most about the proposals for reform of the other place are those that would create an assembly of placemen; that would give more and more power to the party hierarchy; and that would lead to the appointment of apparatchiks, who would merely do the bidding of their political masters. I oppose such reforms for the same reason as I would oppose to the end of my days any list system for this House, because there are a number of hon. Members on these Benches who probably would never have got near the place on a list system.
Mr. Mackinlay: And over here.
Sir Patrick Cormack: And over there, too. I quite agree. I do not want to see such an Assembly down the Corridor.
The quality of debate and the accumulation of wisdom and experience in the other place is second to none of any legislative chamber in the world, and we cast that away to the disadvantage of this country and its good governance. I do not believe that the other place should have the power of veto, and it does not have it, but I believe that the power of scrutiny, examination and delay is good. The one Bill in the past 18 years that the other place turned down was the War Crimes Act 1991, and that decision was one of the wisest ever taken in Parliament against one of the most foolish and inept measures proposed by any Government in recent years.
We have to think most carefully when we decide what reform should take place. Reform there should be, but we must not rush pell-mell into a whole range of reforms, we will turn this place into a legislative quagmire. Her Majesty's Government will not easily be carried on, in the spheres of health, housing, foreign affairs and so on, if we have before this place a whole range of constitutional measures. The biggest threat implicit in any Labour victory—I do not, of course, believe that there will be a Labour victory—is the threat to the constitutional structure and fabric of this nation. It is a threat that should be recognised, trumpeted abroad and resisted by any democratic politician.
6.54 pm
Mr. David Trimble: The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) referred to the United Kingdom as a unitary state. It is up to a point; it is one kingdom, but it is not a uniform one. There are various differences within it, and we have seriously to address how best to reflect them. We will find the answer to some extent in the hon. Gentleman's comments about the need to look again at local government and to consider certain forms of devolution more seriously and more closely. The hon. Gentleman made a thoughtful speech as, indeed, did the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore).
I am sorry that I cannot quite praise the Prime Minister's speech and that of the Leader of the Opposition. I found the Leader of the Opposition's speech
1102
extremely disappointing. Despite the fact that, throughout the Prime Minister's speech, Opposition Back Benchers were making noises about Northern Ireland, the Leader of the Opposition found it impossible to find time even to consider the issue of Northern Ireland during his speech.
The Prime Minister found some time for Northern Ireland, but I found what he had to say extremely unsatisfactory and riddled with errors. He tried to justify his view on Northern Ireland, which he acknowledged was very different from his view on the rest of the United Kingdom, by referring to special circumstances in Northern Ireland. When he elaborated on those special circumstances, one seemed to be key. He said that there were no elected representatives from Northern Ireland from parties that could form a Government here. That was a very carefully crafted phrase to avoid having to acknowledge the fact that the Conservative party cannot get votes in Northern Ireland because its policies are seen by the people of Northern Ireland as hostile to their interests on fundamental matters.
There was another reason. Until 1974—when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) withdraw the Whip from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux), and others—Northern Ireland returned at elections an overwhelming majority of members who were in a national party. There is simply no basis in fact for the distinction that the Prime Minister tried to draw. It is commonplace on these matters to say that Northern Ireland is different, but there are differences. There are special circumstances in Northern Ireland. There are cultural differences and national differences, but those can be replicated in other parts of the United Kingdom—in Wales and Scotland.
The only real point of difference in Northern Ireland is that we have a foreign Government with territorial ambitions—our own Government are at best neutral and at worst seek to undermine the Union—and we have terrorism. That is the difference. The fact that, because we have terrorism, the Government treat Northern Ireland differently is very dangerous, because it is a precedent that might be followed elsewhere. The Government must consider that very carefully.
The Prime Minister claimed that his policy is aimed at retaining Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. It is as well that he gabbled that sentence, because nobody in Northern Ireland believes him—and rightly so, because the proposals that the Government espouse on matters such as the framework document would very gravely damage the Union. Indeed, I suggest that they were intended to do so.
I regard the position on Northern Ireland—and the position on Europe—as the biggest constitutional issues that face the United Kingdom. The House will understand why I concentrate more on the former than the latter. Both must be treated seriously. We must deal with the fundamentals. The fundamental question for Northern Ireland is whether we have a Government who are prepared to sustain the Union and to regard themselves as having a responsibility to everyone in the Union. That is the key question.
The Government portray themselves as being in favour of the Union. They campaign here—that is what they were doing today—and in Scotland, but they do not realise that they will have no credibility in Scotland as a champion for the Union while they are working to undermine the

1103
Union in Northern Ireland and Scotland are: hon. Members based in the south of England sometimes do not realise that. The Secretary of State will know that people in Scotland notice the difference between the Government's policy on Scotland and their policy on Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) raised that point when he intervened in the Prime Minister's speech, but it was not answered.
We favour a form of devolution, and we can answer the West Lothian question with no problem. There are three different answers to it, one of which was touched on by the Liberal Democrats, who referred to the old Unionist policy of home rule all round. It was a Unionist policy before it was a Liberal Democrat policy. The problem with home rule all round is the size of England: the 80 per cent. in England would dominate. Despite attempts to revive that policy, it is not realistic.
Another answer to the West Lothian question was given by Simon Jenkins in The Times last week, who wrote in praise of Belfast—quite rightly, too. However, I prefer the answer that is based on the simple proposition that the important aspect of devolution or the establishment of separate parliaments is not the legislative powers, but the fiscal arrangements and whether the fiscal unity of the kingdom is being maintained. Key decisions on tax raising and expenditure involve, by extension, all key policy decisions, because most key policy decisions involve expenditure. If we have, as I believe we should, fiscal powers and powers to decide expenditure and main areas of policy here, clearly there must be full representation here. The danger with Labour's proposals for Scotland is that they would disrupt the fiscal unity of the kingdom.
The Jenkins defence in The Times last week interestingly referred to local taxation in terms of rates. The danger is that Labour is dealing not with local, but with national, taxation. While income tax is decided here, all the people are entitled to equal representation here. It is the old business of no taxation without representation. It is not a new point.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley supplied me earlier with the first report of the Cabinet Committee on the Irish question, dated 4 November 1919, which contains the proposals that emerged later as the Government of Ireland Act 1920. It says:
"In regard to representation in the Imperial Parliament the Committee are clear that so long as the Imperial Parliament exercises taxing powers in Ireland, Ireland must have the right to representation in the Imperial Parliament on the basis of population."
Interestingly, the Government failed to provide for that, because they cut Northern Ireland's representation: it no longer operated on a population basis. Its representation was about half what it was entitled to based on its population.
We can take away the West Lothian question. When we do that as I have suggested, we end up with a local administration which, in some respects, is more akin to local government than to the fully blown parliament some other people refer. This is where we match up with the points made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. Regional assemblies, albeit with some legislative powers, as in the proposals of the Ulster Unionist party, do not raise the same fundamental questions as parliaments.
Interestingly, the Conservative Government have prepared the way for action in Wales and Scotland by changing local government into a single tier. It will not
1104
look that strange if Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which also has a single tier of local government, have as the upper tier a regional assembly with powers perhaps greater than those of English county councils. That would reflect the regional characteristics of the United Kingdom. England's size is significant, and that dominance causes problems for the regions. The regional dimension of the United Kingdom must be addressed.
7.4 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: The debate has been extremely interesting. Hon. Members should reflect on the fact that we are in the House of Commons on a Thursday evening, on a one-line Whip, with no decision, and no vote to take at the end of the evening, yet there is quite heavy attendance. That is because the House has always taken the constitution and constitutional reform very seriously. Reforms must be practical and workable, and should be introduced for a purpose.
Given the attendance tonight, and the fact that hon. Members have put their cases in a non-partisan way, we must ensure that specific proposals for reforming our constitution are considered by all hon. Members. The most significant point that has been made during the debate was made, strangely enough, by the Leader of the Opposition. He refused point blank to confirm the age-old custom that, when constitutional legislation is introduced, the Committee stage is taken on the Floor of the House. He confined himself to saying that we cannot bind our successor Parliament, and that the Labour party will make up its own mind. Constitutionally that is correct, but his admission was extremely significant.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Arnold: No.
What would be the programme for the next Parliament of a theoretical Labour Government? They would have to deal with the legislation arising from Maastricht 2, and with legislation on a European single currency, on Scottish and Welsh devolution, on reform of the House of Lords and on reform of the electoral system. Every one of those items is constitutional.
What would happen? On practical grounds, the legislation would be stuffed into Committee, and the Committees would be packed. Let us be under no illusion: a Labour Chief Whip would not put on the Committee dealing with legislation on the governance of Scotland the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the originator of the West Lothian question. The membership of the Committee would also exclude Labour Unionist Members, who are a little more timid than the hon. Member for Linlithgow and are not putting their heads above the parapet.
Given the electoral squeeze and the small number of Liberal Democrat Members that there will be in the next Parliament, I wonder whether they have realised that they may not even be represented on the Standing Committees that deal with such legislation. Bearing in mind the enthusiasm of the small nationalist parties and the Liberal Democrat party, and the fact that only one or two members of such Committees are from small parties, the way in which these matters would be handled in a House of Commons with a Labour majority gives us food for thought.

1105
This afternoon, we have seen the Labour party blundering into a morass. It is incredible that, after 18 years in opposition, it has no clear idea and no detail of the reforms that it wants to introduce. The Leader of the Opposition was prepared only to dedicate himself to jeering at the House of Lords, because that is a nice easy sell to the left wingers on his Back Benches. It shows that the Labour leopard has not changed its spots. [Interruption.] It is clear from the reaction of Labour Members that they have not looked at their history books.
When did the House last try to reform the House of Lords, and what happened? There was a stitch-up between the two Front Benches, and the Back Benches chucked out the proposals under the most extraordinary alliance of Enoch Powell and Michael Foot. Plans to reform the other place need to be laid down extremely carefully. We should ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve.
For a start, we should ask what was the origin of the House of Lords. Indeed, what was the origin of our House of Commons? It is the House of the communities—the communities that send us here to represent our counties and boroughs—but what was the purpose of the other House? It was to represent the great vested interests in the land, and to bring them into the process of government. What were those great interests? They were the landowners and the Church. Obviously, landowning was an hereditary matter, and that interest is still in our legislature—as is the established Church of England.
Our constitution has evolved. To realise that, we need only run through the details of the admission of representative peers from Scotland and Ireland, the inclusion of the Law Lords, and the massive increase in the number of life peerages. They have existed only since 1958. Female life peers were admitted in that year, and hereditary women peers were admitted in 1963. Reform has taken place over the years, but, in reforming the other House, we must be very clear about what we are doing.
If we chuck out the hereditary peers—which strikes me as an interesting idea—what will we be left with? We will be left with a rump. We will be left mostly with peers who will be in the other place merely because of the patronage of the establishment of this House. In that event, there would be pressure in favour of bringing about membership of the other House by different means.
One possibility is indeed an elected House. If Members of that House were elected in the same way as we are, the paramountcy of our House would immediately be challenged. If those Members were elected through the same system as us, and agreed with us, what would be the point of it? If they disagreed with us, something would be wrong. If they were elected through a different system, and disagreed with us, there would be wrangling about which House was more representative of the British people—and it could well be argued that our House was not the more representative. Any form of election to the other House will mean a challenge to the paramountcy of this House, but there is no way in which that House down the Corridor can claim that it has greater authority than our House, because we—uniquely—are elected by the British people.
So what do we do? Do we revert to the original idea of nominations by the vested interests? Who are the vested interests of today? Eighteen years ago, the vested interests
1106
were clearly the trade unions, and nominations by them would have meant Jack Jones, Hugh Scanlon and Arthur Scargill sitting in the other place. I do not think that many people today even know who the trade union leaders are.
Who, then, are the great vested interests? Are they in the press, or in television? Should those people be down the Corridor? How do we bring about the representation of those vested interests? How do we work out who should represent large business, small business, the professions and other Churches and faiths? As has been said, it is a complete morass. The fact is that, when we have constitutional change, we must make practical decisions here in the House of Commons.
We do not know what dirty deals have been done, and what secret treaties have been agreed, with the Liberal Democrats, who are enthusiastic about proportional representation. I fear that, in the successor Parliament, we shall see yet another push towards PR. Let me repeat the question that I asked earlier. What is the purpose of this House of the communities? It is to represent the boroughs and counties of the kingdom. Any attempt to introduce PR will break the sacred link that all of us have with our constituencies. [Interruption] Members of the Scottish National party may well jeer, but I value that link immensely. I value my responsibility to speak and vote in the House on behalf of my constituents. Any form of PR would break the link with our constituencies, and would end our sole responsibility.
There are seven constituencies in west Kent, all of which, very wisely, have returned Conservative Members. Under PR, those seven Conservative constituencies might return four Conservative Members, two Labour Members and one Liberal Member. What would that do? A constituent comes to me with a problem, and I say, "If you vote Labour, go and see a Labour Member." A constituent wants to talk to me about housing or social security, but that may not be my issue; I tell him to go to one of the other Tory Members, if he is a Tory voter. PR would provide an opportunity to pass the buck. We must retain our electoral system.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Time is up.
7.14 pm
Mr. William McKelvey: I shall confine my remarks to Scottish issues. Hon. Members will understand why. I believe that the Welsh should do what the Welsh people want, that the English should do what the English people want and that the Scots have won the right to decide among themselves how they will be governed.
The Scots are a difficult nation. Almost all our history has been scarred by deep and continuing divisions among ourselves about how we should be governed. That has been so since the brawling barons of Wallace's day. Today, I stood on the steps where Sir William Wallace was accused of treason, tried, quartered and dispatched around the country. His head was stuck on a pole. That was because of what he felt about how Scotland should be governed. At least we have come far since that day, and the same thing is unlikely to happen to those of us who feel that there ought to be a parliament in Scotland, but do not necessarily want to renegotiate the treaty of Union at this point.

1107
The days of William Wallace were followed by the struggles of Jacobite times, and our repeated failure in this century to unite behind the cause of home rule. National division, and even civil war, have been more common in the Scottish experience than national wars of independence ever were. It is often forgotten, for instance, that there were as many Scots in arms against Bonnie Prince Charlie at Culloden as there were fighting for him.
Scotland therefore faces an historic choice as we head towards the new millennium. We can continue to divide under our different party political banners, or we can unite behind a cross-party and popular consensus that can and will deliver a workable parliament for Scotland. The Scottish convention provided an opportunity for that to happen. Unfortunately, although some 80 per cent. of the factions in Scotland were represented at various times during the discussions that took place, the Conservatives chose not to be a part of them, because—as has been proved in the speeches that we have heard today—most of them are opposed to any form of change. I do not blame them for that; I am not being moralistic. I understand their opposition.
We keep arguing about the difficulties and differences involved in the West Lothian question, but, irrespective of what happens in Scotland and whatever the political hue of our voting, given the way in which the Parliament of the Union has been set up, we as parliamentarians have a right to be here arguing our case on questions of macro-economics and defence.
I do not want to come down from Scotland, after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament, to argue about English education, but we must understand something else. We as Scots regret very much the attempt to anglicise our education system. Since the days of John Knox, we have been proud of our history in that regard. Education was to be provided free and at the time of need: that was, perhaps, a forerunner of the theory of the national health service.
In modern times, Scots have been irritated by the fact that, irrespective of how we have voted in Scotland—especially since 1955—the Conservatives have never had a majority of the vote. When they came here, to this Parliament of the Union—[Interruption.] I am not arguing the case for Labour. The vote for the Opposition parties combined has been greater than the Conservative vote—in recent years, much greater. The Tories have been left with a rump of Members who are content to come down here, to the Parliament of the treaty of Union, and to pursue aims that the Scots are most unwilling to accept.
The classic example of that was the poll tax. It was never proved to be illegal, although it was certainly immoral, and it was inflicted upon Scotland. We abhorred that tax, hated it, but we had to suffer for a year before the Government attempted to introduce it in England and Wales.
The poll tax was imposed on Scotland because Scottish Conservative Members were prepared to go along with the majority of Conservative Members here in an experiment on the Scots to see whether the tax would work. In part, the decision to impose it was malevolent because the Scots had voted Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrat. As a form of punishment, if nothing else, we were to be guinea pigs to test the success or otherwise of that obnoxious, iniquitous and unfair tax.
1108
Once the tax was imposed on England and Wales, English Conservative Members began to feel pressure from their constituents against the tax when they realised that it was not as even-handed or as fair as they had first imagined. [Interruption.] There are always masochists, but, irrespective of the views of some groups, Parliament decided the issue, and it was English Members of Parliament who imposed the tax on the Scots. Even those hon. Members who did not wish to support that decision trooped through the Lobby to a man to impose the tax on the Scots. Is it any wonder that, in recent years, Scots have felt irritated at being partly anglicised by the set-up?
I have consistently argued for a Parliament in Scotland, and I do not see any difficulty with the West Lothian question. For heaven's sake, 72 Scots Members will come back here and there will be 17 from Northern Ireland and 40 from Wales. If the Celts can combine their forces, get their act together, we shall have 129 votes in this Parliament in which there will be 524 English Members. It will take some rebellion by the non-Celts to overturn any decision by the House. We have said vociferously for years that we in Scotland have a right to determine at least our domestic affairs. What could be fairer?
Mr. John McAllion: Two minutes.
Mr. McKelvey: I have two minutes to change the constitution.
As a former negotiator, I am not prepared to agree that there should be any reduction in the number of Members in the new Parliament which, obviously, will have a Labour Government. However, if this august body says, as is its right, that we should renegotiate the treaty of Union, let us sit down and do that. As far as we are concerned, nothing changes with a Scottish Parliament if that is what the people of Scotland desire.
The Welsh have every right to determine their own affairs. If they want an assembly or a parliament, I will fight to the last to ensure that they have the right to decide. If the English are so concerned about the Scots, the Welsh and the fish voting on their education issues, they can opt for an English Parliament. If the people of England want an English Parliament to consider their domestic issues, they will have one, irrespective of what hon. Members think. The Scots deserve a parliament, and they will have one, because a Labour Government will be returned and will see to it.
7.24 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) will forgive me if I do not follow his logic and his argument, although I have close Scottish relations and my wife, who is also a Member of this place, is half Scots and her mother's family came from Maryhill in Glasgow some years ago.
The blight on our constitution is career politicians. Increasingly, over the years that I have been here, there have been intakes of people who perhaps lack principle. They do not necessarily lack experience, but because they are determined to get to the top, they are inclined to change their views almost as frequently as the weather changes, and they do so to appeal to the leadership of their party and the establishment. That relates to all political parties and not just the governing one.

1109
I regret that fact, because, if there were more principled people on both sides of the House, we would have better legislation. Such people would be prepared to carry their knowledge, commitment and principle through the Lobby at the end of debates. In such circumstances, many of the problems that we are considering in this debate about our United Kingdom constitution and devolution would never have arisen.
I should like to refer in particular to Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, is not in his place, because I agreed with virtually every word of his speech. I fell out with my establishment in this place within a matter of weeks of coming to it nearly 26 years ago. I voted against the prorogation and abolition of Stormont, and then against the Anglo-Irish Agreement, because I believed that it was unacceptable interference in a successful constitution.
We set up a system, particularly when we introduced the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to involve a foreign country in the government of part of our country—that is to say, Ulster, the Six Counties. That was done without discussions with the duly elected Members of Parliament for that part of the United Kingdom. It was an abortion, and it has contributed to many of the continuing problems in this country, by which I mean England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.
If, in recent years, the Government had not sought to remove a great deal of responsibility, authority and influence from local government—a misguided and wrong policy—the demand for devolution, particularly by the Opposition, would be nowhere near as strong as it is. We have contributed in part to the problems that we face. I say to those who seek devolution, some form of assembly or parliament in Scotland and Wales, that such a system will inevitably create tremendous conflict in the United Kingdom. Irrespective of whether the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun accepts it, the Liberal Democrats certainly accept that, under any form of devolved powers to Scotland and Wales, there will be a reduction in Scots and Welsh representation at Westminster.
Hon. Members cannot ignore the fact that the current per capita public expenditure offered to Scotland and Wales is likely to be reduced. If Scotland has a Parliament with the ability to raise what is called a tartan tax—I do not call it that—then the amount of money that the United Kingdom taxpayer generally and the English taxpayer in particular will be prepared to pay to Scotland will be greatly reduced.
I am also sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is not here. He made a constructive and measured speech. I believe that it will turn out to be one of the best speeches in this important debate. Again, I found myself in considerable agreement with much of what he said.
I am one of those who believe that, unless something is wrong, we should not try to fix it; if it works, do not try to fix it. Overwhelmingly, our constitution is right for this country and the various parts of this country that comprise the United Kingdom. The UK's success internationally has come about not just because of the majority English—far from it—but because of the huge
1110
contribution and the international nature of the Scots and the Welsh. They contributed in those great battles that we fought abroad—I think particularly of the success at Rorke's drift in south Africa, which was the result of the tremendous achievements of a Welsh regiment. The Scots control economic activity throughout the world, so to set themselves up as small, independent entities in their own right does not take into account the contribution that they have made to the UK and to international affairs as a whole.
Some have talked about the need to alter our voting system, whether through the list system or the alternative vote. The list system certainly would put additional power in the hands of political parties and the establishment of those political parties. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire, under a list system, I would never have been elected to this place because, rightly or wrongly, I have a mouth that God gave me and I have used it, and I will continue to use it as long as the people of Macclesfield elect me to the House. I do not always follow the advice, the hectoring and the harassment that I get from my party leadership, because I believe that I have been sent to this place not just by the Conservatives, but by the people of Macclesfield as a whole, and I greatly honour the institution of Parliament.
I look for better Government, not for more Government, costing more money. Sadly, many of the proposals that we have heard from the Opposition, particularly Her Majesty's Opposition and minority parties, involves not less or better government, but merely more government and often an additional tier of government.
I share entirely the views that have been expressed on a number of occasions in the debate about constitutional legislation. I hope that, if the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition and his party achieve office at the general election, they will make a commitment that the Committee stage of any constitutional legislation will, as it has been by precedent over the years, be taken on the Floor of the House. I have been here nearly 26 years. I remember the devolution Bills on Scotland and Wales. The Committee stages were taken on the Floor of the House and many Labour Members believed fervently that that was correct. Therefore, I hope that we shall have an assurance from Her Majesty's Opposition that constitutional Committee stages will be taken on the Floor of the House.
I shall end with the subject of Europe. The House is sovereign and must remain sovereign. I share the views of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). We must take back from Europe many of those duties and responsibilities that, inadvertently and without the sanction, or the knowing sanction, of the House, we have transferred to the European Commission. We have a great role to play not just in Europe, but in the world and we can do that only if we are in control of our destiny. Let us be proud of what we have and the history that we have achieved, and we can continue to be successful.
7.34 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: There is one thing with which I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton): we should never give party leaders the power to draw up lists for Members of

1111
Parliament. I remember it happening when I was a Member of the European Parliament. Suddenly, half the members of the Portuguese delegation disappeared because the then party leader had had a dispute with them and then removed them from the party list, so party leaders must never be given that power. However, I agree with proportional representation and I want it to be used as the system of election to both the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.
I say, Welsh Assembly. I think that it is no secret to those people who know where I stand on this that I would prefer a Welsh Parliament with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament. We in Wales have long argued for that. At the end of the 1970s—I know this because I was sitting in the Press Gallery at the time—the Scottish Labour party was not as enthusiastic about devolution as the Welsh Labour party, and now it seems ironic that a Welsh Parliament should have limited powers compared with the Scottish Parliament.
However, I am prepared to compromise, because, unfortunately, public opinion in Wales is not yet strongly behind a Welsh Parliament. It is, however, strongly behind Welsh devolution. The latest opinion poll has shown clearly that more than 55 per cent. of the Welsh people are now in favour of devolution. As the argument goes on and we have a full debate on the issue, I am certain that that percentage will increase rapidly.
The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who is no longer here, lectured us on our history and suggested that perhaps some of us do not know our history, but I know that, in 1901, my illustrious predecessor in the Cynon Valley was Keir Hardie, and he argued then for Welsh home rule. There have been variations on that theme throughout the century, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said, he has waited 20 years. In fact, we have all waited years, because I was also active in that devolution attempt 20 years ago. I know how hard he struggled, and it was against the odds, because some powerful voices in Wales were arguing against devolution. At that time, the people of Wales were misled. They will no longer be misled by the present party leaders, because they are clear in their view that there has to be devolution for Wales.
Much has changed since the time of Keir Hardie. Wales's traditional heavy industries of coal and steel have collapsed. There have been 18 years of Conservative rule. The valleys area, which I represent, is considered by many independent commentators to be an economic failure on an epic scale. Many men of working age are not working. Deprivation is high. The region has some of the lowest incomes in the whole of Great Britain. People in Wales are fed up with that. They have constantly voted for Labour Governments. That is the irony for the people of Wales and Scotland, who have also constantly shown their support for the Labour party.
The Welsh Office was set up as a separate Government Department in 1964. According to my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), it was almost strangled at birth by what he described as
"the jealous guardianship exercised by Whitehall departments over the principle of centralised administration".
Much criticism has focused on the democratic deficit in Welsh politics, which is highlighted by the many quangos in Wales. Their numbers have increased
1112
enormously since the Government came into office. A recent report on quangos by the Council of Welsh Districts estimated that there are about 350 quangos of various descriptions operating in Wales. Obviously, there is great concern about the accountability of those quangos, the massive powers of patronage held by the Secretary of State for Wales, who is responsible for about 1,400 appointments, and, of course, the disproportionate representation on those quangos of Conservative supporters.
A study conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) found that Conservative party members were over-represented by 40 per cent. on such quangos. Conservatives outnumber Labour members by four to one on health service trust boards in Wales. That is hardly representative of the Welsh electorate.
The 10 largest quangos in Wales spend £52 million a year on administrative costs, nearly double the amount spent three years ago. A Welsh Assembly, which had responsibility for those quangos, would devolve many of their powers to local authorities. That would improve the quality of their administration and the representation on them. That would certainly save taxpayers' money.6
Let me give some examples of the democratic deficit in this place. Standing Order No. 86, which dates back to 1907, requires that all Welsh Members of Parliament should be entitled to sit on the Committees set up to scrutinise specifically Welsh legislation. During the passage of the Welsh Language Bill and the Local Government (Wales) Bill the Government suspended Standing Order No. 86. They did so despite the fact that the issues in question touched every part of Wales and involved all Welsh Members, who rightly argued that they should be able to sit on such Committees.
Interestingly enough, the Government argued that Parliament was that of the United Kingdom as a whole, and that, because Welsh Members are entitled to attend debates and vote on issues affecting England, English Members should be entitled to do the same with regard to Wales. Of course the two situations are not parallel, because Welsh Members will always be a minority in Parliament. It is the function of procedures such as those set down in Standing Order No. 86 to protect minority territorial interests in Parliament.
Then, of course, we have the Welsh Grand Committee. If ever there was a useless talking shop, that is it. Despite the fact that Welsh Members have argued against many of the Government's policies of the past 18 years and the Government are always defeated in the Welsh Grand Committee when those policies are put to the vote, they still go on to drive their policies through in the face of the majority opinion of Welsh Members.
The Government have refused to give that Committee powers to take the Committee stage of Bills relating exclusively to Wales. The Welsh Affairs Select Committee, which was set up to monitor the Welsh Office, is so stuffed with English Members that, again, the Government always have a majority on it.
Members representing Welsh constituencies are increasingly unable to hold Ministers to account at Welsh Question Time because of a concerted effort, which has become more apparent in the past year, by English Conservative Members to table questions for answer during that session. That has meant that many Welsh Members are prevented from scrutinising the actions of Welsh Office Ministers.

1113
I have attempted to raise a question of great importance to my constituents during the past three occasions when we have had Welsh questions, but I have failed to do so because we have run out of time. Recently, six of the 11 questions put to the Secretary of State for Wales during that Question Time were from English Conservatives. On another two occasions, eight out of the 15 oral questions came from English Conservative Members. We have calculated that each Opposition Member only gets two opportunities a year to question Welsh Office Ministers. Parliamentary scrutiny is clearly a myth, because the majority of Welsh Members are virtually powerless to influence the decisions affecting Wales.
If it is not working, fix it. The existing arrangement is clearly not working and we must fix it.
7.44 pm
Mr. Rod Richards: The Opposition's devolution proposals for Wales are regarded by the nationalists as inadequate because they do not go far enough towards Plaid Cymru's goal of independence—or, I should say, what Plaid Cymru misleadingly calls independence—for Wales. In reality, the Opposition's proposals and what Plaid Cymru calls independence are not very different. Both policies would lead to Wales becoming an insignificant and indistinguishable region of a united Europe—a spectre to which my colleagues and I on the Conservative Benches are totally opposed.
Plaid Cymru says that it wants a Welsh Parliament with full legislative and tax-raising powers. It wants a republic represented in its own right in the European Union. That is not independence. To be a truly independent state, Wales would need to have its own currency, its own central bank and a Government free to determine their own interest rates, borrowing requirement, taxation, expenditure and so on. Plaid Cymru's model denies Wales those essential freedoms.
The nationalists would have Wales join a federal Europe with its single currency and centrally determined interest rates. The convergence criteria necessary for Wales to participate would limit its powers to determine taxation and expenditure. I shall demonstrate later how, in any event, Wales would never be able to meet those convergence criteria.
Plaid Cymru's model is nothing more than one in which Wales's prominent role in the United Kingdom would be exchanged for a bit part in a united Europe. The nationalists are so obsessively anti-British in their outlook that they fail to understand that the outcome they so desire would devastate the Welsh people's standard of living, Wales's identity and its current freedom to be a proud nation within the United Kingdom.
The nationalists dwell in a dream world where their version of independence would transform Wales into a land of milk and honey. They believe that it would be subsidised by the European Union to such an extent that the problems of the real world would disappear and we would live happily ever after. It is time that they woke up.
Let us examine briefly the financial position of Wales and impose upon it some of Plaid Cymru's policies. It is, however, always difficult to assess accurately the nationalist policies as they are invariable vague and never, ever costed.
1114
One of the myths that the nationalists are currently peddling is that an independent Wales could be subsidised from Europe in much the same way as the Republic of Ireland. That does not stand up to the barest scrutiny. First, the Irish Republic has objective 1 status—Wales does not, and would not even if it were independent. Quite simply, it does not satisfy the relevant criteria needed to achieve that status. Indeed, that status reflects a level of economic deprivation that I would not like to see inflicted on any part of Wales. Plaid Cymru's policies would, however, certainly go a long way towards causing such deprivation.
Secondly, the nationalists could not expect to separate Wales from the United Kingdom and continue to receive subventions from the United Kingdom Government. At present the nationalists do some pretty shifty double counting that gives the impression that any new European funding would be in addition to the level of expenditure by the United Kingdom Government in Wales. That is the central point which destroys their case. I shall exemplify that by referring to data contained in "Government Expenditure and Revenue" for 1994–95, which was published by the Welsh Office.
Total Government expenditure in Wales in 1994–95 was £15.6 billion. That consisted of identifiable expenditure of about £12.3 billion and non-identifiable expenditure and other expenditure, which is calculated according to Wales's share of the United Kingdom's gross domestic product. If one uses population data for that calculation, the result is an even higher figure. But the total tax raised in Wales was £9.9 billion, leaving a fiscal deficit of £5.7 billion. In order to maintain public services at existing levels, an independent Wales would need to raise £5.7 billion from its own resources every year.
In Wales, an increase of 1p on the basic rate of income tax raises £60 million. If the basic rate were raised to 100 per cent.—if every single penny earned were taken in tax—it would not clear the deficit. Every year, there would still be £1 billion of debt. Even if Welsh men and women worked for nothing, public services as we know them could not be sustained.
The yield from a 1p rise in corporation tax is £30 million, which is half the yield of a 1p rise in income tax. Corporation tax would have to be doubled to raise the additional £1 billion. Even borrowing at UK levels is not an option, as such borrowing would have to occur every year.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Richards: That would cause a cumulative structural deficit that could not be serviced or sustained.
In 1994–95, value added tax receipts in Wales were £1.7 billion. The VAT rate would have to be doubled to reduce the basic rate of direct taxation to 72p in the pound. In short, it could not be done.
Public services in Wales could not realistically be financed from Welsh resources. To do so would mean that dozens of hospitals would have to close, hundreds of schools would have to be shut, benefits would have to be slashed and roads would not be maintained. Unemployment would get out of control, which would have serious consequences in social unrest and public disorder. The economic devastation would be unprecedented.

1115
Plaid Cymru has daily promised huge improvements, costing additional billions of pounds, to the people of Wales. Its so-called "health white paper", published two years ago, would add hundreds of millions of pounds to the bill. To meet its promises, more millions would be required for community care, and even more would be required for education. More again would be required for promoting the Welsh language, public transport, agriculture and roads. What about Plaid Cymru's promise on the linkage of state pensions to average earnings, or its promises of free television licences and increased housing, disability and unemployment benefits? Name any programme, and it has promised more money for it—by lying that a Welsh Parliament would deliver all.
It is not a matter of asking from where the money would come, but of asking who Plaid Cymru thinks it is kidding. The truth is that its objective of an independent Wales in the European Union is a non-starter—unless it is to destroy public services, such as health and education, and impose draconian taxes on workers and businesses, which would cause mass migrations and wholesale business closures.
Plaid Cymru weaves a romantic image of an independent Wales as a land of milk and honey. That image is completely false. Wales would not be an independent country but a small cog in a European wheel. It would be not a land of milk and honey but a land of bread and water. It would not be a garden of Eden, it would be the garden of Gethsemane, in which the Welsh people would be betrayed. It is not a vision for the third millennium but a reversion to the first.
Any serious observer of the House would have been dismayed by the woefully inadequate way in which the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) prepared for this most serious debate. His remarks were trivial, and he made jokes about hon. Members' comments 20 years ago. He totally failed to answer any of the fundamentally serious questions on the devolution issue. He avoided the West Lothian question, and he avoided other questions asked by my right hon. Friends on the relationship between the Executive at Westminster and an assembly in Cardiff or a parliament in Scotland.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield totally failed to say that a Secretary of State for Wales and a Cardiff Assembly would both have Executive powers in health, for example, but that a Secretary of State for Wales would not have a vote or the right to take part in a debate in a Cardiff Assembly. Which would be supreme? That is the question that he failed to answer.
7.54 pm
Mr. David Clelland: We have heard much in this debate about Scotland and Wales, and something about Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) even suggested that we might have a Parliament of England.
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Hear, hear.
Mr. Clelland: I do not say, "Hear, Hear," to that, as I should like to speak about the English regions. Those of us who live in the northern regions believe that English regional devolution is an essential part of any debate on constitutional reform. English regional government provides part of the answer to the West Lothian question.
1116
Over many years, we have developed a regional identity in the northern region, in co-operation with other interested parties. We live in the northernmost English region, and we know well the effects of a centralised Government based in the southernmost region. We have therefore had to take what action we can to help ourselves. As the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said, in a very interesting and helpful speech, there are cultural differences in all parts of the United Kingdom, and they should be reflected in our constitution and system of government.
In the north, we created the North of England Assembly of Local Authorities, which was the first regional representative organisation, and we created our own regional development organization—the Northern Development Company. We do not want independence or separation. We are an English region, and we will remain so. However, we think that the Government of the United Kingdom can be more flexible and less dogmatic than they have become over the past 18 years.
The Labour party's proposals are not a threat to the Union, but an enhancement of the way in which we run our country. The Prime Minister said that we threaten a thousand years of British history. I should remind him that, 1,000 years ago, we were not the United Kingdom, let alone a democracy. We are a relatively young democracy. The full adult franchise was achieved only after a long struggle, less than 70 years ago. To pretend that we cannot improve our democracy is nonsense. Far from improving it, however, we have seen a marked deterioration in it under Tory Governments. That is what we want to change.
Before the Tory Local Government Act 1972, there were about 50,000 elected representatives in this country. Today, there are fewer than 25,000. Regional government would redress that balance, by requiring 1,000 more representatives, although the number would still be far fewer than that in 1972.
In the same period, since 1972, the number of representatives appointed by central Government to Government-controlled quangos has risen to 60,000. Those unelected bodies have taken from local government many of their powers in further education, health, urban regeneration, training and some aspects of housing. The list goes on. They now annually spend more than £50 billion of public money and run many of our public services. The total net annual transfer of public spending from elected councils to quangos is £31 billion.
It is sad that the Tory party has set itself so firmly against regional government. We know that some Conservative Members support the concept, and some of them—although they have left the Chamber—nodded in assent when it was mentioned in this debate. In the past, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Hailsham have all expressed their support for the idea of regional government. However, I suppose that we should not be too surprised that the Conservative party should revert to its traditional values and attempt to conserve power in the hands of the few.
The truth is that we have an over-centralised system of government, accompanied by an over-centralised economy. Political power is centred on Westminster, and economic power on the City of London. It is a system which has not well served the regions and nations of Britain. As the Prime Minister reminded us, our system is a product of ancient history; reform is long overdue.

1117
The Prime Minister may well be happy to wallow in a thousand years of history, but the people of this country prefer to look to the future. That is why the Labour party is determined to modernise our constitution, to decentralise political and economic power, to extend the franchise and to bring power closer to the people. Far from creating another tier of bureaucracy, Labour wants to extend the breadth and quality of our democracy. That is what our decentralisation policies are all about.
We have heard nothing from the Conservative party but distortions and exaggerations of our party's policy in the past few weeks and months. The latest distortion of the truth, repeated last weekend in Sedgefield by the Secretary of State for Wales, is that regional government will be costly for the taxpayer, and that advertising the post of chief executive for the north of England assembly is a demonstration of that truth. As he well knows, the assembly is simply filling a vacancy in a long-standing post. We should be grateful to the Secretary of State for Wales, however, for raising the issue of costs of administration. It is important, and should be taken into account when considering regional structures.
Despite its opposition to extending democracy to the regions, the Tory party has had no reservations about extending bureaucracy. Government offices have been set up in all the English regions, with running costs of more than £90 million a year. The cost of running the Government office of the north-east, which has a budget greater than that of any local authority in the region, exceeds £6 million a year, and the total running cost of the Government departments in the north-east alone is more than £10 million a year.
If one adds to that the thousands of appointees serving on quangos in the region—often paid thousands of pounds a year for working one or two days a week at most—and the cost of the bureaucracies that serve them, it is not difficult to see where massive savings could be made to finance any regional assembly without any need for additional taxation, while at the same time making public money and regional and local services accountable to the people they serve.
What about the politics of the matter? A classic example of how the centralised system of government works against the interests of our region was the enforced privatisation of the Port of Tyne authority, which the House agreed a few months ago. The proposals to privatise the port were opposed almost unanimously in the northern region. The Government's own consultation process attracted more than 465 responses, only four of which supported the Government's case. Bitter opposition came from business, trade unions, local government, local institutions, 83 per cent. of the region's Members of Parliament and the trust board itself.
The consultation process proved a complete waste of time. The huge weight of opinion was ignored, and the Government pressed on, but two issues relevant to today's debate emerged. First, my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson) and I. having been refused an audience with the Secretary of State for Transport, were invited into the presence of Lord Goschen, an unelected peer. The people of this country may be surprised to learn that three Members of Parliament, representing the area involved
1118
and elected by the people of the area to speak on issues affecting their lives, were told by someone who holds his position only because of some unknown activity of his forefathers and who, to our knowledge, had not even visited Tyneside, that he knew better than we did—and, what is more, better than all the local representations to the contrary—what was good for the people and businesses in our region.
The second was the sight of scores of Tory Members of Parliament, mostly from the south of England, pouring through the Lobby to carry the Government's dogma into legislation, in the face of massive opposition from the people of the area. There is no relevance to the national interest in central Government forcing such policies on local communities, for no other reason than to satisfy central dogma.
The Prime Minister has argued that our proposals imperil the Union. If, because of some disastrous turn of events, the Conservatives were to be re-elected for yet another term, it has been suggested that the democratic deficit in our nation will cause deep dismay and further resentment, leading to dangerous and turbulent unrest in parts of our society, which will itself endanger the Union. If that is true, then our proposals, far from endangering the Union, will preserve it.
Giving proper expression to our varied communities and enabling them to pursue their own priorities for their own local services; devolving the power to democratic and accountable assemblies, in regions that are large enough to have some political and economic clout and which can demonstrate a measure of social and economic cohesion—this is how we will provide a system of government that will allow for innovation and diversity, which can only be healthy, socially and economically.
We in the north look forward to the opportunity to restore trust and confidence in our democracy and to take our region into the 21st century, optimistic that life will get a whole lot better. Listening to the debate today, it is clearer than ever that we need a Labour Government to achieve that.
8.3 pm
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I suggest that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) looks up Viscount Goschen's noble antecedent, who was the First Lord of the Admiralty, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Lord Chancellor. He had an interesting political career, sitting on the Liberal as well as the Tory Benches; he was quite a statesman in his day.
In a debate on devolution, there are certain inescapable consequences of politicians stirring up issues that might not necessarily be to the ultimate advantage of the people they represent. This could be such a debate. I believe that the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish people working together make a very good team. I hope that nothing we do in the House will affect that. In every company, north or south of the border into Scotland or Wales or in Northern Ireland, one finds people of all the nationalities that make up the United Kingdom working happily and harmoniously together.

1119
I spent the best and probably the happiest part of my childhood in the most northern part of Scotland, in Caithness in the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the one-time leader of the Social Democratic party.
Mr. McAllion: Were you fabricated at Dounreay?
Mr. Hargreaves: Very close to Dounreay.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will excuse me for saying that I believe that, viewed from Caithness, Westminster is a long way away. Anyone watching television and seeing things happening at Westminster rather than in Edinburgh or elsewhere in Scotland will find it difficult not to get the idea that government is becoming remote from the people of Scotland.
I therefore congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and his predecessors on their efforts to ensure that the Scottish Office has been devolved to Scotland, and that there is greater accountability to the Scottish people through the Scottish Grand Committee and examination of what the Government and the Scottish Office do. I want that process to continue, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will in due course be developing plans to make sure that it does.
If we believe strongly in the Union—as I said, I have seen it from the northernmost part—we must not regard the House as mere bricks and mortar. If we want people in Dunnet Head in Caithness, in Wales, or in Ulster to feel part of the Union, we should not hesitate to move various aspects of these bricks and mortar to make the Union come alive. I should like to see Parliament being opened up in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the years ahead. I see no practical obstacle to that. I think it is a policy that this party could happily adopt in due course.
If we want the Union to work, we must make it work. We must make everyone feel part of it. I feel strongly that the formal Scottish Parliament advocated by the Labour party will lead to separatism, bitterness and reprisals. Labour's proposals are ill thought out and wrong.
Worse than that, in a Europe of regions, Scotland would become just another region, not a nation within a Union which has clout because it contributes to the European Union budget. It would be caught on the hook of handout grants, on which it would depend. It would give Brussels the opportunity to bypass the UK Parliament, just at a time when Scotland should be using UK weight and influence to take a lead in reforming or abolishing the common fisheries policy, in defending and promoting its heritage in, for example, the whisky industry and salmon culture.
Scotland would inevitably be treated as a region and rolled over by Brussels, its interest sacrificed, through lack of clout, for a paltry regional grant. Scotland would lose the last genuinely democratic means of voicing opposition to a federalist bureaucracy, and any opportunity to change that bureaucracy.
Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hargreaves: No. I have 10 minutes, and I shall therefore not give way.
1120
If the Labour party does not address the West Lothian question, and does not clarify its taxation policy for a Scottish Parliament or a Scottish Assembly, we shall accuse it of depending for its majority, undemocratically, on a surfeit of Scottish Members spending predominantly English taxpayers' money, while English Members have no say in the expenditure of money in Scotland. That would be a mockery, and a travesty of democracy.
Every time a patient dies unexpectedly or while awaiting treatment in an English hospital—every day, every week; drip, drip, drip—we shall remind the public in England that the Labour party is holding power because of a surfeit of Scottish Members of Parliament who are spending two and a half times as much English taxpayers' money on someone in Scotland as on a patient in Birmingham. If there was a rail accident or a road accident, the case would be more dramatic: we would be able to say, with justification, that, if the money had been spent fairly and proportionately in England, that accident might not have happened.
That form of representation could not survive. I ask Labour Members to think for a moment—would English Members not come under pressure to revisit the subject of defence and the Scottish bases that many Labour Members have fought so hard for? What future could they see for Faslane, Rosyth and Lossiemouth? I think that there would be very little future for them.
Should the Labour party be in a position to implement its policy by undemocratic means, I guarantee that we shall hound it out of England as an undemocratic party of minorities, never standing up for the majority English interest. It would be a party of ethnic ghettos. In local government, it has made such ghettos of our great cities, for purely political advantage. It would be a party of minorities—never the party of an English majority in England. We shall never let the people of England forget the contempt with which the Labour party treats an English electorate.
8.12 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: We have just heard the personification of the English backlash. I can tell the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Hargreaves) that there is a considerable body of opinion in Scotland that would be happy for Trident to be taken from the River Clyde and located in his constituency.
As he was talking about Parliament being reassembled throughout the country, I had an image of the American gentleman who dismantled London bridge some years ago and reassembled it somewhere in the middle of Texas. If the hon. Gentleman was in earlier, he will have heard me quote to the Prime Minister the statistics showing that the overwhelming majority of the people of Scotland regard the Tory party as an anti-Scottish party. He has given a perfect example why.
I am tempted to ask: is this it? This is a debate on the issue that will transcend the general election campaign. For the past two and a half hours, there have not even been enough hon. Members on the Conservative Benches to make a football team. If that is the gang who will defend the United Kingdom against all the dangers that beset it, the game is probably up already.
I do not know whether he is familiar with the phrase, but I would describe the Prime Minister's speech as cauld kale het up. He was trying to return to the glories of the

1121
last election campaign. We have heard that once too often now. All that was missing was the declaration of "a thousand years of British history".
When the Prime Minister talks about a thousand years of British history, I remember the British history that I used to be asked to study at St. Andrew's university, which was English history—they just called it British history. When the Prime Minister talks about the thousand years of British history, he is, for the most part, talking about English history. A former Speaker once gave a ruling that this House was a continuance of the English Parliament, and should not be considered a separate entity after the Act of Union.
The leader of the Labour Party criticised the Prime Minister, wittily describing him as Ethelred the Unready. He then listed, quite properly, some of the changes that have been made to constitutional arrangements in recent times. It was significant, however, that he did not include the independence of Ireland in the 1920s or the 50 countries that have become independent of this place since the second world war.
The revealing aspect of the exchanges between the leader of the Labour party and the Prime Minister was how much they were playing to an English gallery. There was no doubt that the Prime Minister's audience was not in central Scotland or mid Wales, but in middle England. He wants to wrap himself in the Union Jack and seize the patriotic card.
When they have an exchange, they fling at each other the final argument about which of them has policies that are more dangerous to the integrity of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister says to the Leader of the Opposition, "You're going to break up the United Kingdom." The Leader of the Opposition says to the Prime Minister, "No, no. It's your policy that will break up the United Kingdom."
Is it not possible that both are right, and that the centre of gravity has moved so far in Scotland that resistance to change will break up the United Kingdom, and the concession of devolution will also lead to independence for Scotland? We can conclude that those on both Front Benches think that independence is very likely—they are merely bickering about how we shall get there.
The Prime Minister's attitude will alienate people in Scotland, but they will also be entitled to question the trustworthiness of the Labour party on this issue. After 20 years of arguing for a policy, I should that thought that Labour would have come up with a convincing answer to the so-called West Lothian question. The leader of the Labour party said today that the question had never been raised about Northern Ireland. That is not so. I ask the House to consider this quotation:
"I am sure the House will agree that there is an apparent lack of logic, for example, about steel, when Northern Ireland can, and presumably will, swell the Tory ranks tonight, when we have no power to vote on questions about steel in Northern Ireland"—[Official Report, 6 May 1965; Vol. 711, c. 1560.1
That was not a Labour Back Bencher or a Tory Back Bencher, but the then leader of the Labour party, the late Harold Wilson, at Prime Minister's questions.
The point is not that we cannot have a state with constitutional anomalies, but that the anomalies depend on the good will of all. We have heard enough from the
1122
Tory benches to know that they would wish to exact revenge if the problem of the West Lothian question became a reality.
The fact that the Labour party has not prepared for that and come up with convincing answers—or even some answer, as the Liberal Democrats have—is a sign of its lack of preparation on the subject, and perhaps a lack of conviction. If Labour Members wanted to argue for the policy, surely an arrangement such as the sacrifice of a few Members of Parliament, as the Liberal Democrats suggest, or some other would have been worth devising.
The leader of the Labour party had great fun with the Prime Minister—quite successfully, I thought—quoting back old comments, and asking why those opinions were no longer valid. I should like bring back an old quotation from the late John Smith, former leader of the Labour party, who said in the Daily Record of 9 July 1992:
"The Labour party must keep the Scottish issue at the centre of the political stage. That's why we are campaigning for a multi-option referendum."
When the Leader of the Opposition told my hon. Friend tha Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that a multi-option referendum, giving people a valid choice between independence, devolution and the status quo, was SNP policy, he seemed to forget that it was also the policy of his predecessor—a policy that the present leader, with some help from his Scottish Front Benchers, has managed to tear up.
The key issue in this debate is sovereignty. One of the few issues on which the leader of the Labour party and the Prime Minister agreed was the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. In contrast, I agree with the right hon. Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) that sovereignty lies with the Scottish people. Why is that important? Unless we accept that that is where sovereignty lies, any assembly or devolved parliament will be subject to pressure, or even abolition, from the Conservatives.
There has been a debate between the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland about who would abolish a Scottish Assembly at some time in the future, and under what circumstances. The Secretary of State for Scotland said that that would not happen; then he modified that comment, to say that it might happen after a referendum.
That tells us that a hostile incoming Tory Government would squeeze dry a Scottish Assembly—either through outright abolition or through gradual abolition. They would certainly do to a Scottish Assembly what they are now doing to Scottish councils throughout the land: they would squeeze the Assembly's expenditure and put it into an impossible situation.
There is an arrogance about the Tory case. The Secretary of State for Scotland made a speech a few weeks ago in Scotland that is known in common parlance as the "Defamation of Arbroath". He said that we do not need changes in Scotland, because Scotland was the fastest growing economy in Europe. Scotland is not even close to being the fastest growing economy in Europe—Ireland is. Ireland has been so over the past few years, and is forecast to remain so over the next three. That is why the House of Commons Library says that, by 2000, Ireland will overtake the United Kingdom in gross domestic product per capita. What a shock that will be for the Tory party.

1123
I have heard the fiscal threats from the Tory Benches. They should consider the parliamentary answer from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 January. It shows a surplus in Scottish accounts of £27,000 million since 1979. If the Labour party can be accused of wanting to hang on to Scotland for parliamentary seats, surely we can say that the Tory party wants to hang on to Scotland for our resources, including our oil, gas, land, fish, water—the vested interest that the Tory party always represents.
The proposition that an independent Scotland would not be viable is absurd. If the proper share of Scottish resources in the North sea were added to the Scottish gross domestic product, an independent Scotland would become the eighth most prosperous country in the industrialised world. For the benefit of the Labour Front-Bench team, I can say that the United Kingdom is the 17th. The difference for an independent Scotland would be like the difference between being at the bottom of the first division, heading for relegation, and being in the premier league.
The debate has shown the bankruptcy not of Scotland or Wales, but of the Westminster Parliament and the two parties that dominate it.
8.21 pm
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am the Member of Parliament for Chingford, which is a wholly English constituency, but, like so many of my constituents, I am a mixture of various parts of the kingdom that make up this United Kingdom. I was born in Scotland; my father was educated and lived much of his life in Scotland and, but for ill health, would have died in Scotland. My mother's family hail from Ireland.
The debate is a debate on the United Kingdom. Many of our constituents represent a mixture of all the nations and have benefited as a result. Many of my constituents who are Scots send money back to Scotland for their parents or relations and visit Scotland regularly. Today's debate is not, and should never be, a debate of English versus Scots or Scots versus Welsh or English. That would run against the history and success of the United Kingdom, which depends on the blending of the kingdoms—harnessing their strengths, while keeping their individuality.
Mr. Wigley: As in the case of Europe.
Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman intervenes, but there are serious differences—the process may or may not take place, but linguistically, legally and culturally, there are some significant differences. It has taken hundreds of years to blend the kingdoms; it may take thousands of years for the sort of blending of which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
I was intrigued by the speech of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I came here expecting to hear a strong espousal of what is clearly going to be a serious plank in the Labour party's manifesto for the next election. If the right hon. Gentleman and other Labour Members are to stand on that platform, surely it is worth laying out in detail exactly what it is and how it will work. But we heard nothing of any great substance from the right hon. Gentleman. He merely skirted around the main arguments.
1124
I can imagine that last night the right hon. Gentleman had a rehearsal with the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who would have said, "Tony, you must begin with a bit of knockabout." He would then have told the right hon. Gentleman, "Make it a bit of fun and have a go at the Government Front-Bench ranks. Pull out one or two of their quotes and have some fun with them, but be careful, because the Government may get you on the changes that you have gone through over the past few years. Do a bit of that and then quickly move on to the Lords, where you can launch a hard attack because everyone knows that there is something wrong with the Lords. It's strange that, whatever we propose, we're never prepared to go the whole way on its proposals. Still, stay on that subject for a while, then quickly slide into your peroration and sit down." And that is exactly what happened.
We heard nothing of substance, although the constitution is meant to be a strong plank of their manifesto. If I were a Scots Labour Back Bencher I would wonder why the right hon. Member for Sedgefield did not lay out the case for the proposals that he and the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) are making. There is a powerful argument to be made, and if he wants the people of Britain to vote Labour, surely he should be setting up the case that Labour Back Benchers want to advance. But the argument was not advanced; it was skirted around. I wonder why. There are serious issues to be discussed. I am intrigued as to why the right hon. Gentleman did not tackle it.
We have heard a lot about the tartan tax being an imposition on Scots people, who will pay more tax. Earlier, I heard the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) say from a sedentary position that the Scots may want that. Let us assume that he is correct. It has been mooted from the Opposition Front Bench that the tax will not always be increased, and that it could be decreased—there could be a reduction in income tax. The question for my constituents in Chingford is: at whose cost?
If the overall burden of tax in Scotland is reduced and the overall level of tax in Britain does not drop with it, who will have to bear the burden? Either in England or in an amalgamation of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, certain tax rates will have to rise. If a decision is handed over to someone in Scotland, others here may pay the penalty. It is an English question. It is a question about what happens to my constituents, but it was not addressed. We must address not just tax rises in Scotland, but the possibility of tax rises in England. None of those questions was answered. That is consistent with the position of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield.
The hon. Member for Hamilton, the shadow Secretary of Scotland, makes decisions, comes up with proposals and debates them among the Labour party in Scotland; suddenly a problem develops in England, and the proposals are changed quickly. The position of William Wallace was mentioned earlier—it was suggested that he was dismembered and his parts pushed around the United Kingdom. It is the same with the Scots Labour party—its head is in Islington and its heart is in Edinburgh. It stays like that: whenever the hon. Gentleman wants to make a change, he is slapped down. What is important is not what the Scots Labour Members want, but what the people in Islington want. I wonder how acceptable that is to hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies.

1125
I am concerned about the way in which the debate has proceeded. It seems to have been a ragbag of emotions, driven in part here in England by Charter 88 and by a collection of separatists and those who total independence for some of the other nations. They use the Labour party and the Liberals as their dupes, inviting them to come along to a halfway house to eventual independence.
The argument has not been about the need for change; we accept, and must always accept, that in the United Kingdom there is always a need for change—that is the purpose of our constitution: it must change. The question involves what changes are made, and how fast, and what would go with the grain of the system rather than against it. But what drives the Labour party is the fact that it has been in opposition for 17 years. It wants to get its hands on the levers of power and pull them. The Labour party's concern at never having achieved that aim has led to its anger and its belief that there is something fundamentally wrong with the system. Perhaps what is fundamentally wrong is the Labour party's inability to appeal to the British public and get them to elect it—or perhaps that has never really concerned them.
We argue endlessly that there is a need for change. I know what it is like to argue in constitutional debates on the Floor of the House. I experienced the frustration of opposing the Government during the Maastricht debates. I put an argument that I believed to be right and that later proved to be the case. The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will remember the debate on the social chapter. Since then it has been proved that we have no real opt-out. I still believe that, but the Government did not listen and pressed ahead. Of course I recognise the frustrations of the Opposition, but that does not necessarily mean that the system is absolutely wrong and needs total change.
There are answers to the West Lothian question, but the halfway house solution proposed by the Opposition is not the answer. There are two possible solutions. The first is to change the entire structure of the United Kingdom and make it a federal system. If people want that, let us debate making the United Kingdom federal. The alternative is independence for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if those nations want independence, but that is a big debate. We cannot fiddle around with the existing system, but that is exactly what the Labour party is proposing. If we do that, we shall end up in a mess. We should debate properly a complete change of the system, which is what must happen. When my right hon. Friend says that if we do that there will be no going back, he is right. We cannot go back and stick it all together again. We shall have to deal with what we have then, and in reality we shall be faced with big decisions.
There is a need for change. Anyone who has sat in this place for four years knows that. Statutory instruments have poured through, and Parliament no longer scrutinises legislation properly. That is a cause of frustration to Conservative Back Benchers as well as the Opposition. The system needs changing and Europe is deeply part of Parliament's failure properly to scrutinise. All that must change. There must be proper debate and change to our system, but I question the proposals from the Opposition, which represent a complete break from the historical trend of gradual change. They will ultimately throw the whole system over. A proper debate means dealing with that.
8.31 pm
Mrs. Irene Adams: Today, the Government have displayed delusions of empire. We are hearing the last of the Englishmen trying to hold on to the last of the empire as they see it. They have never considered Scotland as a separate nation, but as a region that they govern. I remind them that the United Kingdom is a union of nations, not an agreement somewhere along the line only 290 years ago—not 1,000 years ago, when Ethelred the Unready was on the throne of England. He did not even rule over the whole of England as we now understand it. Ethelred may have been unready, but in Scotland the Conservative party is unelectable. There have now been 10 elections since the Conservatives had a majority in Scotland.
The treaty of union in 1707 was a marriage of convenience, and an arranged marriage at that. There were riots in the streets of Edinburgh and, as now, the people of Scotland were not consulted. That is why there is so much resentment. The Scottish people were brought into a marriage that they did not necessarily want, and they have never got over it. For a marriage to succeed, it has to change. It cannot continue with one partner having all the say and the other partner having none. The other partner is now demanding some of the say.
This Parliament is not sovereign. The wishes of the people of the nations of this Parliament are sovereign. The West Lothian question has a simple answer. It is not a question for the Scots or the Welsh, but for the people of England and how they wish to conduct their home affairs. In the most recent referendum the majority of Scots wanted to manage their own home affairs. They still believe that. If the people of England want to manage their home affairs, that is fine. I have absolutely no objection to that.
Day on day, the Government tell us that the Scottish Grand Committee handles Scottish affairs. If they want a simple solution, the English should have their own Grand Committee. That would be logical. We are being trailed around the length and breadth of Scotland month in, month out, week in, week out by a Tory rump. The Tories have only 10 elected Members in Scotland. We are debating subjects mainly of their choosing and we cannot vote on them.
The Scottish people have no say in that talking shop. That circus is being dragged around and the Scots are being told to listen. It is just not on any longer. The Scots will have their Parliament. The Government can be dragged to the table kicking and screaming, or they can come of their own volition, but they can be sure that the United Kingdom as they know it will not continue for very much longer. If they want to destroy it, that is entirely up to them, but the Scots are determined to have their own Parliament.
The terms of that Parliament are clearly set out by the Scottish Convention in partnership with the Liberals and many Scottish institutions, including the Churches and the trade unions. It will provide more representation for women. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), I am not a great believer in quotas, but I support equal representation.
Some might consider it a travesty to reflect that, in the entire history of the Parliament, only 23 women from Scotland have ever sat on these Benches. I make no apology for saying that 50 per cent. of the seats in

1127
Edinburgh will be occupied by women. Quite frankly, it is about time that that happened. One of the great disadvantages of this Parliament for women from Scotland is the distance involved. Every week we have to travel 400, 450 or 500 miles, and the domestic arrangements of most women do not allow for that.
A Scottish Parliament would bring democracy to the people of Scotland. For the past 17 years, policies that no one wants and for which no one voted have been foisted on the people of Scotland. In my constituency, they have resulted in the loss of some 30,000 manufacturing jobs.
Every month I attend Scottish Questions. Apparently, all the questions relating to Scottish affairs have to be answered in one hour each month. Quite frankly, it is a lottery. Month after month, we put our names on the list and month after month they do not appear. The House is inundated with English Members representing English constituencies who ask questions that clearly have absolutely nothing to do with their own constituencies.
It is a matter of democracy and the representation of the people of Scotland being just that. Scottish people do not want policies foisted on them from afar, but the policies that they want being implemented near them. Most of my constituents have never seen this place. I can count on two hands the number who have visited me here in the past seven years. It is just too far for them to come, and they do not associate it with themselves. They want a Parliament that they can see and in which they can take part. They want a Parliament that they can visit and that will introduce policies that are relevant to them.
8.39 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Many of us who have attended the majority of the debate will leave the House with a profound sense of disappointment that we did not get a single answer to any of the key questions that were put to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, there was nothing on tax and, of course, nothing on the West Lothian question. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) will produce more answers, but I do not expect he will.
The Labour party spin doctors at the media centre at Millbank will have had an opportunity by now to work through the speech of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield, and they will have realised that he was clearly outgunned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Perhaps they will come up with an answer to the mysterious West Lothian question, unlike the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who said that the West Lothian question was not a question for Scotland, but a question for England.
The Leader of the Opposition treated us to a display of arrogant sophistry. He might have got away with that in a school debate, and if he had been speaking at a debating competition between Fettes school and Hamilton academy, I would have given him some points; but this is the House of Commons, which represents the British people and they cannot be treated with such arrogance as the right hon. Gentleman displayed tonight. Our democracy works in the normal way, in that all the parties set out their stalls at the general election, but the 1997 general election will be unique, in that the main opposition party—the Labour party—is not setting out its stall on tax, on Europe or on the constitution of this
1128
country. How can the people decide which way to vote if one party does not set out its stall to be judged by the electorate?
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) back in the Chamber, because the people of the north will need to make a judgment about whether to support an elected regional assembly for the north, which is what the hon. Gentleman calls for. Before they vote, however, they should be told what a regional assembly for the north means, and in his speech today, the hon. Gentleman made no reference to what was involved and what it would cost. Let me tell the electorate of the north of England that the Conservative view is perfectly clear: we do not want an elected regional assembly for the north of England.
Let me warn the people of the north of England what the Labour party is up to. Labour is using an organisation called the North of England Assembly of Local Authorities as a way of promoting directly elected regional government in the north of England. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that assembly, which was set up with the perfectly justifiable aim of being a forum for local authorities in the area to discuss matters of common concern. It was not set up to promote regional government or to pilot the north of England as a candidate for regional government.
However, the advertisement in The Guardian for the successor to the secretary of that organisation asks for a "director" at double the salary that the previous incumbent of the post received. That new director would have the duties of promoting regional government and piloting the region for regional government in England. That is a disgrace. The purpose of that regional assembly has not been put to the people of the north of England at all. The assembly now has a budget of £250,000 a year, so every council tax payer in the north of England makes a contribution to the Labour party's propaganda campaign. The assembly was set up with good intentions, but has now been turned into a Trojan horse for Labour plans for devolution in this country.
The other aspect of regional government that Opposition Members have not explained is the extensive powers that it will have. It is proposed that the elected regional assembly will take over the role of the Government office for the north-east and the £0.5 billion budget that that Department controls. It will take over most aspects of the lives of the people of the north of England. Let us hear exactly what is proposed—this information comes from the Labour party's own document.
The assembly will take over matters such as business development, industrial planning, strategic planning, environment and pollution controls, purity of rivers, transport in conurbations, railway subsidies, housing and regeneration, the local sports council and arts council and the funding of further education colleges. In addition, it will move in on health arrangements, because one of the preconditions of the assembly is that it will have a right to be consulted on all allocations of health service cash and all capital expenditure in the local health authority. It will, for example, have a say in whether my new local hospital at Hexham is built.
Who will control that assembly? Sadly, we in the north of England have an unenviable reputation for local government waste, cronyism, favours to friends and

1129
sometimes outright corruption. Decades in power for the Labour party have made many Labour councillors arrogant about their voters. After being in power for so many years, the only people whom Labour councillors have to fear are usually those on their own side.
Mr. McAllion: Look at the sleaze on your own Benches.
Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman should wait a little while.
Regional government will be about jobs for the boys and costly additional bureaucracy. The people who run it will seek to abolish some of our existing local government structures. One of the preconditions of regional government has been that we remove one tier of local government in the north. In Northumberland, it will not be the Labour-controlled county council that goes, but our district councils. True local government will be removed from the people of Northumberland in order to give jobs to the Labour boys.
Let us look at some of those Labour boys who might well get jobs. Last Saturday, The Journal, Newcastle's morning newspaper, carried three stories in a single edition on this subject. A headline on page 2 read "Police quiz council chief', and the ensuing story told how an elected councillor was being quizzed about a possible expenses fraud. On page 7, the headline was: "Councillor to liquidate print firm". The first paragraph stated:
"A print firm whose links with a crisis-hit North union were at the centre of a probe is set to go into liquidation, it emerged last night."
The business is run by a local councillor. A senior member of a Tyneside local authority put his business into liquidation after it was revealed that his girl friend, who works for the union, was giving him £1,000-worth of work a week. He had also been working for local Labour-controlled authorities.
On page 26, there was another story about the Labour party.
Mr. Clelland: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are supposed to be debating the constitution. Is the way in which the hon. Gentleman is proceeding in order?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have been following the hon. Member's argument and seeking to perceive the connection which I hope he will shortly make. Hon. Members will know that Adjournment debates are, of their nature, fairly wide and the constitution is a fairly wide subject anyway, but I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to satisfy me and the House.
Mr. Atkinson: I can satisfy you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I am trying to make is that, sadly, elected regional government in the north-east will be run by Labour, because the Labour party has exclusively controlled local politics in the area for many decades. It will be run as a system of jobs for the boys, and I am pointing out the sort of boys who will be getting the jobs.
1130
The third story in that edition of The Journal stated:
"A Labour Party official has been banned from attending party meetings after he was accused of assaulting a colleague."
Those are the sort of people of whom the population of the north of England should beware. That is what regional government will mean: jobs for the boys and extra cost. It is no wonder that local business and local people do not want that form of devolution.
Members of Parliament from the north will be put in a unique position if the Labour party's constitutional reforms go through. Members of Parliament representing north-east seats will have no say in what goes on Scotland, no say in what goes on in Wales and precious little say in what goes on in their own constituency, because most of the powers that affect our constituents will have been removed and devolved to an elected assembly.
8.48 pm
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am grateful to be called at the fag end of the debate to give the view of my party, although it's view has been pretty well attacked by some of the speakers, not least by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) in the claptrap that he spoke about the economic position of Wales. I am sorry that he is not in his seat at the moment.
It is unfortunate, not only that that is the case, but that Wales has not been represented on the Front Benches during the debate. I would have expected the Secretary of State for Wales to be directly involved in a debate as important as this, and I expected the main spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench to be from Wales. Indeed, a week ago today, the Leader of the House said that he expected that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales would be the ones to participate in the debate. I believe that the people of Wales are heartily sick of the way in which the needs of Wales are marginalised within the Chamber; that is one of the most pressing reasons why we need constitutional change.
During the Prime Minister's opening speech, I put it to him that he appeared to believe that there was only one alternative to the status quo—which is unacceptable in Walesߞthat alternative being full self-government, because the Conservative party was totally and unreasonably unwilling to consider any compromise. He answered, "We shall give greater powers to the Welsh Grand Committee." In fact, he said "We have given greater powers to the Welsh Grand Committee," although Welsh Members have not seen them.
That Grand Committee is incapable of taking any decision on behalf of the people of Wales; it is a talking shop par excellence. It does not make the Executive answerable to Members from Wales, and it does not advance a Welsh agenda or formulate policy. If that is the only offering that the Conservative Government are willing to make, it is little wonder that the people of Wales believe that they have no alternative but to seek full self-government for our country.
During recent years, the failure of the existing political system to give us democracy in Wales has been exacerbated. We do not have democracy in Wales, for the most basic of reasons. As the Prime Minister said in his opening speech, he accepts and recognises that Wales and Scotland are nations in their own right. Being nations in

1131
our own right, we have slightly different priorities, values and expectations from those in England. They may be better or worse, according to the eyes of the perceiver, but they are different. Those are manifested most in the political representation that has come through from Wales to the Chamber during the 140 years since there has been some form of democracy.
It has been said—it bears repeating—that never, in any single election during that period, has Wales elected a majority of Tory Members of Parliament. Following some elections, there has not been a single Tory Member from Wales. At the moment, with a Tory Government in power, only six of the 38 Members from Wales are in the Conservative party, and three of those have majorities of fewer than 1,000 votes.
Probably, following the general election in the next two or three months, once again there will not be a single Tory Member from Wales, yet we may find ourselves governed by a Conservative party, whose values, priorities and policies are totally out of line with the needs of Wales and the wishes of the Welsh people. That is not democracy.
People argue that we are seeking an additional tier of government. That tier of government is to a large extent already in place. We have a Welsh Office, 80 attendant quangos and a Secretary of State with responsibility for £7,000 million of public expenditure, but we do not have democratic answerability for the way in which the policies that decide how those resources are used are enacted.
The past four Secretaries of State for Wales have not even been Welsh constituency Members of Parliament. They have been sent in as governors-general to run our country. The origin of the Secretary of Stateship for Wales was the idea of having a member of the Cabinet who could speak up from Welsh experience, knowing our Welsh needs, and who could articulate our hopes and fears. Instead, we now have a commercial traveller on behalf of the Cabinet in Wales, peddling Tory policies from London, not representing Wales in Cabinet.
The system that was supposed to safeguard Wales has broken down, yet the House is not willing to give an inch to allow any variation in policy formulation to meet the diverse needs of Wales. When the Welsh Language Act 1993, the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994 and other Acts were going through their stages, the Committees that considered those Bills were packed with English constituency Members of Parliament, who knew nothing about what was being debated and did not have to live with the consequences of the legislation.
We want a parliament for Wales as a first step to Wales becoming a self-governing country within the European Union. In its first stage, the parliament would take over all the functions under the Welsh Office with full law-making powers, and all taxes collected in Wales would be aggregated to a Welsh Treasury Department. That parliament should also have direct links with the European Union, because we know by now how many of the decisions that affect Wales daily are taken far away in Europe, not here in Westminster.
If we have a real, effective voice for Wales in the European Union, we can expect to obtain a better deal than the pathetic bargain that has come from the representation that London has given for Wales in Brussels.
1132
This week, the Library of the House of Commons released figures showing that, in 1996, for the first time, the gross domestic product per capita of the Irish Republic overtook that of the United Kingdom as a whole. Can you imagine that being the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, if Ireland had still been governed from Westminster, and can you imagine the people of Ireland ever wanting to turn the clock back to those days when they were dying of famine?
The people of the Ireland have been able to build up their economy, first by virtue of the fact that they have control of their legislation, and secondly because they have been able to work with the grain of Europe to obtain the best deal that they can for their people. That has not happened for Wales. Ireland has been able to get 10 times as many resources per capita from the European Union than has Wales.
The people of Wales—especially the farmers of Wales, considering what has happened with the BSE during the past year, during which they have paid a price for the way in which the Government have failed to represent us—need a real parliament.
My sadness in hearing the opening speech by the Leader of the Opposition was that he made hardly any reference to Wales. There was certainly no justification for giving Scotland a parliament, albeit with inadequate powers but at least full law-making powers over some subjects, and giving Wales an assembly with no primary law-making powers whatever. That is not good enough.
We need a parliament that can make a difference in matters such as education and health, housing and employment—the matters that are important to the people of Wales. We are seeking a parliament, not just a building on the banks of the Taff instead of on the banks of the Thames so that we can say, "We have a symbol," but a powerhouse of a parliament, which can make a difference in the everyday lives of the ordinary people of Wales—their education and health, jobs and housing.
Our great fear is that, if we get only an assembly with no primary law-making powers, in five years' time we may have a Redwood-led or Portillo-led Government who will try to bring in right-wing legislation to privatise education or health. It may not apply to Scotland, where there will be a parliament with law-making powers, but it will apply to Wales, and our assembly will be nothing more than a glorified moaning shop, which cannot make any difference.
In conclusion, I make an appeal: when we have that referendum, let us ensure that it is fair. It should be a consultative referendum that gives all the people of Wales the right to express their preference. The options should be, first, full self-government in Europe; secondly, a parliament with law-making powers, rather than full self-government; thirdly, the Labour party's suggestion of an elected assembly; and, fourthly, the status quo for Tories who believe that nothing can be done to improve the situation. Those four alternatives should be on the ballot paper in a referendum, if that referendum is to be meaningful. If they are not, the referendum will not be worth the paper it is written on.
That is a challenge to the incoming Labour Government after the election. I say on behalf of the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales across

1133
party lines that Wales will not be treated as a second-class nation. We demand a parliament of our own, with real powers that will make a difference.
8.58 pm
Dr. Keith Hampson: May I just say to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), and to the hon. Member for Paisley, North (Mrs. Adams), who spoke before him, that I see a different world from them. Scotland and Wales are not second-class nations. I spent six years of my life teaching in Edinburgh and an entire year and a half on the Alec Douglas-Home constitutional committee looking at those issues. I also go, with the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, around Wales.
Those countries are transformed. They did not need a Scottish or Welsh Parliament; they have had an English Parliament, an English Government, a Scottish Office and a Welsh Office, which have transformed those countries. The Welsh pits would have declined anyway, but the Welsh economy has been transformed by the injection of Government money and by the incentives that have brought in far eastern investment to Wales and to Scotland. When I go to Scotland now, I see a road network that has been transformed.
The hon. Member for Paisley, North asked what the English want. The English in my area, Yorkshire, and in the north-east are fed up with politicians from Wales and Scotland going on like those were. The answer to the hon. Lady is that Scotland would not have got those resources had it not been part of the United Kingdom. Wales and Scotland would not have got those resources without Secretaries of State in the Cabinet fighting those battles for them.
As we saw when we studied this matter way back in 1968ߝ69—people did not like it being said then, but I shall say it again now—the people of Wales and Scotland have had a disproportionate amount of public expenditure, compared with those in Yorkshire. It is about time that people south of the border, in England, said, "Okay, you want to go your own way but there are consequences and costs. We do not want to continue putting our taxpayers' money into your countries." Had independence been achieved, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon wanted, in 1969–70, Scotland and Wales would no longer be in such a successful position. They have gained an enormous amount from being part of the United Kingdom.
I wanted primarily to deal with regional government. Those who are calling loudest for regional assemblies and parliaments are politicians. This whole constitutional debate, which will potentially waste massive amounts of time if the Labour party forms the next Government, will distract people to a meaningless subject. The proposed constitutional changes have nothing to do with things that matter to ordinary people. They will not improve the economy. The House of Lords might need reforming, but that does not affect ordinary people and their daily lives. To most people, those are relatively trivial matters. What people want is success and a better standard of living, not theory.
Politicians want devolution for their own vested interests. The Labour party in Scotland must somehow head off the nationalists, so it must offer something. In Wales, it is the same sort of political trade-off, and the
1134
rest of us must suffer as a consequence. As a result of that nonsense and the refusal to deal honestly with what is now called the West Lothian question—the logical solution to which is to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in Westminster—the Labour party has had to come up with an incredible fudge: the so-called "regionalising" of Britain.
For 1,000 years, England has been a united kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."' There has been so much rotten history in tonight's debate. England has been united for 1,000 years. Why on earth do hon. Members want to copy the example of Germany and have regional government imposed on something which, historically, culturally, economically and politically, has no relevance to the German, French or Spanish situations? Those countries all had good historical, cultural and political reasons for setting up regions. One hundred years ago, Germany was a collection of different states that were brought together, and Spain has had great problems that needed to be redressed by regionalism. Italy was a similar case. In talking about England, we have a country that dates back 1,000 years, so regions are an artificial irrelevance.
The people of Yorkshire are proud of being in a county called Yorkshire. They do not need another region. The great cities of Yorkshire—Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield—got rid of an extra tier of government above them and fought inside their own party to abolish a Labour-run county council. They do not want another regional tier. What would it do? Let us be realistic. No one here is asking what are to be their powers or where the powers are coming from—this place or local government. They are always bound to come from local government.
The dynamic cities of Yorkshire will lose powers to some other amorphous tier. Will it bring any more money into the health service? Over the past 10 years, £133 million has been put into the health service in Leeds. Would a regional council improve on that? Of course not. There would be a fight between the various political factions to divide the spoils, and Goole might get some money—it might need some—but that would not necessarily improve the position of Leeds or Sheffield. A regional council will simply be a talking shop. It will be costly to run, it will want taxing powers and it will interfere.
Yorkshire is a dynamic county and Leeds is booming. There is nothing that a regional council could give Leeds that Leeds does not already have. Unless Opposition Members can tell the ordinary people how an extra tier of government would be more successful for them, as against the extra cost, the intervention in business and all the extra bureaucracy involved, I can see no attraction in the idea. It is being offered as a sop to Labour party members in the north of England and Yorkshire because of what is being proposed for Scotland and Wales. That is a disgrace. It is not constitutional reform; it is a constitutional nightmare.
9.5 pm
Mr. Jim Cousins: We must get the Conservative party to recognise what it has done to the country. It has destroyed the foundations of its historic success: it has destroyed deference and respect for authority. British people now wish to do things for

1135
themselves. They do not want to trust a Government in Westminster to do it. They feel confident of their ability to take decisions for themselves, in their own regions and in their own nations.
We have just heard two foolish speakers from the Conservative Benches. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) made a speech that dwelt on jobs for the boys, making references that fell below the standard that I would have expected of him. If he wants to speak about jobs for the boys, let us look at the existing jobs and the existing boys.
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that there is an existing tier of regional government that is unaccountable to anyone. Look at the regional NHS executive, whose chairman, Mr. Greetham, one of the existing boys, helps to control a budget of £1 billion and runs an NHS regional executive that does not hold a single open meeting and has no public records of what it gets up to.
That is a part-time job for Mr. Greetham. He is a very busy man. He is so busy that he has been given, on the NHS, a free Land Rover Discovery. I am quite worried about him. He once had to ring me on his mobile telephone from his Land Rover. I thought to myself, "I hope they've managed to give him a handset, so that he is not speaking while holding his mobile phone. We wouldn't want the guy to be put at risk." There are existing jobs. There are existing boys.
Let us consider the main administrative functions of regional government in the north of England. Who controls the Government office for the north-east? It is Lord Fraser of Carmyllie. There is no need for the hon. Member for Hexham to shake his head. Lord Fraser is a perfectly decent bloke. In 1644, a Scottish army besieged and captured Newcastle. Fair dos, but we do not want to make a practice of it.
It is time for Lord Fraser of Carmyllie to go homeward and think again. It is time that we had a regional government in the north that could do the job that he is doing, with a block grant—no taxation needed or wanted—within the existing controlled spending totals, redeployed according to the priorities of people in the region. It is not much to ask.
We have the jobs and we have the boys; now we want a tier of democratic administration to deal with matters. We do not want to interfere with local government—that has happened far too much already. The Conservative Government have abolished two historic counties in the north. We do not want to go down that road: we want to leave matters as they are. There is a tier of central Government overseeing the health service, economic development and the administration of regeneration budgets to local authorities that we believe should be controlled and deployed democratically so that it is accountable to the people of the region.
The test of any principle occurs when things get difficult. I think that the hon. Member for Hexham dealt with some rather scurrilous issues. The test of our belief in accountability, in scrutiny and in freedom of information comes when things get awkward. I invite the hon. Gentleman—I will join him—to ask the Nolan committee to examine those issues. Nothing cannot be improved; he can put any evidence that he has before that committee. We believe that people wish to take decisions for themselves, and that more openness, transparency and confidence will give back to the British people their lives in their own neighbourhoods.
1136
The crucial point is that our proposals will be subject to the referendum test. If the hon. Member for Hexham believes that his feelings about the people of the north are correct, he will be able to campaign for a no vote in that referendum—and good luck to him. However, we believe that we have the convictions and the support of the people of the north. They want genuine, accountable, democratic government. We believe that we shall carry the vote in the referendum, and the hon. Gentleman will have to accept defeat.
9.11 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: I have great feelings of tenderness towards the devolution debate. I really enjoy getting stuck in to this argument. I look back affectionately to the last debate in 1979, when we were told that the people of Scotland and Wales were demanding assemblies. Referendums were conducted, and we found that there was no great demand. Eighteen years of Tory government followed, so we owe much gratitude to the devolution issue.
There is great inconsistency in the proposals for Scotland, for Wales, for Northern Ireland and for England. How could Scotland have a tax-raising parliament with legislative powers while Wales had, in effect, another Grand Committee? It does not make sense, as the president of Plaid Cymru, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), has recognised. I had great hopes for this debate initially: I thought that the Opposition would provide some answers. I thought that Labour Members would discuss serious issues, such as the West Lothian question, and give some details about the tartan tax.
However, we had nothing but knockabout from the Leader of the Opposition. It was a pretty pathetic performance. He concluded by claiming that the Government lacked the courage to go to a general election. There is no lack of courage on this side: we must put important measures on the statute book, and when that is accomplished, we shall face the electorate with confidence. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to talk about courage. He shot out of the Chamber like a scalded cat on Monday because he was too embarrassed to stay and witness Labour's great flop in the disgraceful vote that he had forced. He cannot talk about courage with any conviction.
I compliment the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who at least tried to address the issues, although I do not agree with what he said. The Liberals are honest in their beliefs about a Scottish Parliament. They believe that it would mean a reduction at Westminster in the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland. It is quite sensible that that should be so. There would be 123 Members in a Scottish Parliament—73 elected, the rest picked from party lists, party placements, and proportional representation, which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) supports nowadays. In the past, he argued against it strenuously. Now he has capitulated. He has given up. He sits there smiling, but he has given up on his principles. In so doing, he has simply followed the line of his party leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair).
The hon. Gentleman talks about Conservative opinion back in 1974. The Conservatives were wrong at that time.It was the wrong policy, but we had the guts to face up to

1137
the mistake that we had made. We rejected the devolution policy because it would have been disastrous not only for Scotland but for the United Kingdom, so we gave up on it, and perhaps with good reason. In 1974, when we pushed that stupid argument, we lost the election. [Laughter.] That was a lesson for us.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) laughs, but I guarantee that a Labour Government, if ever elected, would be lucky to have more than one stretch in office, particularly if they introduced those proposals.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley is waving his arms about. I do not know whether he just likes to try to follow me—
Mr. George Foulkes: Heaven forbid.
Mr. Gallie: If the hon. Gentleman followed what I said and followed my line much more often, he would be far better advised than he is at the moment, and he probably would not have spent 18 years on the Opposition Benches.
Why am I concerned about a Scottish Parliament? Scots have a leading role to play in whatever role they choose to follow. In the United Kingdom, Scots have played that leading role and delivered the goods in a range of ways. Scots should not hide their light under the bushel. We should not retreat behind our borders. We have a leading part to play here in the United Kingdom.
I recognise the honest arguments made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who believes the things that he says. I am not sure that many others believe them, but he certainly does, and he has the confidence to push through his arguments. His are honest arguments. The Scottish nationalists talk about an independent Scotland. The Scottish Parliament offered by the Opposition would bring about the Scottish National party's objective sooner than would ever be possible through normal democratic process. Why? Let us look at the financing of the Scottish Parliament.
Even with the 3 per cent. that the Scottish Parliament could add to its budget through income tax, at least 97 per cent. of its funding would come from Westminster. The level will be set here. Scots will not control that, although they will control how the budget is spent. Just as with local authorities, every failure of the Scottish Parliament will be because it does not have enough cash. It will claim that it is strapped for cash because Westminster will not give it the money to spend.
Every local authority in Scotland complains at the moment that it cannot deliver services because it does not have enough money. Whose fault is that? Is it because local authorities waste money? Is it because they do not manage their affairs properly? They say, "It is nothing to do with us. It is the fault of the Scottish Office, which does not provide us with the readies." That is their complaint. [Interruption.] Hon. Members agree with me that that is what would happen if we were to have a
1138
Scottish Parliament. It would never have enough in the bank or in the kitty, and would always blame Westminster. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am tired of hearing repeated sedentary observations. If hon. Gentlemen want to intervene, they must do so in the proper way.
Mr. Gallie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought you were calling time on my speech; I am delighted that you were not.
Opposition Members tell us that candidates for the parliament will be selected on a 50–50 split of men and women. Is that discrimination in favour of women or in favour of males? Would it be permissible for 52 per cent. to be women, or do they want a bang-on split? They must provide much more detail.
When the hon. Member for Hamilton responds, I hope that, for once, he will deal with some of the questions that have been asked throughout the debate.
9.20 pm
Mr. George Robertson: I wonder whether the bright spark who came up with the idea of this debate has been banished to the outer areas, suddenly realising that it was one of the great classic own goals. The debate has shown a Government in turmoil. It was conceived in blind panic, as the devolution lie machine went off the rails last week with the dismissal of the Health Secretary, who is sitting with us this evening below the salt. He is out of sight of the general public, banished and well away from those in charge of the constitution.
We have heard some powerful speeches in this interesting debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) wiped the floor with the Prime Minister, who lived down to his own reputation. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) also made a powerful speech and put sensible arguments for devolution, with which we are in absolute accord. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was Secretary of State for Wales in the last Labour Government. His dream is about to come true.
My right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), as English Members of Parliament and as Englishmen, said categorically to the House that England has nothing to fear from our devolution proposals. In strong speeches in this Union Parliament, my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) made the case for a greater decentralisation of power.
I draw the House's attention to three speeches made by senior Members of the House from the Conservative Benches, which I thought were particularly important. The right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) and for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made interesting and thought-provoking speeches. All of them began their remarks by saying that they disagreed with the Prime Minister, and with the thesis that our constitution should not be changed.

1139
The hon. Member for Lewes said that we should have a Bill of Rights: he quite properly put the arguments for building the European convention on human rights into British law. The right hon. Member for Enfield, North is about to leave the House, having served as a Minister for almost as long as I have been on the Opposition Front Bench. He disagreed with the Prime Minister and said that changes in the way in which we, and especially the House, operate were needed. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire disagreed with the Prime Minister on the government of London, on hereditary peers and on fixed-term Parliaments. I congratulate them on breaking the false unity of doing nothing about a British constitution that desperately needs something done about it.
I shall come to other interesting speeches in a minute. Those of us who come from Scotland were entertained by the startling contention of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Last year, the independent Scotland to which he referred was to be the 22nd most prosperous country in the world. I estimate that a mere 10 months have elapsed between then and what the hon. Gentleman says now: on the basis of figures supplied by the Chief Secretary to the Trsry, no less, we are now to be the eighth most prosperous country in the world. I must say, as the hon. Member for Hamilton, that here is the man who could take over as manager of Hamilton Academicals and move us from the second to the premier division by the end of next month.
A deeply depressing aspect of the debate and, in particular, of the Prime Minister's opening speech, is the fact that, in all the serious discussion that has gone on here, we have heard no new ideas. There has been no vision, and not a single thought about how our constitution could be improved, modernised, or brought up to date. The present Government are bloated with the sad but profound complacency that comes from 18 years in power. Today's debate has served the country well: people outside will not have missed the sight of an Administration marked by the confusion and contradictions that lie at the heart of this Government's position. Our view—a view that is widely shared in the country as a whole—is that the way in which our constitution operates, and the way in which a Government relate to the people in a democracy, must be as modern, robust and sensitive as the times in which we live.
Opposition Members have a clear vision of what is needed. We need decentralisation of power, taking power closer to the citizens who are affected by it. We need more openness in the way in which government—
Mr. Michael Forsyth rose
Mr. Robertson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to wait? He will have 20 minutes in which to speak.
Mr. Forsyth: I would like to intervene.
Mr. Robertson: I will not take an intervention at this point. [Interruption.] I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), can remember being enjoined, at the last Scottish Grand Committee, to remember that he is a Minister of the Crown, and perhaps behave like one for a moment or two.
We stand for the decentralisation of power to take power closer to the citizens who are affected by it, more openness in the way in which government is conducted,
1140
more democracy in the way in which decisions are made, and a more transparent judicial system, with fundamental rights for the ordinary citizen. Where, in the Prime Minister's speech, was there any Conservative vision of what needs to be improved in this country? What ideas—what proposals—have we heard for change to this deeply centralised, quango-ridden, over-secretive British system, which is so unpopular?
In Scotland, we already have devolution—bureaucratic devolution. What we want is democratic devolution. Scotland already has a Scottish Office, a Department of State that covers eight areas of responsibility dealt with by existing Departments. It has a huge budget—£14.5 billion—and a Secretary of State to whom some 21,500 public servants are accountable. He alone decides how all that money is to be spent; he alone appoints between 4,000 and 5,000 quango members, who between them, spend £7 billion of public money. We now have three times as many quango appointees as we have elected councillors. He alone decides what the priorities in Scotland will be. We are talking about one man's priorities, one man's dogma and one man's waste—about one man whose party can barely muster 15 per cent. in the latest Scottish opinion poll.
Let me say to the House, with restraint and with care, that the present arrangement is not fair, that it is not just, that it is not working, and that it is threatening the unity of our country, but all we have seen, beneath the veneer of—
Mr. Duncan Smith rose—
Mr. Richards rose—
Sir Hector Monro rose—
Mr. Robertson: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro).
Sir Hector Monro: Having sat through nearly all the debate, I am still awaiting an answer to a simple question. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my constituency runs along the border. Many of my constituents live in Dumfries and work in Carlisle, and many live in Carlisle and work in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman explain to whom those people will pay their tartan tax, and why?
Mr. Robertson: People in Scotland will not have their tax increased or decreased unless they have first voted in a referendum to give the Scottish Parliament the necessary power, and subsequently voted in a Scottish parliamentary election for parties who say in advance that they will use the power. To say that power is a tax is a lie. A decision will be taken by the Scottish people. The liability to pay tax will be determined, as will other taxes in the United Kingdom, by residency, the definition of which will remain the same as it is in current UK tax legislation. That is the specific answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question.
Beneath the veneer of this absolutist, unbending devotion to the wholly negative campaign for absolutely no change is a profound mass of contradictions which at one and the same time debase the argument and produce an incoherence which seriously endangers this country's unity.

1141
What a muddled, confused party are the Conservatives. The Government say in their document that their devolution plans for Northern Ireland will consolidate and strengthen the United Kingdom, but they tell us that devolution for Scotland and Wales would shatter the United Kingdom. The document proposes a 90-strong law-making assembly for Northern Ireland and states that that is how kcal people could take more power over the way their part of the country is governed, but the Government insist that a law-making parliament in Edinburgh and an assembly in Cardiff would be "teenage madness".
The party that is opposed to proportional representation proposes a PR system for the Northern Ireland Assembly, but when we propose a proportional system for Scotland and Wales, and in doing so give up the automatic advantage that we get from first past the post in those two countries, the Conservatives call it gerrymandering. The Government state:
"new arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland must be acceptable to the people".
They propose a pre-legislative referendum as one of the Prime Minister's triple locks on the process.
When we propose a pre-legislative referendum for Scotland and Wales and White Papers, which we shall publish in advance, the Prime Minister promises to use the power of unelected peers at the other end of this building to frustrate a Bill for a referendum. They call the referendum a constitutional monstrosity. This is the Government who dare not even suggest tampering with the funding arrangements for Northern Ireland, and give it the highest per capita public expenditure in the United Kingdom. The same Government propose a punishment raid on Scotland's and Wales's fair share of the national cake as a penalty for democratising the business of running Scotland and Wales.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House a long time. In that time he must surely have noticed the special circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland; the special expenditure that is required and the special distress and sectarian difficulties that exist there. If the implication of what he says is that he would cut the expenditure on Northern Ireland against the background of the terrorism that people in Northern Ireland face, let him be specific. I hope that he will not continue with his misrepresentation of the past few minutes and the sheer, utter drivel that we have had from him since I came into the Chamber.
Mr. Robertson: No, we are not suggesting cutting the fair share of the United Kingdom's resources.
Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Robertson: Perhaps I may be allowed to reply to the Prime Minister. After that, I shall certainly allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene.
We do not intend to cut Northern Ireland's fair share of the United Kingdom's resources, but neither are we threatening to cut the fair share of those resources for Scotland and Wales. The Prime Minister is right when he says that Northern Ireland is special and different, but so
1142
are Scotland and Wales. They have different demands and different needs, ambitions and aspirations. Why should they be denied what the right hon. Gentleman is offering the people of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that absolutely no one is suggesting that any significant fiscal power be devolved to any institution in Northern Ireland, so the arguments for maintaining the same level of services in Northern Ireland as we are entitled to are consequently overwhelming? Will he also take account of the fact that, in the current financial year, Northern Ireland expenditure is being cut in real terms, whereas expenditure in the United Kingdom is rising?
Mr. Robertson: I appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. It saves my coming back. I much admired his criticism of the Prime Minister on his double standards in offering Northern Ireland a settlement and rejecting it for Scotland and for Wales. The word that he used, although it is probably not parliamentary, was that the Prime Minister was making an ass of himself over his attitude to Scotland, and that is true.
This is the Prime Minister who tells us in a bizarre and historically illiterate speech that to tamper with the constitution would end a thousand years of British history, even though Scotland has been in the Union for only 300 years. The same Prime Minister changed a fundamental element in the British constitution to allow a single Tory Member to sue The Guardian newspaper. This is the Prime Minister who tells us that the Scots and the Welsh can vote for secession from the Union and that he will respect the decision, but who tells the same people that they cannot vote for devolution, even though it is by far the most favoured option of the Scottish people and it is that which will save the Union.
The Government say that devolution to Scotland and to Wales is
"the most dangerous proposition ever put before the British people",
but the same Government and the same Prime Minister have no plans to abolish the Scottish Parliament if it is set up, and many key Tory Members were proponents of exactly the same thesis in the 1970s.
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Robertson: The finger of the Secretary of State for Scotland points at the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I am not going to give way. He had better listen to what I have to say.
The finger points, and no wonder, because the tragedy of the hypocrisy, confusion and contradiction behind the Government's position is that the people of Scotland and of Wales are being used as pawns in a dangerously cynical game between wreck-it-all separatists and change-nothing Unionists—a genuine conspiracy between the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to deny the people of Scotland what is their proper vote. Both of them have an interest in polarising the home rule debate between separatism and the status quo and in denying and defying the Scottish people, who simply want the safe, moderate and sensible improvement of the constitution, which is what we offer them.
When the Secretary of State plays these games of constitutional Russian roulette with the separatists, he plays with the very fires that could consume him and,

1143
at the same time, the unity of this country. He is a dangerously foolish man, and his party, many of whose members watch the hysteria of the present Government's arguments with absolute dismay, should take notice of the high-wire act that he is indulging in with regard to the future of this country.
The people of this country—
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Which country?
Mr. Robertson: The people of Britain know that the Conservative party has nothing to offer them in terms of constitutional change. It wants to fracture the Union. It appears that the Secretary of State for Scotland wants to encourage the idea that theirs is the only alternative, but it is absolutely not. When the Prime Minister talks about evolutionary change, he means no change.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In terms of order, am I right in saying that it is traditional in the House—and the hon. Gentleman is always defending its traditions—for an hon. Member, after he refers specifically to another hon. Member, to give way to that hon. Member?
Madam Deputy Speaker: The rule is that the hon. Member who has the Floor has absolute discretion as to whether he gives way or not.
Mr. Robertson: How nice it is to see the hon. Gentleman, who preaches the secession of Scotland from the Union, cherishing the customs and conventions of the House of Commons. That tells us what is going on. I will not give way, as I have a couple of minutes to go and I have certain points that need to be made.
This Tory party, which fought against votes for women, now says no, no, no to what the people want and what they have voted for peacefully in Scotland and Wales time after time. This Tory party, which fought tooth and nail against the creation of the national health service, says that hereditary peers—voting Lords whose right to legislate owes nothing to the people and everything to historical accidents—should continue to make the laws of the land. This Tory party, which has resisted and challenged even equal pay for women, now tells us that the Scots and the Welsh can vote for separation, but not for a new revived union of nations in partnership and amity.
This Tory party and this Tory Prime Minister, who can see that the rest of the world is going down the route of decentralisation and devolved power closer to the people, have nothing to offer the people of this country but criticism, hysteria and fear.
The fact is that this Tory party and its Tory Prime Minister have become the kissing cousins of the separatists, adding paraffin to the flames of nationalism by their arrogant defiance of the sensible middle way—the way that the majority of Scots and Welsh people want to go. This Tory party, its Tory Prime Minister and the Tory Government are clinging on to power like limpets to a wreck, which has nothing left to offer the people of Britain. They should be gone before they inflict any more damage on this country of ours
9.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I should say in fairness to those hon. Members who do not attend regular Scottish debates that that was not one of the best speeches by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). What was remarkable about his speech was that he failed to answer the West Lothian question. He also failed to explain why it could be right that Scotland's people and Scotland's pensioners should have to pay an extra tartan tax so that failed Labour councillors can roost on Calton Hill and risk the integrity of the United Kingdom.
In his speech, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) promised us that he was committed to the idea of freedom of information, but information we got none. Questions we had, but answers we got none. The right hon. Gentleman not only failed to answer the West Lothian question, but it became apparent during his speech that he did not know what it was. I shall always cherish that moment when it suddenly dawned on him that it was about the functions of Scottish Members of Parliament in Scotland, as well as in England.
Those Scottish Members would have no say on health, education and housing, although they would be down here. Their sole purpose down here would be to act as Lobby fodder to enable the right hon. Gentleman to impose socialism—I should not have said that word—rather to impose his policies on England.
Mrs. Fyfe rose
Mr. Forsyth: I will not give way. A lot of points were made in the debate and I plan to answer all of them.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield was asked to tell us who will pay tartan tax. The hon. Member for Hamilton has told us that the same rules would apply, so we will certainly work on that. We must take it then that anyone who spends fewer than 183 days out of Scotland will be liable to pay the tartan tax.
Mr. Maxton rose—
Mr. Forsyth: I do not intend to give way to anyone. I will answer the points raised in the debate.
The right hon. Gentleman refused to say why it was necessary to gerrymander the voting system in a Scottish parliament to achieve a gender balance. The Opposition's proposition is that a Scottish Parliament would be made up half of men and half of women, which would be achieved by putting people on a party list system. As there would be 129 Members of that Parliament, I am not quite sure what would happen to the unfortunate 129th.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked why he was proposing a tax-raising Parliament with legislative powers for Scotland but merely a talking shop for Wales, which would have no tax-raising powers. We got no answer. The right hon. Gentleman and others were asked to explain why Labour wished to impose quangos and then to turn those quangos into assemblies for the 10 regions of England when there is no demand for such assemblies. Answer came there none.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield was asked where the money would come from, and he could not tell us. The right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has

1145
made it clear that there is no extra money, over and above what the Government have planned. On our calculations, English regional assemblies would cost £270 million, and a Scottish Parliament would cost £77 million. From where will the money come? The right hon. Member for Sedgefield gave us no answer. However, we know where the money will come from—out of the health service and out of schools—to pay for those jobs for the boys, the buddies of Labour politicians.
Mr. Donohoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Forsyth: I will give way to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield—who, for understandable reasons, could not stay to listen to all the speeches—because hon. Members made speeches that were diametrically opposed in their interpretation of what he said. Some of my hon. Friends thought that he had given a commitment, were he ever to form a Government, that any legislation on the constitution would be dealt with on the Floor in a Committee of the whole House. Others thought that he had not given such a commitment. I should be happy to give way to him, so that he can make the position clear.
There we have it. Even when we thought that the right hon. Gentleman had answered the question, he had not. When given an opportunity to answer, he refuses. It is quite extraordinary that any serious politician in the House could threaten to gerrymander our constitution by taking such business to an upstairs Committee Room. I wonder what people such as Mr. Crossman, Mr. Gaitskell and Mr. Silverman—who sat on the Select Committee on the Procedure of Public Business—would think of him? They clearly expressed the right of any hon. Member
"to move that any Bill should be retained on the Floor of the House",
and said that,
"with the exceptions indicated, the Government would for their part make a practice of refraining from moving in that sense, and of opposing such a motion if moved from another quarter."
Roughly translated, that means that the sacred concept in the House is that we deal with constitutional matters on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the whole House. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield may pretend to be talking to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). However, if he is not interested enough even to uphold the procedures of the House, not only is he not fit to be Prime Minister, he is not fit for Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman could not tell us why he believed that free legislative referendums were an appropriate procedure in the United Kingdom. If he ever walked through the door of No. 10, we would be faced with rule by plebiscite. Let us add up the number of promises for referendums officially made by Opposition Members. They are now committed to 13 referendums. Jimmy Goldsmith, look out—they are the people who should be calling themselves the Referendum party.
The right hon. Gentleman argued that his proposals for constitutional change would "enhance and strengthen" the Union. Nonsense. With his half-baked proposals, he is the midwife of separatism. Hon. Members in the Liberal and Labour parties should have seen the faces of the nationalists in this debate. In Lenin's words, they are the "useful idiots" of the separatists in the House
1146
The Leader of the Opposition has let it be known that he admires Baroness Thatcher. We saw one thing in this debate—something that Baroness Thatcher was never able to do. He was able to silence the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who sat behind the right hon. Gentleman like a ghost, and he is the man who first asked the West Lothian question. Those who make devolution proposals are still unable to answer that question.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret having to raise this point of order, but I understand that it is a convention of the House that, if one has spoken in a debate, one should be here to hear the reply to it. Is it not also the convention that one should listen to the reply? Could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, prevail on the Leader of the Opposition so that, instead of talking to his colleague the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw)—which he has done for the past 10 minutes—he will listen to what is being said in the debate?
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair, unless the conversation is of such a kind that it interferes with the working of the House.
Mr. Forsyth: So, answers came there none from the right hon. Member for Sedgefield. Instead, we were treated to an exploration of various commitments made in manifestos of the 1970s and early 1980s. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales pointed out so brilliantly, that was rather like the prodigal son lecturing his father on devotion and prudence.
The right hon. Member for Sedgefield might like to reflect on one point as he considers answering the questions. His predecessor as Leader of the Opposition, the late John Smith, is reported as saying:
"members of the party"—
the Labour party—
"who were pressing for devolution to a Scottish Government without the loss of the office of the Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of M.P.s at Westminster were being dishonest."
They are John Smith's words on the unfinished business of devolution to which the right hon. Gentleman says he is committed.
To give him credit, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) answered, or tried to answer, the West Lothian question but, being a Liberal, he gave us two completely contradictory answers. The first was that he thought there should be a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in this House. The second part of his answer was that he agreed with the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), who takes the view that English Members of Parliament only should vote on English business in this House. It may be that the right hon. Member for Yeovil is not inconsistent; perhaps he takes the view that English Members of Parliament should vote only on English business and that there should be a reduction in the number of Members coming to the House from Scottish constituencies. I think we should be told.

1147
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who is a former Secretary of State for Wales, said that he was responsible for devolution in the last Labour Government. I have a word of warning for him: devolution destroyed the last Labour Government, and today we have seen how devolution will destroy this Labour Opposition and their hopes of government for ever.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) made a number of positive proposals for change. The hon. Member for Hamilton is wrong to present my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister as not prepared to embrace change. My right hon. Friend is not prepared to embrace ill thought out change whereby one cannot even answer the basic question about the consequences of any change that threatens the integrity of the United Kingdom and the standing of the House.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a splendid speech, in which he rejected a pre-legislative referendum, which he rightly presented as an assault on the rights of the House. The Leader of the Opposition would do well to read the right hon. Gentleman's speech and embrace some of the respect he has for the status and standing of the House. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield warned us that we were no longer able to get rid of Neil Kinnock on polling day, and in doing so reminded me of the point made by my right hon. Friend—that it was the former Leader of the Opposition who first warned that, if assemblies with tax-raising powers were set up, that would be the beginning of the fracture of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield seemed to be somewhat Eurosceptic. I draw his attention to the fact that the Labour party's Front Benchers' policy is to fragment England into regions and to dissolve the House into competing parliaments and assemblies in order to reduce us to a series of regions in a Europe of the regions.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) pointed out that Scottish Members of Parliament would become second-class Members at Westminster. We would not have the same status or standing. He said that it would damage Scotland's interests and our ability to maintain a strong voice at Westminster, where Scotland's budget would be determined. He rightly warned of the conflict that would arise between Edinburgh and London over funding and powers, which would lead in acrimony to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mark Robinson: Has my right hon. Friend noticed, as I have, that the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) contained not one word about the rights of the people of England? They were all about Scotland and Wales, but what about the rights of the people of England?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend. The leader of the Labour party needs the Scottish Members to impose socialism in Scotland through his Scottish
1148
Parliament and to impose socialism down here because he does not believe that he would be able to obtain a majority in England.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) put forward the case for appeasement as a way of dealing with nationalism. Nationalism should never be met with appeasement. We need to distinguish between patriotism and nationalism. Patriotism is a love of one's own country, not the hatred of someone else's, which is what we have heard from the nationalists.
Mr. George Robertson rose—
Mr. Forsyth: I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman, because the hon. Gentleman would not give way to me.
Mr. Robertson: I gave way to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Forsyth: I am not the Prime Minister. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me.
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State for Scotland intervened three or four times on my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and tried to intervene again on my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), but he refuses to give way to anyone. Is that not an abuse of the customs of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I realise that there is some excitement in the House tonight, but, I repeat, it is up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to decide whether to give way.
Mr. Forsyth: I was happy to give way for clarification of the position on constitutional Bills being dealt with in the House, but my invitation was refused.
I draw the attention of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney to—
Mrs. Ewing rose—
Mr. Forsyth: If I give way to the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Hamilton will accuse me of being a kissing cousin.
Mrs. Ewing: I shall certainly not allow myself to be accused of being a kissing cousin of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He has referred to nationalism. Would he tell the people of Denmark, the people of Sweden, the people of Finland or the people of Ireland that they had no right to govern themselves? Is not the right of self-determination enshrined in the statute books of the international community? Does he recognise that?
Mr. Forsyth: I do not for a moment dispute Scotland's right to be independent. I dispute the set-up proposed by the Leader of the Opposition, which would lead to independence through acrimony and disillusion. If the people of Scotland want to vote for independence, they can.
Scottish National party members are starting to sound like travelling salesmen for Ireland. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) told us that we should

1149
follow the model of Ireland. Unemployment in Ireland stands at 11.8 per cent. Here in the United Kingdom it is 7.5 per cent.
Mr. Donohoe: They do not fiddle the figures.
Mr. Forsyth: On the same basis. We want jobs and prosperity. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan ought to be aware of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) was one of those who thought that the Leader of the Opposition had made a pledge. That just goes to show that anyone dealing with the Leader of the Opposition has to read the fine print. My hon. Friend warned of the legislative quagmire that a Labour Government would get into. The people of this country are concerned about jobs, health, education, defence and law and order—all issues that we have pioneered, bringing prosperity and success.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) reminded us about Irish home rule. I should like to draw the attention of the House to a Cabinet committee's decision of 1919 about Ireland, when there was to be a devolved assembly. The view was:
"In regard to representation in the Imperial Parliament the Committee are clear that so long as the Imperial Parliament exercises taxing powers in Ireland, Ireland must have the right to representation in the Imperial Parliament on the basis of population. This, however, should be coupled with a provision that Irish members shall not be allowed to speak or vote on any question which in the opinion of the Speaker, if it related to Ireland, would lie within the scope of the Irish legislature."
Mrs. Ewing: And they left.
Mr. Forsyth: That is precisely the point that we are trying to make. I am delighted to have the hon. Lady's support on that.
1150
We heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and a number of my other colleagues. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan gave us the usual fantasy economics about the possibility of an independent Scotland.
Our constitution is the staff of political life. It has always been subject to reform; it should never be subject to revolution. Opposition Members, for perceived party advantage, have embarked upon a reckless and incoherent course of constitutional wrecking that would reduce our country to domestic anarchy and international impotence. Behind the Charter 88 waffle and the pretended concern for Scotland and Wales lies nothing more idealistic than a cynical determination to gerrymander our constitution for party interest. It is irresponsibility—
Mr. Ian Davidson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister consistently to refuse to take interventions from Opposition Members when his Conservative colleagues have repeatedly heckled Opposition speakers?
Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already made it clear several times and I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not get the message the first time. It is entirely up to the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he or she wishes to give way.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Constitution

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS [Money]
  Ordered,
  That, in respect of the Town and County Planning (Scotland) Bill [Lords] and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Bill [Lords], if the Bill is committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed; and that as soon as the proceedings on any Money Resolution relating to the Bill have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mrs. Lad.]

Local Government Services (Leicester)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Lait.]
10.1 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I am pleased to see that there are more Members in the Chamber than normal for an Adjournment debate, but I am sure that the number will drop to its customary level within a matter of seconds.
I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate, but I am sad that it has to highlight the threat to local government services in Leicester as a consequence of the Government's revenue support settlement. I discussed Leicester in the local government finance debate two weeks ago, but received no satisfactory reassurances on that occasion, which is why I seek to revisit the subject today.
During that debate, Member after Member said that, despite Government assurances to the contrary, the proposed financial settlement would lead to increased pressure on service provision. I think that my colleagues from Leicester would agree that nowhere is the problem more acute. At a time when the city is preparing to take on major new responsibilities as a unitary authority, it is faced with the worst budget settlement in its history. Inevitably, that will have dire consequences for service provision and development.
Perhaps at this juncture the Minister will seek to answer two specific questions. First, why is Leicester the only 1997 unitary authority to be capped at its notional 1996–97 budget plus l per cent? Secondly, why does Leicester face the lowest budget settlement of any reorganising authority this year or last?
I appreciate that the Government can reasonably argue that, in a budget of over £260 million, some savings should be possible, but the scale of the proposed cuts takes them out of the league of efficiency savings. I should like the Minister's comments on those two questions, and on what he feels would be reasonable efficiency savings in a budget of £260 million.
As I said on a previous occasion, Leicester is non-metropolitan district council that is permitted to overspend in the current year 40 per cent. above standard spending assessment. It gives me no pleasure to make the point again, as I realise that the Minister may use it to attack the city's position, but that is the reality, and to argue that it is wrong and that it is the root of the problem will do nothing to resolve the difficulties that the city will face in the next financial year.
As a unitary authority, Leicester will have a spending limit of some 2 to 2.5 per cent. above standard spending assessment. Unless the Government are prepared to make late changes, that will entail cuts of about £70 million to existing budgets. I am sure that the House will realise that no service can be protected from such a savage reduction in budget.
The city council is already having to look closely at many sensitive areas. There is a proposal to cut £1.7 million from the schools budget, some £500,000 from elderly people's homes, and £1.3 million from employment training. The leisure services in Leicester will be decimated, with the possible closure of
1152
St. Margaret's baths. Housing renewal strategy that assists owner-occupiers in the inner city will be hard hit, neighbourhood centres throughout the city may face closure, and all voluntary organizations—that play a vital part in confronting many social problems—will have their funding affected.
Some organisations, such as the Federation of Moslem Organisations, will cease to receive funding altogether. That is a particularly unhappy decision in a multi-ethnic city such as Leicester.
Perversely, while services are being cut, the capping limit will lead to an £80 fall in band D council tax. Leicester could spend an extra £5.8 million next year and still deliver a reduction in council tax. It will come as no surprise that there is real disquiet among council employees about the impending threat of redundancy. According to the latest calculations, some 300 to 400 staff will be affected, and up to 275 people will face compulsory redundancy. The threat of redundancy is having an adverse affect on staff morale, and inevitably that will persist long after the vesting day of the new unitary authority in April 1997.
The cuts and their consequences have provoked anger and alarm in the community. There have been many public protests and demonstrations at council meetings, calls for industrial action from trade unions, coalitions seeking a budget above cap, and a huge quantity of correspondence seeking reassurance that clearly cannot be given about specific projects.
I hope that, even at this late stage, we can convince the Minister and the Government that it would be a disaster for the new unitary authority to start life with large service cuts and redundancies as a consequence of the unexpectedly harsh revenue settlement for Leicester. The city council recognises the need to rationalise and review services following unitary status, but this is not the time to do it, given the immense pressure imposed by the level of cuts. It is not the best or the most cost-effective way to proceed. The city requires time and a slightly more generous settlement.
The Minister will be aware, because there has been correspondence between his Department and the city council, that there is an option open to the council—if the Government are prepared to agree—and that is for the council to maintain council tax at its present level, and to set a budget above the cap. That would produce an extra £5.8 million, which would offer some protection to key services.
I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate some sympathy towards this proposal. If it was to be adopted and given sanction by the Government, it would afford some further protection to key services, which is undoubtedly necessary at the present time.
10.10 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) on raising this matter in the House, and thank him for giving me—with his typical courtesy and kindness, which I have enjoyed for so many years—a little time in which to speak.
This is likely to be my last speech in the House, after some 27 years of service. It is right that my last speech should be, as the first was, so long ago, a plea to the

1153
Government for fairness and justice for the people of the city of Leicester. I am deeply indebted to those people and especially to my constituents from Leicester, North-West and now from Leicester, West for re-electing me for so long.
At one time I was the first Labour Member north of London up the Ml, and, alas, the only one in the city, and I remember that grim evening so well. I have survived, however, and have done so because of the confidence and kindness of my constituents. I wish them to know how much I appreciate them, as do my family, and as did my wife.
The purpose of being here in this House is to help my constituents and the people I serve to have better lives, but that has not been easy with this Government, partly because they keep cutting the funds and resources available to the council, so that it cannot provide the services it should. They do that in the hope, of course, that the council will be blamed, and that, when it comes to election time, it will be the Labour councils and the Labour candidates who are blamed for what is the disgraceful behaviour of the Tory Government.
I have read the proposals, and I echo every word that my hon. Friend has said tonight. I hope that the Minister will look again—please—at the capping on the budget, and will lift it sufficiently to enable the council to do its job. It is irrelevant to me whether my constituents who seek my help voted for me or not; it should be irrelevant to him and to the Government who controls the council they seek to cap. It is the job of the council to serve the citizens, and it should be job of the Government to enable the council to do so.
Finally, I wish to pay my tribute to the all the people of the city of Leicester of all parties who have been so kind to me, and, indeed, to my father for some 25 years before that. Our friendships have crossed boundaries, and the courtesies and kindnesses that we have received have not been of party, although I am deeply grateful to Councillor Janet Setchfield, to Councillor George Billington, to Councillor Ray Flint and to all my other friends who have helped me within the Labour party.
As a final gesture, I ask the Minister to do a final kindness to me, and to reconsider the Government's proposals, so as to enable Leicester city council to have the funding it needs to do the job that it should.
10.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): It is an unusual debate that contains a swan song, and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) gave an interesting speech. I know that he is as grateful as I am to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) for this opportunity to discuss the problem that Leicester is experiencing. I am sorry that, with his intellect and ability, and as a member of the Labour party in Leicester, he was unable to help the council to straighten out its finances. As I think he suspected I would explain to him—and as I suspect, in his heart, he knows—that is where the incompetence lies.
Leicester's circumstances should first be considered in the context of the local government financial settlement as a whole. The settlement was tight; last year's was tight.
1154
Next year, with a new Conservative Government, again it will be tight—and that is the way it should be. Local government expenditure is about 24 per cent. of central Government expenditure; it needs to be tight for the sake of the economy of a competitive United Kingdom, and it must continue to be tight.
Forward-thinking councils throughout the country have recognised the importance of that, and have sought efficiency savings year after year. Year after year, Leicester obviously has not. It is murally dyslexic—unable to read the writing on the wall.
Although the settlement was tight, it provides all local authorities with sufficient resources to provide good-quality services at affordable cost to council tax payers. In taking our decisions, the Government took account of all the pressures on local authorities, as well as the potential to make savings.
The House should be aware that Leicester's standard spending assessment is the second highest of all unitary authorities, at more than £255 million. Its population is comparatively high, but its SSA in pounds per head of population is the highest in its class. We know that Leicester will make spending plans for provision of new services in its first year as a unitary authority, but the standard spending assessment takes that into account.
The SSA system, used in distribution of revenue support grant for authorities in an area that is subject to local government structural changes, simply reflects the change in circumstances. The same methodology is used for all authorities with the same service responsibilities, and is, of course, based on the relevant data for each authority's area. Reorganising authorities are therefore treated fairly, both individually and relative to other authorities.
As it is a new unitary authority, one of the other influences on Leicester's spending next year is the notional amount calculated to act as a base budget for capping purposes. I know that Leicester had wisely worked very closely with the county to agree disaggregation of the county's budget as part of the notional amounts process. That has ensured that Leicester will be able to budget to spend at least as much in its area next year as was spent this year, if it chooses.
As with many Labour authorities, Leicester considers that it needs an increased share of resources, and that its provisional capping is too low. The permitted increase is a direct reflection of the level of the settlement. Capping is an essential tool to require authorities to play their part in restraining local government expenditure, which accounts for about a quarter of public spending. Its other purpose is to protect council tax payers from higher than necessary council taxes, which would result from excessive increases in local government budgets.
Leicester has a 1 per cent. permitted increase under the provisional capping limits, which is the class permitted increase for those unitary authorities. It therefore needs to consider its performance, which has been studied by the Audit Commission. If we consider the percentage of council tax collected of the amount payable, we find that the average for Conservative authorities is 96, and that for Labour authorities is 92, but for Leicester it is 89.83.
If we consider housing benefit applications processed in 14 days—helping people in need—we find that, for Conservative authorities, the average is 87 per cent., for Labour authorities 81 per cent., and for Leicester

1155
72.7 per cent. If we consider council tax benefit claims processed within 14 days, we find that, for Conservative authorities, the average is 84 per cent. and for Labour authorities 77 per cent., but Leicester collapsed again, to 73 per cent.
If we consider the source of business—development—and measure that by the percentage of planning applications decided within eight weeks, we find that the Conservative average is 79 per cent., the Labour average 76 per cent., but Leicester barely makes it over 52 per cent. If we consider the percentage of rent allowances worked out within 14 days—also helping the poorer people in the area—we find that the Conservative average is 83; the Labour average 72. What is Leicester's average? Less than 63.
It behoves the local authority to get its act together. It has had the opportunity; it has been pointed out before.
The capping principles will not be confirmed until after authorities have set their budgets. If Leicester wishes to budget above its provisional cap, it is, of course, free to do so. We shall take into account all the circumstances of an authority before deciding on a final cap that is reasonable, appropriate and achievable, and I think that we have set that.
Additional resources have been made available to Leicester under a scheme allowing reorganising authorities to bid for supplementary credit approvals to meet the one-off indirect costs of reorganisation. The arrangements for the scheme mean that, in general, authorities will not be required to meet borrowing or interest costs for at least three years, by which time savings should have been realised. I know from my experience in local government that that is an opportunity to make savings instantly, and it appears to have been lost.
Leicester has so far received £6.2 million from the scheme. That includes the allocation made just before Christmas for 1997–98, when Leicester was awarded an SCA maximum amount of £3.1 million.
While we are considering this matter, we should look at some of the local media reports on Leicester councillors. At the beginning of this year and the tail end of last year, Labour councillors in Leicester awarded their leader a £22,145 special responsibility allowance, in addition to his £4,000 allowance. I understand from the local papers that for themselves they adopted a scheme that will result in a massive rise in councillor allowances.
1156
Their basic allowances will increase by 606 per cent. As in Doncaster, they have gone wandering off elsewhere.
Mr. Jim Marshall: I am sorry that the Minister has stooped to that level of political dogfighting, particularly as he has given an incorrect figure. He referred to an increase in members' allowance of 600 per cent. The press forgot to take into account, and the Minister has also clearly failed to take into account, the fact that that ignores the removal of the previous allowances that councillors were paid. The figure is therefore simply incorrect.
I do not wish to lose sight of the real problem. The figures to which the Minister referred amount to less than 0.001 per cent. of the council's overall budget and of the £17 million cut in the real budget. I want the Minister to deal with that problem rather than make cheap political jibes.
Sir Paul Beresford: Will the hon. Gentleman refer back to the first figure I gave? I said that the average council tax collection rate for Conservative councils is 96 per cent.; the Labour average is 92.7 per cent.; and the figure in Leicester is 89.83 per cent. That represents millions of pounds.
The hon. Gentleman should also reflect on what I am trying to point out, without going through the budget blow by blow, which I do not wish to do—if Leicester Labour councillors cannot do it, perhaps they should stand aside and let someone else do it. I am trying to point out that their attitude of mind is at fault. Even if it is a small percentage, it is a poor show that those councillors have taken the opportunity at this time to increase their allowances. If the hon. Gentleman reflects on how he voted at the tail end of last year—I do not know how he voted—it might cause him to think again.
Leicester's new unitary status this year gives it an opportunity to recognise that year on year expenditure needs to be based on decent, efficient services. Council after council throughout the country can manage it. The status and needs of Leicester council have been reflected in its SSA and its status compared with other unitary authorities in the same position. It is at the top of the list for Government grants and for SSA, but it still fails to meet the needs of its local people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Ten o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department had made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16311]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department is responsible for carrying out risk assessments under, among other things, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1994, the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987 and the Control of Asbestos at Work (Amendment) Regulations 1992. All buildings have an asbestos register where its presence has been identified. As far as ozone depleting chemicals are concerned, surveys of fire fighting and cooling equipment have been carried out and the use of these substances has either ceased or is in the process of being phased out.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [16421]

  Mr. Boswell
  Environmental assessments are carried out for all new buildings and major refurbishment of existing buildings under the Building Research Establishment's environmental assessment method—BREEAM. These include energy use and waste management.

  As a result of energy surveys and auditing through a computerised database, a programme of energy efficient schemes has been initiated.

  Under our action plan for green housekeeping, there is a requirement on all our sites to minimise the generation of waste and implement recycling schemes. A series of formal audits of laboratories is planned for 1997–98.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many mink fur farms there are in England by county. [16406]
  656
  Mrs. Browning
  At 17 February 1997, there were the following mink farms in England:

  County

  Number of licensed mink farms

  Cornwall

  1

  Dorset

  1

  Hampshire

  1

  Isle of Wight

  1

  Lancashire

  5

  Northumberland

  1

  Staffordshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  2

  Total

  13

  Hens
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will introduce measures requiring pop-holes in housing associated with free-range poultry systems to be a minimum of 30 cm high and 75 cm wide; [16520]

  (2) if he will ensure that laying hens in colony systems have their beaks trimmed only for therapeutic purposes; [16510]

  (3) if he will ensure that sufficient pop-holes are provided in free-range poultry systems to allow all birds easy access into and out of the house; [16512]

  (4) if he will require that perching space of at least 18 cm per hen is provided in colony systems; [16514]

  (5) if he will ensure that the stocking rate of laying hens in colony systems does not exceed (a) seven hens per square metre of floor plan area in single-tier systems and (b) 15.5 hens in multi-tier systems; [16516]

  (6) if he will introduce maximum flock size in a laying hen colony system of 2,000; [16511]

  (7) if he will ensure that hens in free-range systems are not stocked in any one paddock at more than 1,000 hens per hectare under a rotational management system; [16513]

  (8) if he will ensure that sufficient nest boxes are to be provided for laying hens in colony systems to permit access for all hens. [16517]

  Mrs. Browning
  These questions concern the implementation of recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems.

  As our detailed response to that report made clear, there is no overall benefit to farm animal welfare in introducing unilateral legislation where this would disadvantage our own producers while continuing to allow imports produced in systems with lower welfare standards. We have instead worked with our European partners to develop a new Council of Europe recommendation on the welfare of domestic fowl and will continue to press the European Commission to bring forward its overdue proposals for a directive laying down new or revised Community standards for laying hens.
  657
  Our input into the forthcoming negotiations will be underpinned by our extensive programme of research into farm animal welfare and informed by the recommendations in the existing report and by the outcome of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's current review of the welfare of laying hens in all types of system.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ensure that(a) hens in colony systems and (b) broiler chicken flocks are required to be inspected at least twice each day by those in charge of the units. [16763]

  Mrs. Browning
  This question concerns the implementation of recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's reports on the welfare of laying hens in colony systems and the welfare of broiler chickens.

  As our detailed responses to these reports made clear, we accept that twice daily inspection makes good management practice. This will be reflected in our input into forthcoming negotiations on new Community standards for laying hens and nationally in the new welfare code for broilers which is currently in preparation.

  Sheep
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will ensure that embryotomy is carried out only on dead lambs; [16504]

  (2) if he will ensure that only qualified veterinary surgeons trained in the technique carry out trans-cervical artificial insemination in sheep; [16503]

  (3) if he will prohibit combined castration and tail docking of lambs less than 24 hours old. [16507]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of sheep made it clear that we agree with these points. We intend to address them in the revised welfare code on sheep which is currently in preparation.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will ensure that tail docking of lambs over the age of six weeks is carried out only by a veterinary surgeon for therapeutic purposes under anaesthetic; [16506]

  (2) if he will ensure that surgical castration of lambs is performed only when the lambs are under anaesthetic by a veterinary surgeon. [16505]

  Mrs. Browning
  We made it clear in our detailed response to the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of sheep that, in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence as to the best way forward, we thought it inappropriate to make changes to current legislation on tail docking and castration. We are funding further research and will review the position in the light of the results.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many holdings on which sheep are kept in England and Wales are registered with MAFF; and how many of those have been allocated with a flockmark in accordance with article 3 of the Sheep and Goats (Identification, Movement and Records) Order 1996. [16687]
  658
  Mrs. Browning
  A total of 70,742 holdings on which sheep are kept in England and Wales have been registered with MAFF under the terms of article 3 of the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996. They have all been allocated with a flock mark.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of sheep for slaughter have been exported from the United Kingdom to the Republic of Ireland since 1 January; and in each case which ferry route was declared in the journey plan. [16684]

  Mrs. Browning
  Since 1 January 1997 there have been two consignments of sheep exported from Britain to the Irish Republic for slaughter. The transporter declared that the Cairnryan to Larne ferry crossing would be used.

  Broiler Chickens
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will introduce a maximum stocking density for broiler chickens; [16508]

  (2) if he will require farmers to keep records of stocking densities of broiler chickens; [16509]

  (3) if he will require the internal floor area available to each bird in a broiler chicken house to be clearly and permanently displayed at the entrance to the house. [16515]

  Mrs. Browning
  These questions concern the implementation of recommendations in the Farm Animal Welfare Council's report on the welfare of broiler chickens.

  As our detailed response to that report made clear, there is no overall benefit to farm animal welfare in introducing unilateral legislation where this would disadvantage our own producers while continuing to allow imports produced in systems with lower welfare standards. We have instead worked with our European partners to develop the new Council of Europe recommendation on the welfare of domestic fowl. This was adopted in 1995 and will serve in due course as the basis for EU legislation.

  In addition to implementing many of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's recommendations, the new welfare code for broilers, which is currently in preparation, will take the new Council of Europe requirements into account.

  Carcases (Labelling)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will require that carcases and cuts from animals slaughtered by religious methods be clearly labelled at the point of sale. [16518]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following a comprehensive review of labelling issues in 1990, the Food Advisory Committee recommended that there should be no statutory requirement to provide information about slaughtering methods. The Government accepted this advice and have no plans to reconsider the issue. Such information may be provided voluntarily if it is true and not misleading.

  Animal Slaughter
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to ensure the legal exemption from pre-stunning livestock before slaughter is withdrawn in respect of animals slaughtered for religious purposes. [16519]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government have no plans to withdraw this exemption which recognises a fundamental matter of religious belief to communities that are an important part of our national life.

  Badgers
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans in respect of badger removal programmes. [16685]

  Mrs. Browning
  Professor Krebs and his committee are conducting an independent review of the scientific evidence relating to badgers and tuberculosis in cattle. It would be inappropriate to consider changes to the current policy until Professor Krebs has reported.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) current reported outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis and (b) current and proposed badger removal programmes in Gloucester. [16686]

  Mrs. Browning
  There are currently 37 herds in Gloucestershire under movement restrictions due to bovine TB. There are 13 badger removal operations in progress. A further seven badger removal operations have been approved and investigatory work has commenced on three of these.

  European Commission Inspection Report
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place in the Library a copy of the report received by him from the European Commission following a visit from an inspector from the Commission between 4 to 7 November 1996. [16688]

  Mrs. Browning
  A report from the European Commission has not been received.

  Rabies
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 321, what plans he has to consult the British Veterinary Association on possible changes to the United Kingdom's rabies control arrangements when his Department's consideration of the matter has been concluded. [16846]

  Mrs. Browning
  Should the review conclude that alternative options to quarantine are available, the views of the British Veterinary Association would be sought.

  Livestock Transport Adviser
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what qualifications were required in the appointment of a livestock transport adviser; when this position was first established; and if he will list the names, qualifications and experience of each holder of the post. [16689]
  660
  Mrs. Browning
  I will write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many owners of quarantine kennels have agreed to abide by the voluntary code of practice on welfare standards in quarantine premises; and how many of those premises have been inspected by the state veterinary service to date. [16690]

  Mrs. Browning
  Seventy-one owners of quarantine premises have agreed to abide by the voluntary code of practice. Of these, 59 have been inspected by the State Veterinary Service to date.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the inspections by the state veterinary service of quarantine premises that agree to abide by the voluntary code of practice on welfare standards to be completed. [16692]

  Mrs. Browning
  The majority of inspections by the State Veterinary Service to ensure compliance with the voluntary code of practice have been carried out. But the programme will not be completed as early as originally planned due to the urgency of work connected with the outbreaks of Newcastle disease and the BSE accelerated cull programme. It will be completed as soon as possible.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many quarantine premises have(a) indicated that they will not comply and (b) have not yet responded to the Minister's invitation to comply with the voluntary code of practice on welfare standards. [16693]

  Mrs. Browning
  Four quarantine premises have indicated that they do not wish to comply with the voluntary code of practice at this stage. Two have not yet responded to the invitation.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many ports and airports through which cats and dogs may be imported into the United Kingdom have facilities for holding animals prior to them being taken into quarantine. [16694]

  Mrs. Browning
  Five ports and nine airports.

  Challenge for Agriculture Programme
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in implementing the challenge for agriculture programme in English objective 5b areas. [17476]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Six areas in England are designated for support under objective 5b of the EC structural funds. They are:The South West—Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and parts of Devon and Somerset;
  The Marches—most of Shropshire and parts of Hereford and Worcester;
  The Northern uplands—parts of Lancashire, parts of north and east Yorkshire, Durham, Cumbria and Northumberland;
  Lincolnshire—Most of northern and eastern Lincolnshire, excluding the city of Lincoln and other mainly urban areas;

  661
  East Anglia—the Fens, rural Norfolk, Lowestoft and rural east Suffolk; and
  Midland uplands—Peak district of Staffordshire and Derbyshire.

  The challenge for agriculture programme is formed of those elements of the objective 5b programmes which are part-financed by the guidance section of the European agriculture guidance and guarantee fund—EAGGF. The programme also attracts national public funding, mainly from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and levers in substantial amounts of private sector funding to support the investments that it encourages.

  Assistance is available for a wide range of farm-related activities that will promote economic development in the objective 5b areas, in particular, farm tourism, agricultural and horticultural development and diversification, protection and enhancement of the environment, generation of energy from alternative sources by the agricultural industry and the promotion and marketing of local and regional products.

  The first EAGGF projects under the challenge for agriculture programme in England were approved in March 1995. In the two years since then, a total of 144 projects have already been approved across the six designated areas with EAGGF grant of £13 million and MAFF grant of £10 million committed to them. As these projects are implemented, they will lead to the eventual total investment of almost £50 million in the objective 5b areas concerned. Projects supported to date vary from small schemes to develop and promote local meat production to multi-million pound projects promoting farm tourism, offering business support to farmers and protecting the environment.

  I am particularly pleased with the interest shown to date in the challenge for agriculture programme across the agricultural sector and expect that many more worthwhile projects will come forward for funding before the end of this programme in 1999. It demonstrates MAFF's commitment to the rural economy, with sound and sustainable economic benefit in the objective 5b areas concerned.

  My ministerial colleagues and I maintain a close interest in the development of objective 5b and the challenge for agriculture programme and have previously visited a number of projects which have been approved and are in receipt of funding. Further such visits are planned for 21 February to projects in the northern uplands, the south-west, the Marches and Lincolnshire objective 5b areas.

  A list of the challenge for agriculture projects approved to date in each of the six English objective 5b areas has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Cattle Cull
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the estimated cost of the disposal per tonne of cattle carcases(a) by incineration, (b) by landfill and (c) by other means. [10342]

  Mr. Baldry
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 January 1997]: The cost of rendering and incinerating meat and bonemeal and tallow derived from cattle carcases is around £215 per tonne.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the minimum age requirements enforced by her Department. [15912]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment is not in general responsible for enforcing age requirements. However, age requirements do apply to certain education, training and employment measures, including the following:
  Children must be aged four to be eligible for the nursery voucher scheme.

  The majority of places offered under the assisted places scheme begin at age 11. From September 1996, places are now available for the first time for primary age children as young as five. Assisted sixth form places are also available.

  Current regulations require pupils to remain at school until one of two dates: for pupils whose birthday falls between 1 September to 31 January, it is the end of the spring term—that is, the Easter holidays—following their 16th birthday; for those whose 16th birthday falls between 1 February to 31 August, it is the Friday before the last Monday in May. The only exception to the above is for those children who have not been registered at a school at any time during the year preceding their 16 birthday. For these children, the upper limit of compulsory school age is their 16 birthday.

  For programmes covered by the training and enterprise councils operating agreement, and other associated contractual documentation:
  young people have to have reached the minimum school leaving age (as above) before they can join youth programmes;
  people need to be 18 before they are eligible for training for work;
  pupils are eligible to take part in work experience if they are in the last term of year 10 or year 11;
  children of school age are eligible to use the child care services provided by the out-of school childcare grant.

  To receive income-based jobseeker's allowance, claimants must have reached the age of 18; 16 and 17-year-olds may receive JSA however, if they are in circumstances prescribed in the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996—regulations 59, 60 and 61—or if the Secretary of State decides they would suffer severe hardship unless an allowance was paid. In either case, 16 and 17-year-olds must meet the basic requirement conditions for JSA.

  The teachers' superannuation regulations impose minimum age requirements in four areas:

  membership of the scheme—age 18;

  purchase of added years—age 20;

  retirement on age grounds—age 60;

  premature retirement—age 50.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the ways in which her Department has demonstrated the ability to improve efficiency and competitiveness through an
  663
  environmental audit of waste management within those buildings her Department occupies; and if she will make a statement. [16429]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Departmental waste management centres on internal monitoring of procedures; waste segregation and recycling—that is, white paper, newspaper, aluminium cans, cardboard, toner cartridges, redundant furniture and hazardous waste.

  Castle View house, Runcorn is the only new building to come onto the Department's headquarters estate in recent years. Following its completion in 1992, a Building Research Establishment environmental assessment method was successfully completed in December 1993. DfEE HQ has set a waste minimisation target of 5 per cent. for the 1997–98 financial year. A cross-site working group has been set up to co-ordinate waste minimisation and encourage the use of the Environment Agency "DIY Environmental Checklist".

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 26 November 1996,Official Report, column 173, when she intends to publish the results of the research carried out by the Employment Service occupational psychology division. [16682]

  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 Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about when the results of the research carried out by the Employment Service Occupational Psychology Division will be published. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  My predecessor, Mike Fogden, said in his letter of 26 November that Occupational Psychology Division were considering their findings and a report would be published in due course. In considering those findings we identified the need to examine in more detail aspects of the help we offer former Incapacity Benefit claimants. We have now decided that it would be more practical and useful to publish that further work, once completed, alongside the original work as a single package. I anticipate publication in late Spring. As Mr. Fogden promised in his earlier letter I will ensure that a copy is sent to you and that one is placed in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobfinder's Grant
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her latest estimate of the numbers of(a) severe disablement allowance, (b) incapacity benefit and (c) income support claimants who would gain if eligibility for the jobfinder's grant were extended to people in receipt of those benefits at the time of their application. [16673]

  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.
  664
  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about possible take-up of the Jobfinder's Grant by claimants in receipt of Severe Disablement Allowance, Incapacity Benefit and Income Support. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  I understand from the Department of Social Security that the current number of claimants in each of the three groups are approximately as follows: Severe Disablement Allowance—331,000; Incapacity Benefit 1,541,000 and Income Support—2,059,000. Some people may be claiming more than one of these benefits.
  We do not know what the take-up of the Jobfinder's Grant amongst these groups would be if it was made available. For jobseekers who have been registered unemployed for two years or more it is about 6%, but we would expect it to be lower for these other groups of claimants, perhaps in the order of 2%, giving a possible take-up of around 80,000.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many students registered in the(a) first, (b) second, (c) third and (d) fourth years of (i) a university and (ii) a college course applied for a student loan between 1990 and 1996; [16522]

  (2) how many students registered in graduate studies applied for a student loan between 1990 and 1996; [16523]

  (3) what was the percentage of defaults on student loan repayments between 1990 and 1996. [16524]

  Mr. Forth
  These are matters for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Education Vouchers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to pilot a voucher scheme for education at(a) primary and (b) secondary levels. [16598]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list, for each education authority in England,(a) the number and percentage of pupils entitled to free school meals for each year since 1992 and (b) the spending on school meals in the same period. [16770]

  Mrs. Gillan
  As the available information is lengthy, I have arranged for it to be placed in the Library.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amount of the total budget allocated to training and enterprise councils was subsequently allocated to training providers in the most recent year for which figures are available. [16776]

  Mr. Paice
  Government contracts with TECs for a range of activity as set out in TEC business plans. We do not collect detailed information on TEC payments to training providers.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what monitoring takes place by her Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16760]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Department for Education and Employment operate within the terms of financial memoranda agreed with the Department.

  These require NDPBs to establish an internal audit service whose role is to provide assurance on the control arrangements to the accounting officer of the NDPB. This assurance is provided through the implementation of a risk-based audit plan.

  Each plan identifies a cyclical programme of reviews designed, over time, to subject the full range of running cost expenditure to system audit. This process reviews those systems that control the use of external consultants. The frequency and depth of review would depend on the perceived degree of "risk" of the various arrangements within the particular organisation.

  The Department's own internal audit division ensures that the overall service provided by the internal audit provider to the NDPB is of appropriate quality.

  Additionally, NDPBs are aware of the Cabinet Office report on the Government's use of external consultants and have been given copies of the Department's guidance on best practice in the use of external consultants.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will place in the Library a copy of the Ernst and Young study into the Employment Service headquarters structure. [16772]

  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 Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question on whether a copy of the Ernst and Young study of the Employment Service Headquarters will be placed in the Library of the House. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  You may find it helpful if I give you some background to the work. The Employment Service (ES) commissioned the consultants Ernst and Young to help the ES Board think through issues concerning the future role of our Headquarters (Head Office and Regional Offices) and to develop an overview of the type of Headquarters the Agency would need. We accomplished this through a series of workshops of ES Board members and senior managers, facilitated by the consultants, who provided advice and fact-finding based on their work in organisations elsewhere. Our aim is now to draw on that work to inform more detailed change projects over the next three years.
  Because of the way in which the consultants worked with the ES Board there is no formal consultants' report from the Headquarters Review project, but my predecessor, Mike Fogden, wrote to all staff in Headquarters on 31 October last year summarising the ES Board's main conclusions. I set out the key strands of our thinking and proposals for further work from that communication below.
  666
  ES's field operations have previously been subject to rigorous examination of need, effectiveness and cost. The Agency has become smaller as unemployment has fallen and it is now appropriate to apply a similar approach to our Headquarters functions.
  Our examination concluded that the ES could be managed better and more cost effectively by eliminating duplication of functions between Head and Regional Offices which lead to reworking and loss of economies of scale; improving our Headquarter business processes; and contracting out some support functions.
  This has led us to develop a blueprint for ES Headquarters of a small directing and enabling Head Office and a regional management tier focusing on the delivery of services to our clients.
  To realise this, we have commissioned more detailed work to reduce HQ activities in areas not directly related to delivery of services to our clients; rebrigade (possibly to single sites) a number of support functions, and actively explore the scope for contracting out a number of support functions.
  I think it worth adding that this is essentially a management issue rather than a policy one and the changes we are proposing will not affect our services to jobseekers and employers through Jobcentres - indeed we aim by focussing our Headquarters more directly on the core business of the ES to improve the services we provide through our Jobcentre network.
  I hope this is helpful in giving more information on what we are seeking to achieve.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what advice has been issued to sector managers about the effect of exchange rate changes between the pound and the ecu on 1996 approvals for European social fund moneys; by how much allocations are to be reduced in total; and if she will make a statement. [16774]

  Mr. Paice
  For the objective 3 programme of the European social fund, it is currently estimated that there will be enough sterling to meet claims for existing projects approved by the Department's European social fund unit in 1996. The monitoring committee responsible for overall management of the objective 3 programme in Great Britain will make the final decision as to what extent further projects should be approved. When it has reached a conclusion on this, the Department will issue appropriate advice to sector managers.

ENVIRONMENT

  Brent Spar
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library copies of correspondence between his Department and other bodies regarding the process or content of discussions to dispose of the Brent Spar, as set out in the papers listed as Brent Spar papers 1 to 24, placed in the Library by his Department. [15650]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since my Department has no statutory powers to exercise in this field, it had no correspondence of the kind contained in the Brent Spar papers 1 to 24 placed in the Library by the Department of Trade and Industry, except that, as one of the UK co-ordinating points for the Oslo and Paris commissions, it received a
  667
  copy of the letter of 17 February 1995 from the secretariat of those commissions, which forms No. 18 of those papers.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at what stage and on what date his Department was first consulted by the Department of Trade and Industry about Shell's wish to dispose of the Brent Spar at sea; and if he will place in the Library copies of the correspondence between the two Departments on this matter. [15651]

  Mr. Clappison
  Discussions were held between Departments at various levels and in various contexts. My Department was involved from at least February 1994. It is not the normal practice to publish material passing between Government Departments in the course of preparing advice for Ministers.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the energy conservation authorities which did not submit their first reports to the Secretary of State under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995(a) by 30 November 1996, (b) by 31 December 1996, (c) by 31 January 1997 and (d) to date. [15883]

  Mr. Clappison
  The energy conservation authorities whose reports were not received by the dates referred to are in the following list:

  (a) not received by 30 November 1996

  Adur Distnct Council

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Alnwick District Council

  Ashford Borough Council

  Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

  Barrow in Furness Borough Council

  Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

  Bath and North East Somerset Council

  Berwick upon Tweed District Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council

  Borough of Blackburn

  Borough of Crewe and Nantwich

  Borough of Macclesfield

  Boston Borough Council

  Bradford Metropolitan Borough Council

  Brent Council

  Bridgnorth District Council

  Brighton Borough Council

  Bristol City Council

  Broadland District Council

  Burnley Borough Council

  Cannock Chase Council

  Canterbury City Council

  Carlisle City Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Chester City Council

  Chorley Borough Council

  Christchurch Borough Council

  City of Durham

  City of London

  668

  City of Newcastle upon Tyne

  City of Plymouth

  City of Salford

  City of Stoke on Trent

  City of Worcester

  Colchester Borough Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  Copeland Borough Council

  Cotswold Borough Council

  Craven District Council

  Crawley Borough Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  Derwentside District Council

  Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

  Dover District Council

  Eastbourne Borough Council

  Eastleigh Borough Council

  East Dorset District Council

  East Northamptonshire Council

  Eden District Council

  Ellesmere Port and Neston Borough Council

  Fenland District Council

  Forest of Dean District Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gillingham Borough Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Gravesham Borough Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  Halton Borough Council

  Hambleton District Council

  Harborough District Council

  Harrogate Borough Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Hereford City Council

  Horsham District Council

  Hove Borough Council

  Hyndburn District Council

  Isle of Wight Council

  Islington Council

  Kerrier District Council

  Lancaster City Council

  Lichfield District Council

  London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

  London Borough of Barnet

  London Borough of Bexley

  London Borough of Camden

  London Borough of Croydon

  London Borough of Ealing

  London Borough of Enfield

  London Borough of Hackney

  London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

  London Borough of Haringey

  London Borough of Harrow

  London Borough of Havering

  London Borough of Hillingdon

  London Borough of Hounslow

  London Borough of Lambeth

  London Borough of Merton

  669

  London Borough of Redbridge

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  London Borough of Sutton

  London Borough of Tower Hamlets

  London Borough of Waltham Forest

  London Borough of Wandsworth

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Maldon District Council

  Manchester City Council

  Mendip District Council

  Mid Devon District Council

  Milton Keynes Borough Council

  Mole Valley District Council

  Newbury District Council

  Newcastle under Lyme Borough Council

  New Forest District Council

  Newham Council

  North Cornwall District Council

  North Devon District Council

  North Dorset District Council

  North Tyneside District Council

  North Warwickshire Borough Council

  North Somerset Council

  North Wiltshire District Council

  Pendle Borough Council

  Penworth District Council

  Portsmouth City Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

  Redditch Borough Council

  Restormel Borough Council

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council

  Rossendale Borough Council

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea

  Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

  Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

  Rushmoor Borough Council

  Ryedale District Council

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sedgefield Borough Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  Sheffield City Council

  Shepway District Council

  Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council

  Slough Borough Council

  South Gloucestershire Council

  South Herefordshire District Council

  South Lakeland District Council

  South Northamptonshire Council

  South Ribble Borough Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  South Somerset District Council

  South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Southwark Council

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  Stafford Borough Council

  670

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  St. Edmundsbury Borough Council

  Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council

  Stockton on Tees Borough Council

  Surrey Heath Borough Council

  Swale Borough Council

  Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council

  Tandridge District Council

  Teesdale District Council

  Teignbridge District Council

  Test Valley Borough Council

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  Thamesdown Borough Council

  Thanet District Council

  Tonbridge and Mailing Borough Council

  Torbay Borough Council

  Torridge District Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council

  Wansbeck District Council

  Warrington Borough Council

  Warwick District Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wear Valley District Council

  Wellingborough Borough Council

  West Dorset District Council

  West Wiltshire District Council

  West Lancashire District Council

  Westminster City Council

  Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council

  Winchester City Council

  Wokingham District Council

  Wolverhampton Council

  Worthing Borough Council

  Wychavon District Council

  Wycombe District Council

  Wyre Borough Council.

  (b) not received by 31 December 1996

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Alnwick District Council

  Berwick upon Tweed District Council

  Broadland District Council

  Castle Point Borough Council

  Colchester Borough Council

  Cotswold District Council

  Dartford Borough Council

  East Dorset District Council

  Fenland District Council

  Fylde Borough Council

  Gillingham Borough Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  Harborough District Council

  Mole Valley District Council

  North Devon District Council

  North Somerset Council

  671

  Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

  Sevenoaks District Council

  South Ribble Borough Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  Spelthorne Borough Council

  Teesdale District Council

  Warwick District Council

  Waverley Borough Council

  Wellingborough Borough Council

  West Wiltshire District Council

  Wyre Borough Council

  (c) not received by 31 January 1997

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Alnwick District Council

  Berwick upon Tweed District Council

  Fenland District Council

  Gosport Borough Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  Wellingborough Borough Council.

  (d) not received to date (13 February 1997)

  Allerdale Borough Council

  Alnwick District Council

  Berwick upon Tweed District Council

  Fenland District Council

  South Staffordshire District Council

  Wellingborough Borough Council.

  Migratory Song Birds
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account his Department takes of measures taken by applicant countries to the EU to deter the killing of migratory song birds in determining its policy towards their application. [15793]

  Mr. Clappison
  Wild birds in the European Union are protected by the provisions of the EC wild birds directive, 79/409/EEC. My Department would expect any new countries who acceded to the EU to abide by the provisions set out in that directive.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make representations to the Government of Cyprus regarding the killing of migratory song birds by hunters; and if he will make a statement. [15795]

  Mr. Clappison
  Bird protection measures in Cyprus are the responsibility of the Cypriot Government. The British Government are limited in what they can ask of other countries regarding their own legislation.

  Water and Sewerage Companies
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the indicative values of the water, and water and sewerage companies used to calculate rates of return for the period 1989 to 1994. [16233]
  672
  Mr. Clappison
  The indicative values of individual companies formed part of the financial projections which underlay the initial setting of price limits for each company. These financial projections are commercially confidential.

  Tranquil Areas
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will map comprehensively the tranquil areas of England as defined by the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and what steps he is taking the preserve the tranquillity of those areas. [16227]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have no plans to map the tranquil areas of England. Ministers took great interest in the Council for the Protection of Rural England's tranquil area maps project and fully recognise the importance of areas of the countryside where people can go for peace and tranquillity. The Government's White Paper on rural England sets out our framework for maintaining a proper balance between development and protection across the whole of the countryside. The forthcoming revision of planning policy guidance note 7 will emphasise that a central tenet of sustainable development is the integration of development with protection of the environment.

  Pollution (North Sea)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made by the United Kingdom in meeting the targets set to reduce pollution in the North sea at the second North sea conference held in London in 1987. [16101]

  Mr. Clappison
  The second North sea conference in 1987 agreed to take measures to reduce urgently and drastically the total quantity of substances that are persistent, toxic and liable to bioaccumulate reaching the aquatic environment of the North sea via rivers and estuaries, with the aim of achieving a substantial reduction—of the order of 50 per cent.—in total inputs from these sources between 1985 and 1995.

  As shown in the progress report to the fourth North sea conference, placed in the Library, the UK has achieved reductions of this order for "red list" substances, with the exception of zinc, where diffuse sources such as corrugated iron, cosmetics and car tyres have proved to be more significant than thought in 1987.

  Student Accommodation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many students in further and higher education he estimates were accommodated in the private rented sector in(a) 1987, (b) 1992 and (c) the last year for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of the growth in student accommodation since 1987. [16166]
  673
  Mr. Clappison
  The number of students in the private rented sector estimated from the labour force survey are:

  Thousands

  Full-time course

  Part-time course

  1987

  260

  80

  1992

  360

  130

  1996

  470

  180

  Notes:

  Students on full-time courses include those on sandwich courses and training in nursing.

  Like all estimates based on sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability.

  There are no reliable figures on student accommodation yet provided by educational institutions.

  Sheffield Development Corporation
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the work of the Sheffield development corporation since its inception; and which organisation has been designated to continue its work. [16292]

  Mr. Curry
  As my hon. Friend will recall, recognition was given to the work of the Sheffield development corporation during the recent parliamentary debates on the winding up of the corporation—Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 28 January 1997 and Official Report, House of Lords 6 February 1997 columns 1801–04. I fully endorse the views expressed by the Under-Secretary of State. It is clear that there is agreement on all sides that Sheffield development corporation has fulfilled its mission to bring economic regeneration to the lower Don valley and has made a most significant contribution to changing the image of Sheffield.

  No single organisation has been designated to continue regeneration in Sheffield. The city council and British Waterways will bring to a conclusion a number of projects under way at the end of the corporation's lifetime. It is for the city council and other local partners to reach a conclusion on whether they wish to establish a single-purpose organisation to take regeneration forward. We have shown our commitment to partnership working in Sheffield by committing £124 million to projects in the city over the next seven years under the single regeneration budget challenge fund, capital challenge and estates renewal challenge fund.

  Environmental Performance Checklist
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress with the Environment Agency's production of a DIY environmental performance checklist for premises managers on the Government estate. [16455]

  Mr. Clappison
  The checklist has been produced, and copies have been sent to green co-ordinators in Government Departments and to premises managers on the Government estate.

  English House Condition Survey
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish(a) the main
  674
  report of the 1996 English house condition survey and (b) the energy report of the 1996 English house condition survey. [16581]

  Mr. Clappison
  We expect to produce the main report of the 1996 EHCS before the end of this year and the energy report next year.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment 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. [16576]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No Ministers or officials from the Department of the Environment have attended a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee.

  North of England Assembly
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the North of England Assembly to discuss regional government. [15287]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has not met the North of England Assembly.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people are currently on waiting lists for social housing in(a) London, (b) England and (c) Coventry. [16552]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England report the number of households on their housing waiting lists at 1 April each year in their annual housing investment programme returns. The latest available figures relate to the position on 1 April 1996, and are given in the 1996 "HIP 1 All Items Print", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Corresponding data are not collected centrally for housing associations, some of which do not operate waiting lists.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16759]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This is a matter for the management of the bodies concerned.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for grants to homelessness voluntary organisations under section 180 of the Housing Act 1996. [17264]

  Mr. Clappison
  The successful grant programme established under section 73 of the Housing Act 1985 will be continued under section 180 of the 1996 Act. The grant
  675
  programme has been particularly successful in helping single, homeless people to find and keep accommodation, and it continues to represent good value for money.

  For 1997–98, the Government have made available £7.9 million to assist voluntary sector organisations to meet the running costs of practical projects which help single people in housing need. In addition to continuing to fund all eligible existing projects, we shall be inviting bids from voluntary organisations to set up new projects in 1997–98.

  English Nature
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the financial, management and policy review of English Nature. [17265]

  Mr. Clappison
  The financial management and policy review of English Nature has been completed. The intention of the review was to see whether English Nature's system of internal control over both administrative and programme expenditure were reliable and effective. Today, the report was presented to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and to the chairman of English Nature, and I have arranged for copies of the report to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The review by my Department has made more than 50 recommendations. As a result of the review, there will be a major change in the relationship between the Department and English Nature, which will include the introduction of single running cost control, a revised financial memorandum, and a management statement.

  Single running cost control is an annual cash limit for a non-departmental public body running costs which replaces more detailed item scrutiny. It enables a non-departmental public body to manage its own administration expenditure within that limit, subject to such overall constraints as Government policy on pay. The establishment of single running costs control emphasises that primary responsibility for both financial control and value for money rests with the non-departmental public body's own management.

  For a non-departmental public body to be able to follow such an approach requires the support, encouragement and co-operation of its sponsoring Department. English Nature and the Department will work together to achieve this aim.

  I consider all the recommendations important. Together, they constitute a package which will enable English Nature to continue to ensure that it is operating in an efficient and effective manner.

  Water Conservation and Supply
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his response to the first report of the Environment Committee on water conservation and supply (HC 42, 1996–97) published on 20 November 1996. [17475]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have today published their response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Environment Committee's first report on water conservation and supply. We welcome the report, which 676
  broadly mirrors the views expressed in our own paper "Water Resources and Supply: Agenda for Action" which we published last October. In that, we set out a framework of policy and strategy to ensure that the water we need in the longer term is provided effectively, efficiently, and in an environmentally sustainable way.

  The Government agree with the Committee that leakage reduction must be a top priority for the water companies in relation to water conservation, and notes a recent report from the Director General of Water Services that water companies' revised targets—which he may enforce—aim to reduce losses from their pipes in aggregate to around 15 per cent. of distribution input by the turn of the century. Moreover, the Government consider that it is sensible for water companies to offer their customers free or significantly discounted leakage detection and repair services for supply pipes, particularly where the supply system is stressed.

  In 1996, the Government placed water companies under the statutory duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. The Director General of Water Services has reviewed companies' draft plans for doing this and is seeking improvements in some cases. As the Government pointed out in "Water Resources and Supply: Agenda for Action," and as the Committee states in its report, it is important for all organisations which are in a position to influence water usage by their employees or by the greater public to set an example, and for water consumers to be responsive.

  In promoting water conservation, the Government will be bringing forward in 1998 new regulations to replace the existing water byelaws as a means of preventing wasteful use and undue consumption of water. Through their environmental technology best practice programme, the Government have already provided advice to industry and commerce on reducing water use and will be continuing their initiatives in this field. The Government provide advice to the agricultural sector on storage and efficient use of water, supported by research and development.

  The Government share the Committee's concern about the impact of climate change on water resources and demand for water. The work of the Government's climate change impacts review group has focused attention on this issue, and has been made possible in large measure by continuing Government-funded research into climate prediction. The Government are encouraging water companies and the Environment Agency in taking full account of the implications of climate change scenarios for their duties. The Government note the private sector ability of the water companies, under the economic regulation of the Director General of Water Services, to put in place measures to strengthen supplies by making rapid improvements to the existing water supply system, and the investment of more than £400 million for that purpose since 1995.

  Our response emphasises the role of water companies, their regulators, the wider water industry and water consumers in contributing to the sustainable management of water resources through water conservation. With the continuing dry weather over much of England and Wales, these issues must remain at the forefront of our attentions. The Government have been monitoring the water resources position since the onset of this dry period in the

  677
  spring of 1995. We have commissioned the Environment Agency to produce in March a report on the prospects for water supplies, based on the position at the end of February as the likely winter recharge period draws to a close, and on the actions water companies have in hand to fulfil their duty to maintain supplies.

  Urban Development Corporations
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change the 1996–97 external finance limits for the urban development corporations. [17478]

  Mr. Gummer
  Grant in aid to Teesside development corporation is being increased by £2,000,000 to allow it to bring forward regeneration projects. This will be funded by a transfer from city challenge. There will be an associated increase in the external financing limits for urban development corporations by £2,000,000 from £207,817,000 to 209,817,000.

PRIME MINISTER

  Millennium Club
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister how many times over the last three years, he has addressed the Millennium Club in his official capacity; and if he will list the names of those present and the companies they represented on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [15696]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: None.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister what reports he has received on the offer made to prospective members of the Millennium Club by Mr. Alan Lewis, concerning access to Ministers of Her Majesty's Government and influence over Government policy; and if he will make a statement. [15661]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: None.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February. [15459]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 20 February. [15460]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16752]
  678
  The Prime Minister
  For this purpose, my Department is part of the Cabinet Office. I refer the hon. Member to the replies given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13 January,Official Report, columns 13–14.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many housing associations registered in Scotland are registered with Scottish Homes; and how many of these have elected members of local authorities on the management boards or committees; [16595]

  (2) when Scottish Homes expects the Irvine housing association to have drawn up and implemented new membership rules for the association; [16596]

  (3) under what rules housing associations are obliged by Scottish Homes to operate in relation to their housing allocation systems; and if Scottish Homes has approved the current housing allocation system operated by the Irvine housing association; [16597]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested relates to operational matters which are the responsibility of Scottish Homes. I have asked the chairman, Mr. John Ward, to write to the hon. Member with the relevant information.

  Housing
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what remedy in law is available to Scottish local authorities seeking to improve the condition of a residential property under the ownership of an individual who is allowing it to fall into a state of disrepair; and what responsibilities and duties the different legislative provisions place on the local authority in relation to the property which is the subject of any action. [16599]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Building (Scotland) Act 1959, the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 give local authorities power in specified circumstances to serve notices on persons having control of houses which are in disrepair or likely soon to be so. The powers under the 1959 Act apply to houses or other buildings which are considered dangerous, those under the 1982 Act are commonly used to require repairs to the exterior of buildings in common ownership, and those under the 1987 Act apply to houses which are considered to be in a state of serious disrepair or are likely to deteriorate rapidly or to cause material damage to another house. In each of these cases, the notice will require the owner to take remedial action within a specified time; if it is not complied with the authority may carry out the works and recover the cost. Similar powers may be available also under local legislation.

  Mixed-sex Wards
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to eliminate mixed-sex wards in Scottish national health service hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [16676]
  679
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no such proposals at present. However, during 1995, we instructed all trusts and health boards to review current practice in relation to mixed-sex accommodation and to draw up action plans to ensure that patients' concerns are addressed.

  In addition, we introduced a new charter commitment from September 1996, so that all patients in Scotland receive prior notification of the type of accommodation in which they will be treated and can defer admission until single-sex accommodation is available if they so wish.

  Subsequent checks have confirmed that the issue is being addressed effectively and sensitively by the Scottish health service so that patients' rights and dignity are respected. We continue to monitor closely progress on this issue.

  Care and Repair Projects
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what public resources have been made available for care and repair projects in(a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97; [16677]

  (2) how many houses have been improved in (a) 1994–95, (b) 1995–96 and (c) 1996–97 with assistance from care and repair projects. [16678]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Comprehensive information is not held centrally. The available information, relating to projects jointly funded by Scottish Homes and local authorities, is set out in the table.

  Revenue funding (estimate)1 (£ million)

  LA capital grant contribution2 (£ million)

  Number of homes covered

  1994–95 (outturn)

  0.8

  3.1

  616

  1995–96 (outturn)

  1.0

  3.7

  794

  1996–97 (planned)

  1.2

  3.2

  750

  Source:

  Scottish Homes.

  Notes:

  1 Total revenue funding for salaries and other running costs of projects estimated by grossing up from Scottish Homes contribution, which is normally matched equally by local authorities.

  2 Contributions are in the form of improvement and repair grants for works costs. Other costs are met from care and repair client's own resources, and charitable and other funding. Scottish Homes does not contribute to these costs.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16751]

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

  Ministers and their Departments are responsible for monitoring the performance of the NDPBs which they sponsor, and for ensuring that they operate within the
  680
  framework of controls set out in the Treasury and Cabinet Office guidance "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments."

  A Scottish Office booklet, "The Hiring and Managing of External Consultants", which draws on the recommendations of an efficiency scrutiny "The Government's Use of External Consultants"—published in November 1995—gives guidance on best practice in the procurement and management of external consultants. This booklet is available to all Scottish Office NDPBs.

  Mr. Alan Lewis
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the occasions on which Scottish Office Ministers have met Mr. Alan Lewis in an official capacity since 1987; and what subjects were discussed on each occasion. [15664]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: The Department's records indicate that my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, the then Minister of State at the Scottish Office, met Mr. Lewis in an official capacity on 7 July 1988 to discuss industry matters.

  Messrs Kynoch Of Keith
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the cost of the public support provided to Messrs Kynoch of Keith; and how many jobs have been created or protected in Scotland as a result of that support. [15667]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: The public financial support which the Kynoch Group plc, formerly G. and G. Kynoch, has received has been through the investment by the former Scottish development agency which has passed to Scottish Enterprise as its successor body. Scottish Enterprise's investment in Kynoch Group plc is an operational matter within the delegated authority of Scottish Enterprise and I have asked the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Illingworth Morris and Crombie Mills
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what discussions his Department held with(a) Crombie Mills of Aberdeen and (b) Illingworth Morris between 1988 and 1993; [15812]

  (2) what discussions (a) he and (b) his Department held with Mr. Alan Lewis about (i) Illingworth Morris and (ii) Crombie Mills of Aberdeen in the period 1988 to 1993. [15811]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: The Department's records indicate that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, then Minister of State for Industry at the Scottish Office, met Mr. Lewis on 7 July 1988 to discuss industry matters. Subsequently on 5 September 1989 he visited J. and J. Crombie, Grandholm Mills, Aberdeen.
  681
  The Department's records also indicate a discussion between an official of the Department and a representative of J. and J. Crombie on or around 3 June 1991, to establish information about the closure of Grandholm Mills, which had just been announced.

  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance was provided from public funds to(a) Crombie Mills of Aberdeen and (b) Illingworth Morris between 1988 and 1993. [15813]

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

  Council House Waiting Lists
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were on council house waiting lists in Scotland in(a) each Scottish local authority and (b) Scotland as a whole in each year from 1990 to 1996; and if he will make a statement. [15893]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Reliable information is not held centrally.

  Road Construction
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of(a) motorway and (b) trunk roads have been constructed in Scotland for each year since 1992; and what percentage in each year was in rural areas. [16272]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information set out as follows is the motorway and trunk road milage constructed on major schemes completed in Scotland in each year since 1992. This information is not held centrally for minor schemes.

  Miles

  Year

  Motorway (length)

  Trunk road (length)

  1992

  12.5

  9.5

  1993

  6.3

  16.4

  1994

  16.5

  5.5

  1995

  16.1

  2.5

  1996

  9.2

  4.5

  At least 80 per cent. of this total mileage over the five-year period was constructed in rural areas.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many miles of(a) motorway and (b) trunk roads he proposes to construct in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [16273]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It is not possible to give a precise figure of mileage to be constructed in any future year. In 1997, a total of 20.7 miles of motorway and 12 miles of trunk road major schemes will be under construction or will commence construction. In 1998, a further 13.7 miles of motorway and 3.9 miles of trunk road is programmed for construction.
  682
  Mrs. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the total expenditure on(a) motorway and (b) trunk road construction in Scotland since 1992. [16295]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Major scheme expenditure on motorways and trunk roads in Scotland since 1992 is set out in the following table. As it is not practical to attempt to extract and allocate the expenditure on minor schemes over this period to either motorway or trunk road, this has been listed separately.

  £ million

  Year

  Motorway

  Trunk Road

  Minor Schemes

  1992–93

  90

  25.1

  17.1

  1993–94

  56.5

  45.1

  9.9

  1994–95

  151

  8.4

  17.2

  1995–96

  86

  12.8

  12.9

  1996–971

  53

  26

  13.0

  1 Forecast outturn 1996–97.

  Departmental Salaries
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff in his Department and each of its executive agencies earn a gross annual salary of £43,000 or more. [16297]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of staff in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies earning a gross annual salary of £43,000 or more at 1 January 1997 is shown in the following table.

  All staff in the Scottish Office and its executive agencies earning a gross annual salary of £43,000 or more at 1 January 1997

  Department

  Total

  Scottish Office (core)

  220

  Executive agencies

  10

  Scottish Office (excluding SPS)

  230

  Scottish Prison Service

  11

  Pupils
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage and how many(a) primary school pupils and (b) secondary school pupils were in classes of over 30 in the latest census (i) in each local authority and (ii) in total; and what was the (1) actual and (2) percentage change in numbers against the previous year's census. [16296]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Statistics on class size in primary schools are collected biennially. The available information is given in the table. Schools have been allocated to their current education authority. Information on individual class sizes in secondary schools is not collected centrally.
  683

  Publicly funded primary schools1 Primary pupils in classes of 31 or more, at September in each year2

  1993 Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  1995 Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Change 1993–1995 Change in number of pupils in classes of 31 or more

  Education authority

  Number

  As percentage of all pupils

  Number

  As percentage of all pupils

  Number

  Percentage change3

  Scotland

  75,286

  17

  79,266

  18

  3,980

  5

  Aberdeen City

  2,744

  17

  3,118

  20

  374

  14

  Aberdeenshire

  3,080

  15

  3,134

  15

  54

  2

  Angus

  2,627

  28

  2,013

  21

  -614

  -23

  Argyll and Bute

  928

  12

  1,191

  15

  263

  28

  Clackmannanshire

  731

  17

  1,021

  23

  290

  40

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,052

  16

  2,016

  16

  -36

  -2

  Dundee City

  3,368

  26

  3,324

  27

  -44

  -1

  East Ayrshire

  2.023

  18

  2,455

  22

  432

  21

  East Dunbartonshire

  1,983

  20

  2,497

  24

  514

  26

  East Lothian

  1,015

  14

  834

  11

  -181

  -18

  East Renfrewshire

  3,003

  37

  2,729

  33

  -274

  -9

  Edinburgh, City of

  7,696

  26

  8,599

  28

  903

  12

  Falkirk

  2,330

  19

  2,697

  22

  367

  16

  Fife

  5,387

  17

  4,704

  15

  -683

  -13

  Glasgow, City of

  7,702

  15

  8,407

  16

  705

  9

  Highland

  1,996

  10

  1,795

  9

  -201

  -10

  Inverclyde

  1,122

  14

  1,244

  16

  122

  11

  Midlothian

  1,181

  16

  1,381

  19

  200

  17

  Moray

  732

  9

  886

  11

  154

  21

  North Ayrshire

  2,138

  17

  2,139

  17

  1

  0

  North Lanarkshire

  4,556

  15

  4,103

  14

  -453

  -10

  Orkney Islands

  64

  4

  33

  2

  -31

  -48

  Perth and Kinross

  1,541

  15

  1,605

  15

  64

  4

  Renfrewshire

  3,829

  25

  4,084

  26

  255

  7

  Scottish Borders

  544

  6

  857

  10

  313

  58

  Shetland Islands

  0

  0

  31

  1

  31

  —

  South Ayrshire

  2,317

  24

  2,752

  29

  435

  19

  South Lanarkshire

  4,327

  16

  4,491

  17

  164

  4

  Stirling

  911

  14

  894

  13

  -17

  -2

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,176

  13

  1,248

  14

  72

  6

  West Lothian

  1,993

  14

  2,859

  20

  866

  43

  Western Isles

  190

  7

  125

  5

  -65

  -34

  1 Includes education authority, grant aided and self governing schools.

  2 Includes pupils in classes covering more than one stage.

  3 Percentage change based on small numbers should be treated with caution, as a small actual change could result in a large percentage change.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to expand opportunities within the aid programme for British consultants in(a) fisheries and (b) other matters, following United Kingdom withdrawal from UNIDO. [16356]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Wide-ranging opportunities for British consultants are already available under the British development programme. The ODA is actively developing a new strategy for strengthening its links with the private sector in a broad range of sectors.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of the decision to withdraw from UNIDO on(a) developing countries and (b) employment of British consultants by UNIDO. [16532]

  Dr. Fox
  The impact of UK withdrawal from UNIDO will have little effect on developing countries. The Government believe that greater impact for developing 684
  countries can be achieved by the use of other channels for our resources. There is no restriction in UNIDO's statute on consultancies being awarded to non-member states.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Booth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if an aid settlement has yet been agreed for St. Helena. [16536]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  I am pleased to advise that my right hon. and noble Friend, the Minister for Overseas Development has this month approved a £26 million development commitment to St. Helena covering the next three years. This significant allocation, which represents an increase over previous plans, is linked to an agreement between the St. Helena Government and Her Majesty's Government on a three-year country policy plan. This provides a detailed framework for the reform and development of the island's economy. It illustrates the Government's continuing commitment to ensuring economic development and proper governance of the UK dependent territories as a whole.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Comparative Statistics
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy when asked by hon. Members to provide comparative statistics between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom, or the United Kingdom as a whole, to obtain the necessary figures from other Departments and to publish them. [15819]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  No. It would not be appropriate to provide statistical information on subjects for which I am not responsible.

  Car Parking Spaces
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many car parking spaces are provided(a) on the Stormont estate and (b) at Rosepark House (i) free of charge and (ii) for which charges are made; how many were provided five years ago; and if he will make a statement. [15817]

  Mr. Moss
  There are some 2,461 parking spaces in the Stormont estate, including 240 at Netherleigh, and 235 at Rosepark house. The corresponding figures five years ago were 2,405, including 240 at Netherleigh, and 230. Charges are not made for the use of these spaces.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16753]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The central Northern Ireland civil service guidance on employment of consultants is derived from the efficiency unit's 1994 report on "The

  Unintentionally homeless1

  col. a

  col. b

  col. c

  col. d

  col. e

  col. f

  col. g

  Year

  Presented as homeless

  Intentionally homeless

  Number

  Percentage (d/b)

  In priority need

  Percentage (£/b)

  1996–972

  8,168

  606

  7,562

  92

  3,430

  42

  1995–96

  10.768

  847

  9,921

  92

  4,319

  40.1

  1994–95

  10,068

  848

  9,220

  91.6

  4,014

  39.9

  1993–94

  9,731

  804

  8,927

  91.7

  3,971

  40.8

  1992–93

  10,099

  1,054

  9,045

  89.6

  4,061

  40.2

  1991–92

  10,081

  1,235

  8,846

  87.7

  4,158

  41.2

  1 Includes those in priority need.

  2 To 31 December 1996.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15917]

  Mr. Streeter
  The statutory minimum age requirements enforced by the Lord Chancellor's Departments and the agencies for which the Lord Chancellor has ministerial responsibility are as follows.

  Individuals under the age of 18 cannot act on their own behalf as plaintiffs. Proceedings are issued through a next friend or guardian ad litem. This applies in all cases unless
  686
  Government's Use of External Consultants". Each Northern Ireland Department has, as required, drawn that guidance to the attention of its non-departmental public bodies. It is then for the Department concerned to settle the appropriate monitoring arrangements for NDPB's conduct in this area, taking account of the particular circumstances in which each NDPB operates.

  Housing
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the percentage change in the number of households assessed as being in priority need by the Housing Executive between 1986 and 1996. [16879]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive whose chief executive has advised me that the category "priority need" was established in 1989 and that the information from that date is as follows:

  Year

  Number in priority need

  1989–90

  3,604

  1995–96

  5,166

  Change

  43 per cent.

  The total number of presenters increased by 61 per cent. from 6,675 in 1989–90 to 10,768 in 1995–96.

  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many households have presented themselves as homeless to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each of the last five years and the current year to date; and what percentage of those have been assessed as being(a) unintentionally homeless and (b) in priority need. [16880]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the chief executive has advised me that the information is as follows:

  the claim is being made for the recovery of wages—County Courts Act 1984, section 47. In those circumstances, minors can act for themselves.

  An individual under the age of 18 cannot act on his or her own behalf as a defendant in civil proceedings. This applies in all cases save where the claim is for a liquidated amount and permission has been granted by the court allowing the minor to act for him or herself.

  Jurors qualify for jury service if they are at least 18 years old on the day jury service is to start.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many asylum seekers have appealed against refusals of asylum received since July 1996 for each month since July 1996. [15806]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Doug Henderson, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of appeals received for each month since July 1996 from asylum seekers who have been refused asylum.
  The number of appeals received per month by the Immigration Appellate Authority since July are as follows:

  1996

  July: 2,242

  August: 1,656

  September: 1,822

  October: 2,909

  November: 2,165

  December: 1,552

  1997

  January: 2,375

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available, indicating(a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his Department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. [16185]

  Mr. Streeter
  This reply is given on behalf of the Court Service, the Land Registry, the Northern Ireland Court Service, the Public Record Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department headquarters and its associated offices, and the Public Trust Office. No comprehensive records are held centrally and it has not therefore been possible in the time available to supply all the information sought or to verify some of the details provided.

  Total expenditure in the Court Service during 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 to date was £927,575, £2,103,273 and £1,870,237 respectively. No information is held centrally about the names of the agencies used, the number of staff employed or the length of contracts. It has not therefore been possible to determine the median cost per person recruited.

  The Public Record Office has used five agencies; Blue Arrow, Brook Street, Reed, Kelly Services and Hays Accountancy. Total expenditure in 1994–95, 1995–96 and 1996–97 to date was £149,968.57, £223,260.31 and £202,034.45 respectively. No information is available about the number of staff employed or the length of the contracts. It has not therefore been possible to determine the median cost per person recruited.
  688
  Cost information for the Public Trust Office and LCD headquarters was not kept separately during 1994–95 but total expenditure in this year was £439,462. This related to the employment of 134 agency staff in LCD headquarters and its associated offices, and 38 agency staff in the Public Trust Office.

  The Public Trust Office has used six employment agencies in the last three years; Ecco Employment Agency Hays Accountancy Personnel, Eclipse, Myriad, Key Entry and Recruit Plc. In 1995–96, 125 staff were employed; and in 1996–97 to date, 127 staff have been employed, at a cost of £24,208 and £514,717 respectively.

  In LCD headquarters and its associated offices, 108 agency staff were employed during 1995–96, and 113 in 1996–97 to date, at a cost of £834,534 and £565,490 respectively. A total of 12 agencies have been used; Alfred Marks, City Centre Bureau, PS Personnel, Eclipse, Workflow, Kelly Services, Excel, Dagmar Tara, Premier Ltd and Adecco UK Ltd. As neither organisation holds detailed records, it has not been possible to determine the median cost per person recruited.

  The Northern Ireland Court Service has used two employment agencies during the period in question; Grafton Recruitment and Kennedy Recruitment. A total of eight, seven and six staff were employed in the last three years, at a cost of £73,946,78, £36,213.77 and £36,610.88 respectively. Based on 1966 figures, the median cost in respect of Grafton Recruitment was approximately £60 per day, £4.50 per hour in respect of Kennedy Recruitment but the average length of contract is not known, as each case varied according to staffing needs.

  The Land Registry has not used private employment agencies in the last three years.

  Whitemoor Prison (Escape)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place a copy of the transcript of the second Whitemoor escape trial in the Library. [16543]

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

  Letter from Michael Huebner to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Parliamentary Secretary of the Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question as to whether a copy of the transcript of the second Whitemoor escape trial will be placed in the House of Commons Library.
  The trial judge gave two rulings: one on discharging the jury, and a second on the contempt of court proceedings. A transcript has been made of these rulings and I will ensure that a copy is placed in the Library.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16755]
  689
  Mr. Streeter
  Five non-departmental public bodies have the budgetary power to appoint external consultants. They are all required to report to the Department at regular intervals showing expenditure on external consultants/professional fees. Guidance on best practice on the procurement and management of external consultants is contained in the efficiency unit scrutiny report, "The Government's Use of External Consultants", which is available to all NDPBs.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee if he will list the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from the House during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17058]

  Sir Raymond Powell
  Some 12 items valued in total at approximately £10,000 have been reported stolen or otherwise unaccounted for in the House of Commons during the past 12 months. Of these, two were IT equipment. No item was valued at £5,000 or more.

WALES

  BSE
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of BSE cases in Wales to date; and if he will make a statement. [15833]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The latest number of confirmed BSE cases in Wales is as follows:

  Year

  Cases

  Pre 21 June 1988

  54

  21 June 1988 to 31 December 1988

  131

  1989

  507

  1990

  1,083

  1991

  2,234

  1992

  3,716

  1993

  3,627

  1994

  2,296

  1995

  1,322

  1996

  600

  1997

  7

  EU Funding
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the income, from grants, subsidies and other payments received by or on behalf of Wales from the European Union in each of his last three years. [15993]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 14 February 1977]: Over the last three calendar years, project sponsors in Wales have received structural fund payments of over £123 million. However, since there is no obligation on direct applicants to European schemes to notify my Department, and since many EU schemes of assistance involve a direct
  690
  approach to the Commission or use of an intermediary, the total income into Wales from all European funded sources will be somewhat greater.

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available, indicating(a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his Department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. [16181]

  Mr. Hague
  Information is not kept in the form requested. The available information is as follows:

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97 (to date)

  £

  £

  £

  Kelly Services (UK) Ltd.

  11,406

  65,090

  67,163

  Kinetic Ltd.

  1,737

  3,521

  4,934

  Pertemps Recruitment Partnership

  892

  18,338

  1,203

  Adia (UK) Ltd.

  —

  15,817

  —

  Brook Street Bureau

  —

  —

  579

  Atebion Training

  —

  —

  551

  Employment Agency

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  14,035

  102,766

  74,430

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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. [16424]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has examined its waste management activity and, as a result, various initiatives are in place which are improving overall efficiency and reducing environmental effects.

  In particular, the Welsh Office has a range of targets aimed at reducing the amount of waste it sends to landfill. Substantial quantities of waste paper, aluminium cans, toner cartridges, plastics, old wooden pallets and polythene packaging are being directed away from landfill.

  In addition to the environmental benefits, these initiatives are bringing significant financial gains through the generation of revenue and reduction in waste disposal costs.

  My Department is committed to doing more where possible in future. Welsh Office staff are regularly encouraged toward further improved performance including the minimisation of waste at source.

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental of Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment his Department has made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and

  691
  (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings which his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16284]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department's property management regime provides for professional consultants to carry out regular inspections and assessments of Welsh Office buildings aimed at identifying all significant hazardous materials. Welsh Office property records highlight factors relating to our buildings which present a potential health and environmental hazard. From the information compiled, annual maintenance programmes are devised and implemented to ensure full compliance with statutory and health and safety obligations.

  Specifically, asbestos registers are maintained for all Welsh Office property. Other significant health and environmental hazards covered by Welsh Office risk management arrangements include: legionella, water chlorination, radon and ozone-depleting substances.

  Welsh Office policy on ozone-depleting substances is to reduce and ultimately eliminate their use in its buildings. My Department has replaced all halon fire extinguishers with ozone-friendly alternatives. It has also established an inventory of the remaining equipment which contain ozone-depleting chemicals. These substances are used mainly by the Welsh Office in the operation of the main refrigeration plant. All such systems are subject to stringent maintenance regimes intended to readily detect any abnormalities.

  NHS Trusts (Pay Rises)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what data he has collected from national health service trusts in Wales on the pay rises which have been awarded to chief executives of trusts during this wage round(a) in percentage terms and (b) in money terms. [16768]

  Mr. Hague
  None. Details will be included in annual reports, which will be placed in the Library. The amount of remuneration is a matter for each trust to determine. I will ask the chairman of the relevant trust to write to the hon. Member if he will provide details of individual cases of concern.

  Nurses
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what data he has collated on the numbers employed in the NHS in Wales as agency nurses, and bank nurses on a whole-time equivalent basis. [16771]

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Agency

  Number of staff

  Cost £

  Number of staff

  Cost £

  Number of staff

  Cost£

  Median

  Average length of contract

  Manpower

  nil

  nil

  9

  21,516

  5

  14,478

  not available

  8 weeks

  Queensway

  nil

  nil

  1

  2,819

  1

  5,951

  not available

  n/a (call off contracts)

  Reed

  14

  65,400

  14

  107,928

  77

  119,830

  9,924

  15 weeks

  Tepl Ltd.

  8

  36,886

  14

  90,482

  12

  135,969

  13,860

  13 months

  Blue Arrow

  nil

  nil

  2

  2,600

  nil

  nil

  Not available

  15 months

  Purcon

  nil

  nil

  1

  20,907

  2

  42,071

  14,762

  8 months

  692
  Mr. Hague
  Information on agency and bank nurses is not collected centrally. However, informal inquiries in 1995 suggested that the contribution made by such staff was around 500 whole-time equivalents.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16748]

  Mr. Hague
  The use of external consultants by those non-departmental public bodies sponsored by my Department is subject to the same controls as apply to all their activities which are funded by public expenditure. These include operating within the parameters of management statements and financial memoranda agreed with the Treasury and the Department, audit scrutiny and a structured programme of corporate planning.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many student nurses have been accepted on courses under Project 2000 in each year since its commencement; how many student nurses have dropped out during their courses; and how many Project 2000 qualified nurses have not taken up employment as nurses in the national health service in Wales. [16769]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is as follows. Information on numbers who have not taken up employment in the national health service in Wales is not collected centrally.

  P2000 nurse students

  Wales

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  Starters

  100

  927

  786

  656

  725

  788

  Leavers during course

  12

  216

  174

  114

  79

  52

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available, indicating(a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his Department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. [16190]

  Mr. Hanley
  The tables provide the information:
  693

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Agency

  Number of staff

  Cost £

  Number of staff

  Cost £

  Number of staff

  Cost£

  Median

  Average length of contract

  clayman

  1

  16,500

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  16,400

  1 year

  Chorley

  nil

  nil

  1

  16,500

  nil

  nil

  16,400

  1 month

  Hodgkinson

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  8,191

  16,382

  5 months

  Total

  23

  118,786

  42

  262,652

  98

  326,490

  Overseas Development Administration—figures

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Agency

  Number of staff

  Cost £s

  Number of staff

  Cost £s

  Number of staff

  Cost £s

  Median

  Average length contract

  Josephine

  Sammons

  Nil

  Nil

  9

  23,921

  63

  155,168

  Not available

  5 weeks

  Alfred Marks

  30

  62,666

  10

  73,296

  8

  27,445

  Not available

  5 weeks

  Office Angels

  10

  36,045

  6

  38,671

  5

  44,691

  Not available

  7 weeks

  PAX

  12

  85,039

  11

  93,321

  9

  56,769

  Not available

  5 weeks

  ECCO

  3

  10,741

  2

  10,330

  2

  14,103

  Not available

  12 weeks

  City Centre Bureau

  1

  21,757

  1

  18,155

  1

  8,645

  Not available

  8 weeks

  Rogers and Gillespie

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1

  12,356

  Not available

  3 weeks

  Total

  56

  216,248

  39

  257,694

  89

  319,177

  Former Yugoslavia
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the French Foreign Minister about the outcome of the latter's meeting with the leaders of the opposition in Yugoslavia; what plans he has for a similar meeting; and if he will make a statement. [16582]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The French Foreign Ministry has briefed us on the outcome of the Serbian opposition leaders' recent visit to Paris. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to be able to see the three leaders in London on 26 February.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 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. [16570]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Ministers attend Scottish Grand Committee meetings as part of their normal parliamentary duties and officials do so as part of their normal departmental duties. Expenditure falling to the Department has been limited to travelling costs. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary attended the Scottish Grand Committee meeting on Friday 5 July 1996 in Dumfries and Monday 13 January 1997 in Edinburgh and had officials in attendance as necessary.

  Turkey
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make 694
  representations to the Turkish Government to review the prison sentence imposed on Soner Onder at the Istanbul state security court on 12 December 1996. [16775]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have been following the case of Mr. Soner Onder closely and with concern. We understand that Mr. Onder will exercise his right of appeal. Our embassy in Ankara has made sure that the Turkish authorities are fully aware of the widespread dismay here at his sentence.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16758]

  Mr. Hanky
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 13 February 1997,Official Report, column 296.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the minimum age requirements enforced by her Department. [15918]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Department and the two agencies for which it is responsible—Historic Royal Palaces and The Royal Parks—have a minimum age requirement of 16 for external recruitment. The agencies have a minimum age of 17 for jobs involving driving, and The Royal Parks has a minimum age of 18 and a half years for the recruitment of constables.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the ways in which her 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 her Department occupies; and if she will make a statement. [16418]

  Mr. Sproat
  Following an external energy audit, my Department is undertaking a phased implementation of work to our buildings to achieve a cost-effective reduction in energy consumption. This will assist in my Department's efforts to make 8 per cent. savings in consumption by 2000, against a base line setting year of 1994–95, in accordance with targets set by green Ministers. A waste audit is also being undertaken to aid the process of setting realistic targets for waste minimisation in the near future. Paper saving measures are already in place as well as recycling schemes for glass, cans, plastic cups and paper.

  Torbay Cinema
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will take steps to ensure the protection of the listed features of the Torbay cinema. [16540]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Torbay cinema is a grade II* listed building, and is protected under the provisions of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Listed building consent is required for demolition of the building and for any works of alteration or extension which would affect its special character. Any application for consent is a matter for the local planning authority in the first instance. In determining applications for consent, the local planning authority must take account of Government policy as set out in planning policy guidance note 15: "Planning and the Historic Environment". The guidance advises that there should be a general presumption in favour of the preservation of listed buildings. In the case of listed building consent, applications relating to grade I and II* buildings, the local planning authority is required to notify English Heritage and—if it is minded to grant consent—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who is empowered to call in cases for his own decision.

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what assessment her Department had made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings her Department occupies; and if she will make a statement. [16312]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department employs consultants to undertake assessments in accordance with statutory requirements so as to identify hazardous material in buildings occupied. Registers are maintained of any known materials and regular further inspections made.

  In respect of ozone-depleting substances, all equipment where such substances exist is maintained by external contractors in accordance with statutory and best practice requirements as part of their terms of employment. Risk assessments are carried out as part of this work.

  British Library
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the original estimated cost of the new British library project in London; what is the latest estimated cost; and how much of this cost will be met by central Government. [16447]

  Mr. Sproat
  The original estimated cash cost of the whole of the new British library project was £450 million. It now stands at £511.1 million. The project is being funded wholly by central Government.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what has been the cost to public funds of the attendance of(a) Ministers and (b) officials of her Department at meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee in Scotland since December 1994; and if she 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. [16566]

  Mr. Sproat
  No Ministers or officials from the Department of National Heritage have attended a meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what monitoring takes place by her Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16754]

  Mr. Sproat
  Non-departmental public bodies are established to operate at arm's length from the Department and are often set up under specific statutory powers. An NDPB's board has responsibility for the day-to-day management and control of the body's functions, including the use of external consultants.

  My Department is responsible for monitoring the performance of the NDPBs it sponsors, and for ensuring that they operate within a framework of controls drawn up between my Department and its NDPBs. Within this framework, they are given administrative delegations within which they operate. The use of external consultants is one such delegated limit. If the NDPB wishes to let a contract above its delegated limit, it must seek my Department's prior approval.

  Television Licence (Pensioners)
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will implement the recommendation of the Peacock committee that pensioners on supplementary benefit should not have to pay a television licence fee. [16583]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 19 February 1997]: The Peacock committee report of 1986 recommended that pensioners drawing supplementary pension in households wholly dependent on a pension should be exempt from the television licence fee. Supplementary pension was replaced in 1988 by the income support scheme. The cost of identifying pensioners drawing income support in households wholly dependent on a pension would be disproportionate and the only realistic alternative would therefore be to introduce free television licences for all

  697
  pensioners drawing income support. Such a measure would inevitably prompt demands for similar treatment for other people on income support, many of whom might be thought to have an equally valid claim to a concession. The cost of any such concession in lost licence fee revenue would be considerable and would need to be offset by an increase in the licence fee for all other licence holders, including pensioners. The Government are not persuaded that this would be justified.

TREASURY

  Finance Bill
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations took place in respect of clauses 51 to 54 of the Finance Bill before presentation of the Bill. [16103]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Customs published a consultation document, entitled "Rationalisation of Debt Recovery Law" in May 1996. It was sent to 180 trade and advisory bodies and invited comments on Customs' proposal for changes to the existing debt recovery legislation.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the recent council meeting of the Economic and Finance Ministers of the European Union. [17101]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I represented the UK at the Economic and Finance Council of the European Union in Brussels on 17 February.

  The Council carried out an examination of the Belgian new convergence programme for the period 1997 to 2000 and welcomed the programme's strategy for fiscal consolidation as credible, adequate to the particular public finance conditions of Belgium and well adapted to the institutional structure of the state.

  The Council agreed in principle to provide exceptional financial assistance to Armenia, Georgia and Tajikistan. A final decision will be taken at a later meeting following a formal Commission proposal for this assistance. This is subject to a UK parliamentary scrutiny reserve.

  The Council also discussed the possibility of providing macrofinancial assistance to the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This will be discussed again at a later meeting. It is subject to a UK parliamentary scrutiny reserve.

  The Council then discussed the economic situation in the European Union. All member states were cautiously optimistic about the prospects for 1997 but agreed on the need for structural reform, including labour market flexibility, to tackle unemployment.

  Single European Currency
  Sir Raymond Whitney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic and commercial effects of British membership of a European single currency. [15052]
  698
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 19 February 1997]: A hard-headed assessment of the economics and commercial effects of UK membership of the single currency will be made nearer the time, when it is necessary for a decision to be made on whether or not we should participate. At the moment, there are still considerable uncertainties, most notably on what degree of sustainable convergence will have been achieved by other member states.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie his Department's delay in replying to the letters from the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West dated 11 September 1996 and 12 December 1996, regarding his constituent, Mr. Alton Murphy; and if he will make a statement. [14036]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: The correspondence from Mr. Murphy related to claims for amounts overpaid as VAT in relation to supplies of spectacles. The reply has been delayed because Customs has been considering whether opticians' claims for overpayments are subject to the three-year time limit on VAT refunds in view of an earlier trade agreement with Customs. The matter was considered during judicial review proceedings decided last November, and Customs has since sought further legal advice in the light of the judge's comments. Customs announced on 10 February that there will be special transitional arrangements for opticians' claims, and I shall be replying fully to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie his Department's delay in replying to the letters from the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West dated 15 October 1996 and 12 December 1996, regarding his constituent, Mr. M. J. Walker; and if he will make a statement. [14037]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 6 February 1997]: Mr. Walker's correspondence related to claims for amounts overpaid as VAT arising from a recalculation of tax due following a change of the VAT retail scheme used. Claims for repayment of overpayments are now subject to a three-year time limit, the introduction of which resulted in an enormous volume of correspondence, both on the principle of introducing a time limit and the effect on particular businesses. This has unfortunately led to delays in replying to correspondence, but I shall be writing to the hon. Member shortly.

  Millennium Club
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times over the last three years, he has addressed the Millennium Club in his official capacity; and if he will list the names of those present and the companies they represented on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [15693]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: None in my official capacity.

HEALTH

  Tropical Diseases
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cases of tropical diseases have been diagnosed within the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years; and what estimate he has made of the cost to the national health service of treating these cases. [16267]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on the numbers of all diseases notifiable under various Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations in England and Wales are published by the Office for National Statistics in the publications "MB2 Communicable Disease Statistics", annually, and "MB2" Infectious Disease Statistics", quarterly. Where known, numbers of cases of diseases contracted abroad are given. In addition, the public health laboratory service collects data voluntarily submitted by laboratories on those tropical diseases confirmed by laboratory tests and these are published in the PHLS's communicable disease report. Copies of these publications are available in the Library. Information on

  Trust

  Scheme

  Preferred bidder

  Health authority approval1

  FBC approval

  Contract signature

  Barking, Havering and Brentwood Community NHS Trust

  Long-stay mental health reprovision

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Royal Hull Hospitals NHS Trust

  Rationalisation of acute services on Hull Royal Infirmary site

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Redevelopment of Stone Grove site

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  St. James's and Seacroft University Hospitals NHS Trust

  Medipark

  2—

  22 September 1995

  26 January 1996

  3—

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS Trust

  Community and Mental Health Information System (CAMIS)

  2—

  14 August 1996

  3 October 1996

  12 December 1996

  Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Trust

  Hospital Information Support System (HISS)

  2—

  19 February 1996

  16 April 1996

  3—

  Central Middlesex NHS Trust

  Ambulatory Care and Diagnostic Centre (ACAD)

  2—

  9 April 1996

  29 May 1996

  3—

  Mayday Healthcare NHS Trust

  Clinical Information System (CIS)

  2—

  March 1996

  27 March 1996

  3—

  City Hospital NHS Trust

  Replacement Patient Administration Scheme (PAS)

  2—

  June 1996

  28 June 1996

  3—

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  HISS

  2—

  February 1996

  29 February 1996

  July 1996

  South Tyneside Health Care NHS Trust

  Reprovision of Pathology services

  2—

  9 September 1994

  6 December 1994

  4 September 1996

  Royal Victoria Infirmary and Associated Hospital NHS Trust

  Multi-Storey Car Park

  2—

  5n/a

  12 September 1996

  17 September 1996

  United Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

  Power Station

  2—

  24 April 1995

  2 May 1995

  14 July 1995

  United Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust and Bradford Hospitals Trust

  Reconfiguration of Pathology Services

  2—

  October 1995

  October 1995

  13 February 1997

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS Trust

  North West Community Unit for the elderly

  2—

  4 April 1996

  8 October 1996

  3—

  Leeds Community and Mental Health Services Teaching NHS Trust

  North West Central Community Unit for the elderly

  2—

  4 April 1996

  8 October 1996

  3—

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Concourse Redevelopment

  2—

  5n/a

  July 1995

  3—

  Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust

  Clinical Waste Incinerator

  2—

  5n/a

  February 1996

  3—

  Nottingham Ambulance NHS Trust

  Radio Replacement Scheme

  2—

  August 1996

  September 1996

  20 December 1996

  Nottingham Health Authority

  Standard Court (HQ building for the Health Authority)

  2—

  5n/a

  January 1997

  3—

  Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  Combined Heat and Power Facility

  2—

  September 1996

  January 1997

  3—

  Barnet Healthcare NHS Trust

  Residential Accommodation for elderly mentally ill

  2—

  February 1996

  February 1996

  July 1996

  East Sussex Health Authority

  Nursing Homes

  2—

  5—

  October 1992

  31 March 1994

  St. Peter's Hospital NHS Trust

  Housing Redevelopment and Management

  2—

  November 1994

  March 1995

  6 June 1995

  Mayday Health Care NHS Trust

  Energy Centre

  2—

  15 August 1995

  May 1996

  3—

  700
  the cost to the NHS from travel-related infection is not held centrally. Questions relating to Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, respectively.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answers to the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) of 29 January,Official Report, columns 269–72 on PFI schemes in the health service, if he will list for each PFI scheme within his Department's responsibility not included in those answers information equivalent to that set out in the table in columns 271–72. [14852]

  Mr. Horam
  The table gives the information requested for schemes, where the information is held centrally which have reached preferred bidder status or beyond, and which are not included in the tables referred to in my reply to the hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) on 29 January at columns 269–72.
  701

  Trust

  Scheme

  Preferred bidder

  Health authority approval1

  FBC approval

  Contract signature

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Patient Hotel and Conference Facilities

  2—

  October 1995

  October 1995

  October 1995

  Warrington Hospital NHS Trust

  Magnetic Resonance Imager

  2—

  December 1994

  October 1995

  November 1995

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  Staff Residences

  2—

  October 1995

  October 1995

  16 January 1997

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  HISS

  2—

  October 1995

  23 August 1996

  6 December 1996

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  HISS

  2—

  February 1996

  29 February 1996

  July 1996

  Lancashire Ambulance Services NHS Trust

  Mobile Radio Communications Systems

  2—

  October 1995

  9 July 1996

  3—

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  Patient Management Systems

  2—

  October 1996

  9 October 1996

  3—

  Hull and Holderness4 Community Health NHS Trust

  Replacement of Withernsea Hospital

  2—

  2 August 1996

  5 December 1996

  3—

  Southampton Community4 Health Services

  Lymington Hospital Reprovision

  2—

  3—

  3—

  3—

  South Kent Community4 Health Care NHS Trust

  Community Hospital in Tenterden

  2—

  October 1996

  October 1995

  3—

  1 Date of Health Authority not known centrally for cases which have not received full business case approval.

  2 Selected.

  3 Not yet approved or signed.

  4 These three schemes are for new hospitals which the NHS Executive have been informed of since the answer given in column 271–272 of the Official Report of 29 January 1997.

  5 Not applicable either because the Health Authority itself is commissioning the scheme or because Health Authority approval is not required in cases where the scheme has no impact on the method or delivery of clinical services.

  Disability Services
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance is given to local authority social services departments concerning(a) the unit cost of the personal care needs of disabled people and (b) the unit cost of services provided by or on behalf of the authority for personal care when considering eligibility for assistance with independent living. [16269]

  Mr. Burns
  Local authorities have the responsibility to assess individual needs and, where appropriate, to arrange support cost effectively. The Department of Health does not give detailed guidance on these issues.

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [16277]

  Mr. Horam
  In the buildings for which it is responsible, the Department of Health has undertaken surveys to identify the presence of hazardous materials and ozone-depleting substances. Positive action has been taken to reduce or safely contain any such elements.

  (a) Hazardous materials: buildings occupied by the Department do not contain any significant amounts of hazardous substances. Where their presence is unavoidable, they are identified, registered and recorded in accordance with legislation.

  (b) Ozone-depleting substances: halon fire extinguishers are being phased out of all our buildings and refrigeration units are being replaced with energy efficient CFC-free equipment. Major air conditioning systems in our buildings are equipped with leak-detection sensors.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the ways in which his Department has demonstrated the ability to improve efficiency and 702
  competitiveness through an environmental audit of waste management within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16416]

  Mr. Horam
  In the buildings for which it is responsible, the Department of Health operates an effective energy and environment action plan, which promotes all aspects of green housekeeping and which is reviewed regularly.

  Each of our main buildings has been equipped with recycling facilities for common waste items for some time and we continue to look at ways of extending the range of waste collected for recycling. We now monitor the volumes of waste in these buildings to give a quantitative measure of the progress we are making in this area.

  Penile Implants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the health effects on men of silicone leakage from penile implants. [16901]

  Mr. Horam
  No research has been commissioned or evaluated on silicone leakage from penile implants.

  Breast Implants
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the health effects on women of silicone migration from breast implants. [16900]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health has established a national breast implant registry to facilitate future research projects. Department of Health officials together with the relevant independent expert groups have evaluated all published research on this subject.

  Health Service Staff Contracts
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff employed by NHS trusts or health boards are on local contracts outwith Whitley agreements. [16745]
  703
  Mr. Malone
  Precise information is not available centrally. However, the current estimate is that in England 13 per cent. of staff are on locally negotiated contracts.

  Out-of-hours Patients (Transport)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received regarding the provision of transport for out-of-hours patients in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [16609]

  Mr. Malone
  We have received no representations on this subject recently. The new general practitioner out-of-hours arrangements have been a great success, improving the quality of care for patients while easing the personal burden on the individual GP.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what mechanisms financial support is given towards the costs of travel of out-of-hours patients required by their doctor to make their way to primary care centres. [16610]

  Mr. Horam
  There is no provision for reimbursing any costs patients may incur while travelling to receive primary care.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients suffering from glaucoma were treated by general practitioners during(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95. [16611]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of patients treated by their general practitioner for glaucoma is not available centrally.

  Nurses and Midwives (Training)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students commenced training as initial entrants by means of(a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study in each of the last five years. [16612]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting for England for the information that is available on entries to and discontinuation from training.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16757]

  Mr. Horam
  Non-departmental public bodies are responsible for monitoring the use of external consultants as part of their operational management responsibilities; but the Department would expect to be made aware of plans for any major consultancies.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Hazardous Materials (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what assessment his Department had made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16317]

  Mr. Bates
  The Cabinet Office, its agencies and the Central Office of Information undertake assessments of hazardous materials in accordance with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988. The use of ozone depleting substances is kept to the minimum.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department had made of the presence of(a) hazardous materials and (b) ozone-depleting substances within those buildings his Department occupies; and if he will make a statement. [16306]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

  Environmental Audit (Departmental Buildings)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster 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. [16428]

  Mr. Bates
  The Cabinet Office, the agencies and the Central Office of Information play a full part in supporting the initiatives being carried forward in response to the 1990 White Paper, "This Common Inheritance", including membership of the Green Ministers' Group. Minimising waste is at the core of the Department's energy and environmental policy, which is supported by an action plan. The policy has proved effective during the first five years of the Government's campaign to reduce energy consumption and improve environmental performance; the Department has achieved its objective of meeting the Government's target of a 15 per cent. reduction in energy consumption to April 1996. The headquarters buildings in London recently received an award from Westminster city council for its contribution since 1992 to its recycling scheme.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mustard Gas Experiments
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what steps the War Pensions Agency has taken to evaluate the systems in(a) Australia, (b) the United States of America and (c) Canada for compensating former service personnel who are suffering long-term ill health as a result of mustard gas experiments conducted by their own Governments in previous years; [14383]

  (2) if the burden of proof is on the claimant to prove his or her case in cases in which service personnel are claiming disablement as a result of experiments at the chemical defence establishment at Porton Down; [14384]
  705
  (3) if he will list the regulations introduced by his Department since 1986 which relate to claims made by individuals claiming disablement as a result of experiments at the chemical defence establishment, Porton Down; [14390]

  (4) what evaluation has been made by the War Pension Agency of the findings on the long-term health effects of mustard gas and lewisite reached by the US Institute of Medicine committee in its report "Veterans at Risk—the health effects of mustard gas and lewisite" edited by Constance Pechura and David Rall published in January 1993; and what was the basis of the evaluation. [14847]

  Mr. Heald
  No steps have been taken to evaluate either the US Institute of Medicine report quoted, or the systems in Australia, Canada and the United States of America for compensating former service personnel who may be suffering long-term ill health as a result of mustard gas experiments.

  Under the war pensions scheme, where a claim is made within seven years of termination of service, the onus is on the Secretary of State to show beyond reasonable doubt that service has played no part in the cause or course of the claimed disablement. For claims made more than seven years after leaving service, where the onus is on the claimant, he is required only to raise at least a reasonable doubt, based on reliable evidence, that a condition may be due to service. The benefit of any reasonable doubt is always given to the claimant.

  No regulations relate specifically to Porton Down experiments. The Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, applies to all claims in respect of disablement due to service.

  1987–165: Uprating order.

  1988–248: Uprating order plus changes relating to income support.

  1988–2248: Provisions for payment of pension by direct credit transfer.

  1989–156: Uprating order plus amendments due to introduction of the community charge.

  1990–250: Uprating order plus amendment to definition of the term "public funds".

  1990–1308: Extension of entitlement to mobility supplement to the deaf-blind.

  1991–766: Uprating order plus extension of entitlement to mobility supplement to certain amputees.

  1992–710: Uprating order plus abolition of dependent's allowance and reduction in qualifying period for mobility allowance.

  1992–3208: Abolition of gratuities for noise— induce sensorineural hearing loss of less than 20 per cent.

  1993–598: Uprating order plus abolition of rank additions, education allowance and restoration of certain widow's pensions and amendments consequential to the introduction of council tax.

  1994–772: Uprating order plus amendment to the definition of "injury" to exclude the effects of tobacco and consumption of alcohol and provisions relating to the suspension of pensions pending an appeal.

  1994–1906: Supplementary pension for "pre-1973" widows.

  1995–766: Uprating order plus effect of the disability living allowance mobility component on entitlement to mobility supplement and minor amendments concerning the suspension of pension pending appeal.

  706

  1996–732: Uprating order plus restoration of widow's pensions.

  1996–1638: Provision for "pre-1914 War" and "inter war years" cases.

  1996–2882: Manner and date of claim provisions.

  Back-to-work Bonus
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number of(a) men and (b) women who have received a back-to-work bonus; what has been the average amount of the bonus in each case; and what has been the total cost of the scheme to date. [15075]

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

  Back-to-work bonus statistics1

  All claimants

  Number of bonus payments made from October 1996 to January 19912

  3,000

  Total amount of bonus payments made from October 1996 to January 19973

  £248,000

  Estimated average bonus payment4

  £85.34

  Estimated administrative cost of bonus payments made from October 1996 to January 19975

  £18,263

  Claimants with an accrued bonus at the end of January 19976

  119,000

  Sources:

  1. Back-to-work bonus management information statistics.

  2. The departmental "Ready Reckoner" and "The Benefit Agency Whole Unit Guide".

  Notes:

  1 Provisional data based on claims held on the income support computer system (ISCS) and the jobseeker's allowance payment system (JSAPS). No clerically processed claims included. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2 Claims authorised for payment recorded on JSAPS and ISCS.

  3 Total amount authorised for payment recorded on ISCS and JSAPS.

  4 Based on total amount authorised for payment recorded on ISCS and JSAPS.

  5 the cost of processing 3,000 bonus payments based on average salaries. Includes superannuation and employers' national insurance costs.

  6 Live claims on ISCS and JSAPS with a bonus accrual plus claims which have ended with a bonus accrual but no bonus payment has been made (claimants who return to benefit within 12 weeks and have not claimed a bonus retain the amount accrued during the previous claim).

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many section 18 appeals have been(a) upheld and (b) turned down by the Child Support Agency in each month since April 1993. [15085]

  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 19 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of section 18 appeals handled by the Child Support Agency.

  707
  There are no such things as section 18 appeals but the Agency handles section 18 reviews (normally referred to as second tier reviews). These are usually requested, in writing, when a client—either absent parent or parent with care—disagrees with a Child Support Officer's decision. If the client is still not satisfied following the review, they have the option to lodge an appeal, which will be handled by an independent Appeal Tribunal.
  The attached table shows the breakdown of second tier review applications which have been cleared by the Agency; a monthly breakdown is available only from August 1994.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Child Support Agency Second Tier Reviews (August 1994-December 1996)

  Month

  Second Tier Reviews Requests Refused/Withdrawn

  Second Tier Reviews Completed

  August 1994

  1,364

  741

  September 1994

  1,178

  855

  October 1994

  1,308

  1062

  November 1994

  1,303

  1,137

  December 1994

  1,002

  970

  January 1995

  1,240

  1,205

  February 1995

  1,250

  1354

  March 1995

  1,294

  1,470

  April 1995

  1,409

  880

  May 1995

  897

  1,014

  June 1995

  1,141

  999

  July 1995

  1,040

  1,170

  August 1995

  1,412

  1,124

  September 1995

  1,329

  883

  October 1995

  1,510

  929

  November 1995

  1,638

  975

  December 1995

  1,027

  651

  January 1996

  1,552

  872

  February 1996

  1,607

  1,174

  March 1996

  1,249

  1,182

  April 1996

  1,409

  857

  May 1996

  1,576

  883

  June 1996

  2,023

  955

  July 1996

  1,869

  1,022

  August 1996

  1,981

  1,005

  September 1996

  2,198

  1,152

  October 1996

  2,654

  1,276

  November 1996

  2,754

  1,140

  December 1996

  1,759

  798

  Total

  43,973

  29,735

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what actions are being taken by the Child Support Agency concerning allegations of fraud in respect of the production of posters for the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [15659]

  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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 19 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about action being taken by the Child Support Agency into allegations of fraud in respect of the production of posters.
  I am unaware of any such allegations. However, internal control systems within the Agency raised serious concerns over a service for distribution of posters. I can confirm that last year the Agency passed papers to the police in connection with previous business dealings with a private firm.
  It would not be appropriate to comment further or speculate on a case which is still under police investigation.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Medical Appeal Tribunals (Posthumous Claims)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many successful posthumous claims in respect of(a) pneumoconiosis and (b) chronic bronchitis and emphysema were made to medical appeal tribunals in areas with former and present coal-mining communities in each of the last five years. [15246]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Posthumous claims can be considered under normal rules for pneumoconiosis and in respect of those who died after 13 September 1993 for chronic bronchitis and emphysema. However, information on the numbers of such cases is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants of invalid care allowance also undertake part-time study. [15869]

  Mr. Burt
  It is estimated that 10,000 recipients of invalid care allowance are also undertaking part-time study. Estimates are based on sample data which may be unrepresentative.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey 1994–95.

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest 5,000.

  2. Part-time study is defined in invalid care allowance as less than 21 hours a week.

  Medical Services Centres (Targets)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by centre the targets negotiated by each medical services centre in its service level agreement with each disability benefits centre, for disability living allowance and attendance allowance in respect of(a) medical advice, (b) scrutiny, (c) assessment, (d) examinations and (e) complaints. [16497]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 19 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking if he will list by centre the targets negotiated by each medical services centre in its service level agreement with each disability benefits centre, for disability living allowance and attendance allowance in respect of (a) medical advice, (b) scrutiny, (c) assessment, (d) examinations and (e) complaints.
  Details of all the negotiated targets are in the attached appendix.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Targets from service level agreements between medical services centres and disability benefit centres for disability living allowance and attendance allowance

  Birmingham

  Target

  Special rules

  1 day

  Written advice (normal)

  3 days

  Written advice (non standard GP factual reports/hospital case notes/consultants reports)

  5 days

  Oral advice

  On demand

  Standard and non standard factual reports

  3 days

  709

  Targets from service level agreements between medical services centres and disability benefit centres for disability living allowance and attendance allowance

  Birmingham

  Target

  Standard and non standard factual reports (need to contact author)

  5 days

  Non standard reports

  5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals (advice on IIDB/SDA cases)

  Within 5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals—FME written request

  10 days

  Bootle

  Target

  New claims (oral)

  Same day

  New claims (written)

  Within 3 days

  Special rules (normal)

  Within 1 day

  Special rules (need to contact GP)

  Within 2 days

  Severe mental impairment

  Within 3 days

  Reviews

  As for new claims

  Factual reports

  Within 3 days

  Factual reports (clarification with author)

  Within 5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals—advice on MAT cases

  5 days from receipt

  Medical appeals tribunals—preparation of requests for reports

  10 days from receipt

  Medical appeals tribunals—preparation of extracts of hospital case notes

  10 days from receipt

  Bristol

  Target

  Medical advice (written)

  3 days

  Medical advice (oral)

  1 day

  Factual report (normal)

  3 days

  Factual reports (need to contact author)

  5 days

  Special rules

  1 day

  Special rules (need to contact author)

  2 day

  Severe mental impairment

  3 days

  Medical appeal tribunals

  5 days

  Cardiff

  Target

  Medical advice (oral/written including special rules)

  Same day

  Non standard factual reports

  3 days

  Non standard factual reports (contact author)

  5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals (primary)

  95 per cent. In 5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals (secondary)

  100 per cent. in 10 days

  Edinburgh

  Target

  Medical advice (oral)

  Same day

  Medical advice (written)

  1 day unless longer is considered necessary

  Non standard factual reports

  5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals

  5 days

  Glasgow

  Target

  Factual reports (normal)

  3 days

  Factual reports (need to contact author)

  5 days

  Special rules

  1 day

  Special rules (need to contact GP)

  2 days

  Mental impairment

  3 days

  Advice on MAT cases

  5 days

  710

  Glasgow

  Target

  Complaints re factual reports (acknowledgement)

  5 days

  Complaints reply

  10 days

  Non standard factual reports

  3 days

  Medical appeals tribunals

  5 days

  Leeds

  Target

  Special rules (need to contact GP)

  2 days

  Special rules (other)

  1 day

  Severe mental impairment

  3 days

  Normal rules

  3 days

  Reviews and appeals

  3 days

  Standard/non standard factual reports

  Normal

  3 days

  Need to contact author

  7 days

  Medical appeal tribunals

  Initial scrutiny pre hearing

  5 days

  FME pre hearing

  5 days

  Provide precis of hospital pre hearing case notes

  10 days

  Manchester

  Target

  Special rules (normal)

  1 day

  Special rules (need to contact GP)

  2 days

  General advice (oral)

  1 day

  General advice (written)

  5 days

  Standard and non standard factual reports

  3 days

  Medical appeal tribunals

  5 days

  Newcastle

  Target

  Special rules (except where UP contacted)

  1 day

  Other written advice

  3 days

  Standard and non standard factual reports

  3 days

  Standard and non standard factual reports (where GP needs to be contacted)

  5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals

  7 days

  Sutton

  Target

  Normal rules primary

  95 per cent. in 3 days

  Normal rules secondary

  100 per cent. in 5 days

  Special rules primary

  98 per cent. in 1 day

  Special rules secondary

  100 per cent. in 2 days

  Medical appeals tribunals primary

  70 per cent. in 3 days

  Medical appeals tribunals secondary

  98 per cent. in 5 days

  Wembley

  Target

  Normal rules

  5 days

  Special rules

  1 day

  Special rules (where GP needs to be contacted)

  2 days

  Standard and non standard factual reports (normal)

  3 days

  711

  Wembley

  Target

  Standard and non standard factual reports (where author needs to be contacted)

  5 days

  Medical appeals tribunals

  5 days

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets for quality of service in addition to clearance times are currently set for the Benefits Agency medical services. [16496]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical service is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon.Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Alan Howarth, dated 19 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what targets for quality of service in addition to clearance times are currently set for the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS).
  Targets for standards of service are set out in the BAMS Professional Standards, and the Client Service Standards. Details have been placed in the Library.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he intends to publish the results of the disability living allowance benefit review. [16666]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People gave to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 12 February 1997,Official Report, column 250.

  A copy of the review is available in the Library.

  Benefits Agency Report
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what instructions he has given to the Benefits Agency in Wales on changes in the consultation period on the BA-area strategy unit report. [16525]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Benefits Agency has been instructed that none of the measures within the consultation document "BA Wales—Blue Print for The Future" are to be implemented during the consultation period.

  All comments and concerns raised during the consultation period will be given full consideration.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what payments and expenses derived from part-time employment by jobseeker's allowance claimants are not treated as earnings by the Benefits Agency. [16764]
  712
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is as follows:

  Employed earners
  Income tax deducted; primary class 1 national insurance contributions deducted; one-half of any sum paid as a contribution towards an occupational or personal pension; payments in kind; payments (whether or not reimbursed by the employer) in respect of expenses wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the duties of the employment (but not including travelling expenses incurred by the claimant between his home and place of work or expenses incurred under arrangements made for the care of a member of the claimant's family owing to his absence from home).

  Self-employed earners
  An amount in respect of income tax; an amount in respect of class 2 and class 4 national insurance contributions; one-half of any sum paid as a contribution towards a personal pension; expenses wholly and exclusively defrayed for the purposes of the employment (but excluding capital expenditure, depreciation, sums employed or intended to be employed in the setting up or expansion of the business, loss incurred before the period over which the earnings are being assessed, capital repayments on loans taken out for the purposes of the business and business entertainment); excess of VAT paid over VAT received in the period over which the earnings are assessed; income expended in the repair of existing assets except to the extent that any sum is payable under an insurance policy for its repair and interst on loans taken out for the purposes of the business.

  Note:
  Part-time employment for the purposes of jobseeker's allowance is work in which a person is engaged for less than 16 hours a week on average (24 hours in the case of partners of people receiving income-based jobseeker's allowance).

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16750]

  Mr. Burt
  The use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies—NDPBs—is discussed and agreed with the Department,usually during the planning and allocation process and as such are included in any business or corporate plans. The results of any consultancy exercise are monitored each year as part of an established accountability review process and actual expenditure is recorded and monitored on a monthly basis throughout the financial year. The Department's NDPBs are also subject to scrutiny by the National Audit Office and by the Department's own internal audit team.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the net present cost, in 1996 prices, of national insurance rebates and incentives paid to those who have joined appropriate personal pensions since 1988–89, assuming the social discount rate used by his Department. [13841]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 4 February 1997]: For the years 1987–88 to 1994–95, the latest date for which certified figures are available, the cost of national insurance rebates and incentives was £21.7 billion at net present value. This figure has been calculated using the GDP deflator and a social discount rate of 3.75 per cent, consistent with the Government Actuary's review of contracting out terms (Cm 3221). The figure includes the cost of providing flat rate rebates, incentives and age

  713
  additions to holders of appropriate personal pensions during this period. From 6 April 1997, flat rate rebates for APPs, and the age addition, will be replaced by age-related rebates. The costs of the new rebates will be contained by tailoring the amount needed by a funded pension to replace the state pension foregone according to the age of the policyholder. The allowance made for administrative expenses in the rebates are based on those of the more efficient providers. The rebates will also be capped to avoid excessive rebate levels.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the expenditure by his Department on housing benefit subsidy paid to local authorities in each of the years from 1989–90 to 1996–97; and what is his estimate for 1997–98 in respect of tenants of housing associations created as a result of large-scale voluntary transfer. [15164]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 10 February 1997]: This information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table:

  Estimates of DSS housing benefit subsidy paid to local authorities in respect of private sector tenancies created as a result of large scale voluntary transfers

  Year

  Subsidy (£ million)

  1990–91

  9

  1991–92

  13

  1992–93

  37

  1993–94

  70

  1994–95

  110

  1995–96

  154

  1996–97

  216

  1997–98

  227

  Source:

  Departmental estimates used to inform the Public Expenditure Survey for the relevant year adjusted by the GDP deflator.

  Notes:

  1. The information relates only to the estimates of the housing benefit subsidy paid to local authorities in respect of private sector tenancies created as a result of large scale voluntary transfers for the years 1990–91 to 1997–98.

DEFENCE

  Tornado GR1 Aircraft
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the average annual running cost of a squadron of Tornado GR1 aircraft. [16563]

  Mr. Soames
  The average cost of operating a Tornado GR1 squadron, including the variable hourly flying costs and the apportionment of the station's fixed costs and overheads, is £78 million per annum.

  Regimental Museums
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money his Department provided in each year since 1990–91 towards staff pay in(a) all the regimental museums in the United Kingdom and (b) the museum of the Royal Dragoon Guards and Prince of Wales's Own Regiment in York. [16648]
  714
  Mr. Soames
  My Department currently contributes some £1.68 million in total to the operating costs of some 70 Army regimental and corps museums. The information for previous years is not available in the form requested.

  The information requested for the museum of the Royal Dragoon Guards and the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment is as follows:

  Financial Year

  RDG £

  PWO £

  1992–93

  9,300

  8,800

  1993–94

  11,000

  10,000

  1994–95

  11,000

  10,300

  1995–96

  11,100

  10,400

  1996–97 (estimate)

  12,000

  8,900

  The figures for the financial year 1990–91 and 1991–92 are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  WE-177 Bomb
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the operating costs of the WE-177 bomb in each of the past 15 years at 1995–96 prices. [16562]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on 18 December 1996,Official Report, column 627.

  Environmental Information Regulations
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many inquiries have been received by his Department under the terms of the Environmental Information Regulations 1992; how many of these have been refused, and on what grounds; what has been the cost of substantive responses to such requests; and what amount has been received from those making requests towards recovery of these costs. [16807]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department's records indicate that, from 1 January 1993 to 31 January 1997, we received 108 questions. Before November 1995, only queries quoting the Environmental Information Regulations 1992 were classed as made under those terms. Subsequently, all queries on environmental issues have been treated as made under EIR92; 102 such queries have been received. None has been refused an answer.

  My Department seeks to recover costs only if it is estimated that the work involved will exceed four man hours. Questioners in such cases are advised beforehand of the estimated costs and asked to confirm that they wish to proceed; to date, none has done so.

  No records are made of the actual costs of providing substantive answers for which no charge is raised.

  Army (Readiness to Change)
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to adapt the readiness of the Army to changing strategic circumstances. [17103]
  715
  Mr. Portillo
  Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, we can assume that we would have longer warning of any re-emerging threat to the UK or western Europe by conventional forces. On the other hand, recent events have underlined that it is important that we should be able to dispatch forces rapidly to deal with crises elsewhere.

  In response, I have decided to shift the balance of investment in the Army further towards those units required to be at higher operational readiness. The changes build on the one army concept by taking account of the synergy between regular and reserve units.

  For the two parachute battalions in the joint rapid deployment force, the present enhancement of some 105 Gurkhas will finish in 2000. The strengths of each battalion will then be increased by some 60 posts. With effect from 1 April this year, arrangements will be made to provide dedicated manpower and equipment for the Pathfinders—5 Airborne Brigade's reconnaissance platoon.

  I have also decided to increase the manning levels of two of our three multiple-launch rocket system regiments by some 100 posts each to ensure they are fully ready to deploy without the need for reinforcement from elsewhere in the Army. The third regiment will not be required for short-notice operations. I have therefore decided that it should be transferred to the Territorial Army, in place of one of its two FH 70—155mm howitzer—artillery regiments. Consequently, the TA will be equipped with one of the Army's most modern and powerful equipments.

  At the same time, we now assess that the majority of the TA will not be required for short-notice operations as formed units. Those units can therefore be moved to more extended readiness. That will not, however, reduce the scope for TA personnel to take part as individuals, or in small teams, in a wide range of operations. That is demonstrated by their significant and invaluable contribution in Bosnia. Furthermore, opportunities for individuals will be significantly improved by the Reserve Forces Act 1996. There will be no change to the establishment levels of the TA, or to the TA's vital role in deploying as formed units in a major crisis. We shall, however, be able to reduce the numbers required to be fully trained, while protecting training and activity levels across the whole range from individual to formation training. Certain specialist units will remain at higher readiness.

  Some adjustments will also be made to the manning and equipment of the 12 regular light-roled national defence battalions to bring them in line with current requirements.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 18 December 1996,Official Report, column 630, on Gulf war syndrome, when he expects to answer the question relating to (a) Mr. Rucker's inquiry and (b) the number of missing medical records. [15961]
  716
  Mr. Soames
  I have written to the hon. Member and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  BSE
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many BSE-infected carcases are stored at former RAF Quedgeley; and if he will make a statement. [16910]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no BSE-infected carcases stored at RAF Quedgeley.

  Nimrod Accident (Canada)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the board of inquiry into the Nimrod accident in Canada in September 1995 found evidence that other members of the Nimrod's crew had expressed misgivings to the pilot concerning the manoeuvres to be flown in the air display. [16936]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the value of efficiency savings made by(a) his Department, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force in each of the last three years. [16893]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is available in the following publications, copies of which are in the Library of the House:1993–94: Departmental report by the MOD—the Government's expenditure plans 1995–96 to 1997–98 (Cm2801) (pages 30–31)
  1994–95: MOD performance report 1994–95 (Cm3055 (pages 36–37)
  1995–96: MOD performance report 1995–96 (Cm3448) (page 9)
  In the course of researching this question, an inconsistency in the reporting of the figures for 1993–94 has come to light. This is being examined and I will write to the hon. Member when the matter has been resolved. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Lost or Stolen Articles
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records are kept in respect of articles lost or stolen whose value is less than(a) £150,000, (b) £100,000 and (c) £50,000. [16674]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  All losses must be thoroughly investigated by the unit concerned and a full and factual record made. Losses under £100,000 value are reported as a total sum; those over £100,000 are reported individually.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of the items that have gone missing without explanation in each of the past three years; and what were the five most valuable items in each service in each year. [16675]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Losses are reported individually only where the value exceeds £100,000. Unexplained losses over £100,000 during the last three financial years were as follows:
  717

  Value £

  1993–94

  No cases

  1994–95

  1. Thermal imager lost in transit

  118,000

  2. Consignment of 3 in rockets lost in transit

  104,000

  1995–96

  1. Radar receiver lost in transit

  130,000

  2. One kit printed circuit lost in transit

  164,000

  3. 12 Harrier forward relay panels lost in transit

  115,000

  All losses were thoroughly investigated with a view to recovering the item in question and preventing a recurrence. When the search proved unsuccessful, the items in question were written off and noted in the relevant appropriation account.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the average flying hours for each of the last five years of aircraft used by the royal family. [16886]

  Mr. Soames
  The total hours flown by the aircraft concerned, covering communications, VIP and royal tasks—plus essential training—are as follows:

  Financial year

  BAe 146

  Wessex

  BAe 125

  1992–93

  1,769

  740

  4,645

  1993–94

  1,781

  739

  3,993

  1994–95

  1,440

  791

  3,511

  1995–96

  1,448

  748

  3,657

  1996–97

  (to 31 December 1996)

  1,085

  502

  2,578

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost to public funds of pre-positioning aircraft of the royal squadron for the private use of a member of the royal family(a) in each of the last five years and (b) for the flight from Nassau to Rock sound in March 1996. [16892]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested at(a) is not readily available and could not be produced without incurring disproportionate costs. With respect to (b), there was no cost to public funds associated with pre-positioning as the aircraft was already in Nassau in support of official business.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis repayments are calculated for private use of aircraft of the royal squadron. [16888]

  Mr. Soames
  The basis of the charge for private use of aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron is the marginal cost of operating the aircraft for the particular flight. Where appropriate, a "waiting" charge of £60 per hour is also levied. The only exception to this approach is when a member of the royal family is advised to use an aircraft of No. 32—the royal—squadron for safety or security reasons for a private journey when he or she could otherwise have used a commercial service. In such circumstances, the household in question will be charged the equivalent commercial rate.
  718
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern whether a journey involving an aeroplane of the royal squadron is official or private. [16887]

  Mr. Soames
  A journey by a member of the royal family involving the use of an aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron is considered to be official if it is undertaken in pursuance of royal duties.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the payments made to his Department for private flights in aircraft of the royal squadron by members of the royal family in each of the years 1990 to 1994. [16885]

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), of 31 January,Official Report, column 436, relating to royal flights, if he will list the equivalent data for 1995. [16912]

  Mr. Soames
  In accordance with the wishes of Her Majesty the Queen, the costs of private flights in aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron have been reimbursed to the MOD since 1 April 1995. The information requested for the period 1 April 1995 to 31 December 1995 is as follows:

  Date of journey

  Passenger

  Route

  Cost reimbursed £

  1 July 1995

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  Sandringham to Kensington Palace

  1,215

  1 July 1995

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

  Kensington Palace to Sandringham

  1,325

  1 July 1995

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  Dyce to RAF Northolt

  735

  1 July 1995

  HRH The Prince of Wales

  Heathrow to Dyce

  735

  3 September 1995

  Her Majesty The Queen

  Dyce to Teesside

  1,558

  5 September 1995

  Her Majesty The Queen

  Teesside to Dyce

  1,558

  10 December 1995

  Her Majesty The Queen

  Blackpool to Northolt

  1,186.67

  Beef
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of beef provided for the armed services is(a) of British origin, (b) of EU origin and (c) of Argentinian origin; [16907]

  (2) what factors are used in determining the country of origin of beef consumed by the armed forces. [16908]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement of food for the armed forces is currently contracted to the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. My Department does not specify the source or origin from which the NAAFI should obtain beef, or any other meat, but expects it to seek the best market prices for the products. There are no constraints on the choice of British meat products which are considered
  719
  equally with meat products sourced generally in the open market. The majority of our requirements are, however, for frozen beef.

  The British market deals predominantly in fresh beef and consequently does not normally offer frozen British beef at the most competitive prices. As a result, most of our requirements are sourced from south America—mainly Brazil and Uruguay—New Zealand and Australia. A limited range of beef products including sirloin, foreribs, minced and diced beef are currently procured in the UK on value for money grounds. No records are kept of the volumes or percentages provided from the UK, EU or South America and this will, in any event, vary dependent upon markets providing the best value for money.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16761]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Advice on the use of external consultants is available to all of my Department's non-departmental public bodies, as listed in "Public Bodies", to ensure that they operate within the framework of controls set out in the Treasury and Cabinet Office guidance "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments".

  My Department's non-departmental public bodies do not make significant use of external consultants, as shown in my answer to the hon. Member on 14 January 1997, Official Report, columns 233–34. In the past five years, only two of our bodies, the Oil and Pipelines Agency and the RAF Museum, have spent money on services of this sort. In the case of the Oil and Pipelines Agency, there is a requirement for prior approval from my Department for all consultancy services. In the case of the service museums, different arrangements apply depending on the circumstances of the body, but there is a very close relationship between the museums and their departmental sponsoring divisions which ensures that any plans to use consultancy services should be known in advance.

  Junior Leaders Scheme
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he announced the closure of the junior leader unit at Harrogate, North Yorkshire; when the site closed; when his Department put the Harrogate site up for sale; which estate agent was hired to sell the site; what has been the total cost to public funds to date of the attempted sale of the site; and if he will make a statement. [16844]

  Mr. Soames
  Following an initial announcement on 10 March 1992 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) when Minister of State for the Armed Forces,Official Report, column 496, about the future of junior leader and apprentice training, it was announced on 16 December 1992 that Harrogate was not to be converted to accommodate an Army junior leader regiment and that alternative defence uses would be sought. The site was formally closed on 1 December 1996. The Leeds office of Knight Frank commenced the marketing campaign in November 1995, but work on the
  720
  sale of the site has been suspended pending a decision on the location of the proposed Army Foundation college. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I am withholding information on the fees incurred in relation to this commission under exemption 7 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he announced the termination of the junior leaders scheme. [16843]

  Mr. Soames
  My right hon. Friend the member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton), when Minister of State for the Armed Forces, announced the cessation of the junior leaders scheme in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Dr. Goodson-Wickes) on 16 December 1992,Official Report, columns 335–36.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the value of efficiency savings made by(a) the royal yacht and (b) royal squadron in each of the last three years. [16894]

  Mr. Soames
  The annual running costs of HMY Britannia, excluding repair and refits, have remained broadly constant over the past three years. I refer the hon. Member also to my answer of 9 January 1996 to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe)Official Report, column 96.

  Prior to 1 April 1995, royal flying tasks were undertaken by the Queen's Flight, based at RAF Benson. From that date, the flight was incorporated into No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron, tasked with undertaking a full range of communications, VIP and royal flying duties. This change was designed to achieve improvements in cost-effectiveness through better use of aircraft assets and through greater efficiency in support areas. Subsequently, the new arrangements for the funding of royal travel announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16 October 1996 will facilitate further improvements in cost-effectiveness through the closer involvement of the royal household as the customer for the service provided by the squadron for royal tasks.

  Personnel Administration and Pay Organisations
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about defence agency status for the armed forces' personnel administration and pay organisations. [17293]

  Mr. Soames
  The Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency will be launched on 1 April 1997. The aim of AFPPA is the cost-effective provision, on a tri-service basis, of data and systems for the payment of military personnel, and to support the personnel management function, in peace, including crisis, transition to war and war. The agency will be formed from the Directorate of Naval Personnel Services and the Directorate of Naval Pay and Pensions at Gosport; the Directorate of Administrative Information Systems (Army) at Worthy Down, near Winchester; and the Directorate of Administrative Information Systems (RAF) and the RAF Pensions Branch at Innsworth, near Gloucester. In addition, a small agency headquarters office will be created at Innsworth in the first instance. On formation, the agency will employ some 1,000 civilian
  721
  and 200 military staff. It is also the intention, at a later date, that pay, pensions and personnel administrative elements of the recently formed Army Personnel Centre in Glasgow should come within the agency.

  The agency proposal followed a feasibility study which concluded that personnel administration offered scope for significant harmonisation and, eventually, the development of an integrated tri-service computer system. Arrangements are in hand to contract a private sector partner under the Government's private finance initiative to deliver most of the services required of the agency. The partner would also be responsible for developing and operating new computer systems to improve efficiency, whilst at the same time shouldering much of the business risk involved.

  AFPAA has developed a comprehensive set of performance indicators, including measures to monitor the quality, timeliness and efficiency of its outputs. The chief executive has been set the following targets for the agency's first full year:

  Pay, allowances and pensions payments.
  Whilst making 100 per cent. of payments of pay, allowances and pensions by the due date, the number of errors per 1,000 payments not to exceed 10 for pay and allowances, and not to exceed five for pensions.

  Accuracy of personnel records and liabilities data.
  Determine measures to set base line of completeness and accuracy of the record of service.

  Currency of personnel records and liabilities data.
  Update all records within three days of receipt of valid input.

  Responsiveness.
  Resolve inquiries across all three services within 10 working days of receipt.

  Customer satisfaction.
  Develop systematic and objective methods of ensuring customer satisfaction, in consultation with the owner and customers.

  Private sector participation.
  Agree a private finance initiative service delivery contract with a private sector partner by July 1997, to provide significantly better value for money than the public sector comparator.

  Efficiency.
  Develop cost ratios and implement appropriate measures for benchmarking efficiency. in core personnel administration services.

  Bett Review
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the results of his consideration of Sir Michael Bett's independent review of the armed forces manpower, career and remuneration structure; and if he will make a statement. [17294]

  Mr. Soames
  It is clearly essential that the armed forces have pay structures, allowances, and other terms and conditions of service that attract and retain people of the calibre and exceptional qualities that we need.

  Our personnel policy must recognise and reflect the unique demands of service life, while at the same time taking account of the terms and conditions of service applicable to relevant civilian groups. We need to recruit and retain substantial numbers of high-quality men and women to ensure that the armed forces continue to be able to fulfil their operational commitments. We must also offer careers which are satisfying and rewarding. We can
  722
  achieve those aims only if terms and conditions of service are right. We must also take account of modern practices in management and career planning. Since the independent review was published in April 1995, we have undertaken much further work on our policies.

  Our plans are set out in an information document entitled "The Armed Forces of the Future—a Personnel Strategy". A copy is in the Library of the House.

  We have decided to introduce pay ranges for all ranks, up to and including brigadier and its equivalent, underpinned by a new job evaluation system which we can use to allocate jobs to pay ranges. That will enable other ranks for the first time to progress through a pay range rather than be paid a spot rate. Everyone will have the opportunity to increase their earnings within their rank, in recognition of experience and qualifications, subject to satisfactory performance. This should be a welcome retention incentive.

  Changes in the allowances payable to service personnel will allow us to target allowances more efficiently where they are most needed to assist recruitment and retention, and to compensate for the extra costs and disadvantages of service life. A longer separated service allowance will be introduced, targeted on those who serve long or frequent periods on operations, exercise or other training away from their base. The Government have accepted the Armed Forces Pay Review Body's recommendations of the rates of LSSA, and the consequential changes to the allowances currently paid for service in Northern Ireland and South Georgia. There will also be a new "get you home" allowance, providing a contribution to the cost of travelling home for those on detached duty or courses. These represent significant improvements for those personnel most disrupted by absences from their base and families.

  The main offset for these proposals will be the withdrawal, from 1 April 1998, of the majority of leave travel warrants issued currently to all personnel. Only those in their first three years of service would retain the current entitlement. Beyond that, all single personnel with more than three but less than nine years' service would retain one leave warrant.

  Detailed information about these plans is being widely disseminated within the three services. The plans have the whole-hearted support of the chiefs of staff.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the conclusion of the study commissioned in co-operation with the United States and Canadian Governments into the feasibility of epidemiological research to examine a possible linkage between noise from low-flying military aircraft and adverse health effects. [17295]

  Mr. Soames
  The study, commissioned with the institute of sound and vibration research of the university of Southampton, as prime contractor, supported by the National Physical Laboratory and the Medical Research Council, was completed in December 1996. Because of the wide dispersion of military low flying, and the infrequency of exposure to noise from this source by the average person, the study concluded that it would not be practicable to carry out a meaningful epidemiological
  723
  study of the effects of noise from low flying military aircraft on the health of overflown populations. Statistical calculations suggested that an initial sample of at least 20,000 people would need to be included in any study population; however, in order to allow for confounding factors and uncertainties in the pattern of exposure, the size of the study population would have to be increased by a factor of between five and 10.

  A comprehensive field validation study carried out in the Vale of Evesham found that the daily noise exposure in the most heavily over flown areas did not exceed that experienced by over a quarter of the population of England and Wales from general ambient noise. No individual aircraft event exceeded 120db(A) and the majority of events were below 100db(A). This reaffirms our belief that, although the restrictions placed on the heights, speeds and operating procedures of military aircraft are designed to ensure that noise levels on the ground do not exceed 125db(A), a level which research suggests provides a margin of safety to human hearing, in practice any exposure to noise from military low flying is likely to be significantly lower.

  Copies of a composite document comprising reports by ISVR and the MCR, and an executive summary by the tri-national steering committee have been placed in the Library of the House.

  My Department will continue to be involved in scientific research on noise and health. Should new research suggest a linkage between military low flying and adverse health effects, we will consider what changes to our aircraft operating procedures should be made. In the meantime, we firmly believe that they reflect the best available scientific and medical advice.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [16569]

  Mr. Lang
  Ministers attend Scottish Grand Committee meetings as part of their normal parliamentary duties and officials do so as part of their normal departmental duties. Expenditure falling to my Department has been limited to travelling costs. I attended the Scottish Grand Committee meeting on 5 July 1996 in Dumfries and no officials from my Department were in attendance.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Brian David Jenkins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the comparative success of each English region in securing funding for regional selective assistance. [17192]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  Funding for RSA is held centrally by the Department but the appraisal of most applications and decisions on whether to offer support are taken by 724
  the relevant Government Office against criteria which are common to all regions. There is no pre-set allocation of RSA funds between regions. The amount of RSA offered in each region depends on the applications received and whether these meet the scheme criteria. Data for individual regions is published by HMSO in the annual report on the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 278, what criteria for new lenders to the loan guarantee scheme have been agreed; on what date he will be writing to potential lenders; and if he will list the potential lenders. [16940]

  Mr. Page
  The criteria to be used in assessing potential lenders are:should have the expertise, experience and capacity to appraise technology based commercial borrowing proposals from both technical and commercial viewpoints;
  should have a proven track record (ideally of several years experience) of successful lending to small businesses;
  could make worthwhile use of the scheme;
  is reputable;
  should have effective appraisal techniques;
  should have well established procedures in operation to monitor and review borrowers;
  should add something extra to the range of services already available.

  We are aiming to write to all potential lenders by early March.

  It is not appropriate to list potential lenders since interest in lending under the scheme is commercially confidential to the firms concerned.

  Limited Liability Partnership Legislation
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress his Department has made with developing proposals for limited liability partnership legislation in the United Kingdom. [17296]

  Mr. Lang
  I am pleased to announce that the Government are publishing today a consultation paper, "Limited Liability Partnership: A New Form of Business Association for Professions". The consultation paper sets out detailed proposals for legislation to create a new structure for professional businesses, in line with the Government's commitment to maintain a competitive and up-to-date legal framework for business in the United Kingdom.

  The publication of the consultation paper today follows my announcement on 7 November in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), Official Report, column 700, that the Government intended to bring forward legislation at the earliest opportunity to make limited liability partnership available to regulated professions in the UK, subject to appropriate safeguards to protect the interests of those doing business with the limited liability partnership. I said then that we would publish our proposals before Easter.

  The proposals are being made in response to the concerns of many in the professions that, under present partnership law in the UK, the personal assets of the

  725
  active members of the partnership are at risk from the business decisions of other partners even though, in modern business conditions, it may well be impossible for partners even to know all the other partners.

  Limited liability partnership is already widely available in the USA and in an increasing number of other countries. It should be available in the UK too: the present gap in our legal framework risks undermining the confidence of businesses which play a key role in the success of the UK economy.

  The proposals are designed to retain the tried and tested benefits of partnership—flexibility of its capital requirements, the flexibility and privacy of its internal constitution, its avoidance of the separation of ownership and management, and the way in which earning are taxed—while protecting individual members against unlimited personal liability for matters in which they are not personally at fault. A robust package of safeguards is proposed to protect the interests of those dealing with the partnership, including the public disclosure of information about the partnership and safeguards in the case of insolvency.

  The closing date for responses to the consultation is 16 May 1997. I look forward to receiving the views of the professions, those dealing with them and business generally.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what the results of the public consultation on strategic export controls were; and when he will announce what action the Government will be taking in response to the consultation. [17297]

  Mr. Lang
  I am placing copies of the responses received to the consultative document on strategic export controls (Cm 3349), except where confidentiality has been requested in the Libraries of both Houses. I am also placing copies in the library of my Department where members of the public can arrange to see them if they wish.

  My Department, in consultation with other Departments, is considering the way forward on strategic export controls, taking account of the responses received to the consultation. Where relevant, the conclusions of the committee established in November to inquire into the controls and procedures relating to arms trafficking, set out in the reply given on 21 January by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will also be taken into account.

  Given the complexity of the subject some further, more detailed consultation with directly interested parties is likely to be needed in developing any proposed changes to strategic export controls. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16749]
  726
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Non-departmental public bodies are established to operate at arm's length from Government, often under specific statutory powers. The NDPB's governing board is responsible for the management and control of the body's functions.

  My Department is responsible for monitoring the performance of the NDPBs it sponsors, and for ensuring that they operate within the framework of controls set out in the Treasury and Cabinet Office guidance, "Non-Departmental Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments."

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

  Water Cannons (Export Licences)
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for each of the last five years the number of export licences granted for the sale of water cannons, indicating in each case, the recipient country. [9990]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Licences identified from computer records as issued for the export of water cannon and equipment incorporating water cannon during the last five years are as follows.

  Year

  Number of licences

  Destination

  Number of water cannon

  1992

  1

  Mauritius

  1

  1

  Venezuela

  40

  1994

  1

  Indonesia

  3

  1995

  2

  Indonesia

  6

  1996

  1

  Indonesia

  7

  1

  Ghana

  4

  Computer records cannot always identify individual items on an export licence application if they are part of a larger export package. Further research could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Mid Kent Water
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 22 January,Official Report, column 641, what representations his Department received from parties to the proposed acquisition of Mid Kent Holdings by Companie Générale des Eaux and SAUR Water Services; in what form such representations were made; to whom they were made; and at what stage of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation they were made. [15200]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 12 February 1997]: In this case, after the MMC had begun its inquiry into the proposed merger, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was required under the provisions of the Water Industry Act 1991 to consider whether it appeared to him that it was or might be the fact that an actual merger had already taken place and hence whether the terms of the reference should be varied. In reaching his decision to vary the reference, which was

  727
  announced on 13 September 1996, my right hon. Friend considered the views of General Utilities, Mid Kent Holdings and SAUR Water Services.

  In addition, the Department received various representations about the merger either directly from the companies or attached to correspondence from hon. Members or members of the public. It is not my right hon. Friend's policy to make public further details concerning an individual merger case once the report describing the results of the thorough inquiry conducted by the MMC has been published and my right hon. Friend's decision has been announced.

  Mergers
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 30 January,Official Report, column 325, if he will define the exceptional circumstances in which Ministers in his Department receive representations from companies with a direct interest in a Monopolies and Mergers Commission merger report prior to a decision being made on the report; and if any such exceptions have been made during the last 18 months, indicating in which cases and for what reasons. [15199]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 12 February 1997]: It is clearly not possible to define in advance exceptional circumstances. However, very occasionally, one of the parties to a merger may, for example, inform the Department of a significant change of circumstances in the market under examination that has occurred after the MMC has reported and Ministers would not be able properly to reach a decision without taking that new information into account.

  It is not my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's policy to make public further details concerning an individual merger case once the report describing the results of the thorough inquiry conducted by the MMC has been published and my right hon. Friend's decision has been announced.

  Millennium Club
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many times over the last three years, he has addressed the Millennium Club in his official capacity; and if he will list the names of those present and the companies they represented on each occasion; and if he will make a statement. [15695]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: I have not addressed the Millennium Club in my official capacity.

  Mr. Alan Lewis
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on his intervention with the Russian Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of Mr. Alan Lewis during the period when civil proceedings in the Russian courts were in progress. [15662]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: I wrote to Russian Deputy Prime Ministers Bolshakov and Kazakov on 28 June 1996 following up a meeting of the UK—Russia Steering Committee on Trade and Investment which I had co-chaired with Mr. Bolshakov the previous month. The letter addressed the uncertainties that investors
  728
  faced in Russia and our shared aim to create there an attractive investment climate, and referred to Illingworth Morris as an example.

  I also wrote to Mr. Bolshakov on 4 December 1996 concerning negotiations involving other companies. Correspondence of this type is normally regarded as commercially confidential.

  Throughout, all correspondence and contact with the Russian Government were based wholly on the advice of officials in my Department and at the British Embassy in Moscow. Neither I nor any other Minister or official corresponded with the Chief Justice of the Russian High Arbitration court over this case.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the occasions on which he has met Mr. Alan Lewis in an official capacity; and what subjects were discussed on each occasion. [15663]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: In my official capacity as President of the Board of Trade I have met Mr. Lewis once. We discussed his company's business interests.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors led him to write to the Russian Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of Illingworth Morris about negotiations in which the company was involved in Russia; if he will place copies of the relevant correspondence in the Library; in what other cases he has written to Russian Ministers concerning individual company negotiations in Russia; and if he will make a statement. [15697]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 13 February 1997]: I wrote to Russian Deputy Prime Ministers Bolshakov and Kazakov on 28 June 1996 following up a meeting of the UK-Russia Steering Committee on Trade and Investment which I had co-chaired with Mr. Bolshakov the previous month. The letter addressed the uncertainties that investors faced in Russia and our shared aim to create there an attractive investment climate, and referred to Illingworth Morris as an example.

  I also wrote to Mr. Bolshakov on 4 December 1996 concerning negotiations involving other companies.

  Correspondence of this type is normally regarded as commercially confidential.

  Throughout, all correspondence and contacts with the Russian Government were based wholly on the advice of officials in my Department and at the British Embassy in Moscow.

  Commonwealth of Independent States
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the ministerial visits made to each CIS country since 1992. [15734]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 February 1997]: Listed are DTI ministerial visits to CIS countries since 1992:

  Country visited

  Date

  Mr. Heseltine

  Azerbaijan and Russia

  September 1992

  Mr. Eggar

  Kazakhstan

  September 1993

  Mr. Eggar

  Uzbekistan

  May 1994

  729

  Country visited

  Date

  Mr. Eggar

  Turkmenistan

  February 1995

  Mr. Eggar

  Azerbaijan and Georgia

  May 1995

  Mr. Eggar

  Russia

  September 1995

  Lord Goschen— (Transport Minister, but let a DTI Mission)

  Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan

  September 1995

  Mr. Lang

  Russia

  May 1996

  Mr. Eggar

  Azerbaijan and Georgia

  June 1996

  Lord Goschen— (Transport Minister but led a DTI Mission)

  Azerbaijan, Georgia and Armenia

  September/October 1996

  Lord Fraser

  Azerbaijan

  January 1997

  Airbus
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total expenditure in launch aid for the Airbus A320; and how much of this has so far been recouped. [15854]

  Mr. Greg Knight
  [holding answer 18 February 1997]: Total launch aid of £249.3 million was granted for the Airbus A320. A total of £250.2 million has so far been received in repayment. Repayment, including a rate of return, is made by a levy on sales.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail Subsidiaries
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the gross proceeds of sales of former subsidiaries of British Rail in 1996–97. [15399]

  Mr. Watts
  Total gross proceeds of companies, which were previously owned by British Rail and which have been sold in the current financial year pursuant to the Railways Act 1993, are £2.13 billion. This sum includes gross proceeds of £1.93 billion from the sale of Railtrack; deferred payments; dividends of some £14 million paid before the sales this year of BR infrastructure companies; and gross proceeds of the following companies which were sold since my answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 27 November 1996,Official Report, columns 273–76.

  Company

  Purchaser

  Gross proceeds £ million

  Sale date

  Scientifics Ltd.

  Atesta Group Ltd.

  1.8

  9 December 1996

  BR Research Ltd.

  AEA Technology PLC

  10.752

  19 December 1996

  Nationwide Fire Services

  Serco Ltd.

  10.106

  6 January 1997

  BR Business Systems

  Sema Group UK Ltd.

  27.0

  31 January 1997

  National Railway Supplies Ltd.

  Gresty Supplies Ltd. (MBO)

  31.026

  31 January 1997

  Rail Operational Research Ltd.

  BR Projects Ltd. (an associate company of General Practice Investment Corp Ltd.)

  1.5

  4 February 1997

  1 Excludes collection of outstanding debts.

  M6/M61 Junction Signs
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what decision he has reached concerning the inclusion of Bolton on the M6/M61 junction signs; and if he will make a statement. [15712]

  Mr. Watts
  I am pleased to say that the Highways Agency has prepared a design for the signs on the four gantries involved at the M6/M61 junction which will allow the addition of Bolton. This work will be completed in March.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the causes of train delays and cancellations that are(a) recorded and (b) not recorded in the four-weekly track record on punctuality and reliability under the terms of the citizens charter. [15964]

  Mr. Watts
  Delays or cancellations caused by circumstances outside the control of the rail industry, such as vandalism, suicides or terrorist threats, are excluded from the passengers charger statistics. Services provided on certain days are also excluded: these are Sundays—except for Gatwick express and Island line—public holidays; and days when bus services are substituted, for example during engineering works, or when no effective service can be provided and season tickets are extended or refunded.

  Except where exclusions apply, the services included in passengers charter punctuality and reliability results are as follows. For punctuality:
  London commuter train companies (formerly Network SouthEast)—Mondays to Fridays only, trains arriving at London termini between 07.00 and 10.00 and trains departing from London between 16.00 and 19.00. Trains are punctual if they arrive at their destination within four minutes 59 seconds of the scheduled time.
  InterCity train companies—all trains Monday to Saturday. Trains are punctual if they arrive at their destination within nine minutes 59 seconds of the scheduled time.
  Other train companies (ex Regional Railways)—all trains Monday to Saturday. trains are punctual if they arrive at their destination within 4 minutes 59 seconds for short distance routes and 9 minutes 59 seconds for long distance routes.
  Gatwick express—all trains Monday to Sunday. Trains are punctual if they arrive at their destination within 4 minutes 59 seconds of the scheduled time.

  For reliability:
  the number of trains scheduled to run in the published timetable, including any emergency timetable. A train is counted as run if it has completed at least 50 per cent. of its scheduled route mileage.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of a timetabled journey under the passengers charter a train must complete to count as(a) a cancellation and (b) a train run; and if these criteria apply to all train operating companies. [15965]

  Mr. Watts
  For passengers charter purposes, a train is counted as cancelled if it fails to complete at least 50 per cent. of its scheduled route mileage. A train would be counted as run if it had completed at least 50 per cent. of
  731
  its scheduled route mileage. These criteria apply to all train operating companies and have not changed since 1992.

  Isle of Sheppey (Bridge)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the proposal for a new Swale bridge to the Isle of Sheppey; what provision has been made for this project in his Department's future programme; and what priority has been accorded to the project. [16025]

  Mr. Watts
  Proposals for a second crossing of the Swale to the Isle of Sheppey are part of the A249 Iwade-Queenborough improvement scheme. Draft line and side roads orders under the Highways Act 1980 were published for the scheme on 23 January. Economic, environmental and engineering assessments were carried out as part of that process. The economic appraisal involved the usual cost-benefit methodology applied to all major trunk road improvement proposals. The environmental assessment, in accordance with EC regulations, considered visual impact—including consulting Royal Fine Arts Commission—the effect on the local ecology, as well as more general environmental impacts.

  The results of this assessment were also published in an environmental statement on 23 January and placed on deposit locally for public inspection. The engineering assessment, comprised value management and value engineering as well as checks to ensure that the proposals comply with our national standards.

  At cash prices £ million

  Year

  Core business capital grant

  Core business revenue support grant

  New lines and extensions capital grant

  Total grant

  1978

  69

  51

  —

  120

  1979

  106

  51

  —

  157

  1980

  138

  80

  —

  218

  1981

  135

  82

  —

  217

  1982

  190

  123

  —

  313

  1983

  167

  175

  —

  342

  1984–851

  137

  186

  —

  323

  1985–86

  182

  125

  —

  307

  1986–87

  224

  66

  —

  290

  1987–88

  159

  44

  —

  203

  1988–89

  150

  20

  —

  170

  1989–90

  204

  44

  —

  248

  1990–91

  366

  74

  44

  484

  1991–92

  405

  103

  65

  573

  1992–93

  546

  254

  83

  883

  1993–94

  506

  66

  120

  692

  1994–952

  363

  10

  413

  786

  1995–96

  443

  —

  461

  904

  1996–973,4,5

  Breakdown of figures not yet available for these years

  973

  1997–984,5,6

  701

  1998–994,5,6

  352

  1999–20005,6

  163

  1 15 months accounting period.

  2 In addition to grant in 1994–95 LT benefitted substantially from proceeds from the sale of the subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd.

  3 1996–97 outturn figure subject to end-year flexibility arrangements.

  4 Apportionment of grant between LT core business and the JLE will be determined by LT in the light of emerging requirements.

  5 Includes Croydon Tramlink.

  6 £30 million grant carried forward from 1995–96 not yet allocated to a particular year.

  732
  This scheme has been given priority to progress it to draft order stage. Its future progress will depend upon the successful completion of the remaining statutory procedures.

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available, indicating(a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his Department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. [16180]

  Mr. Bowis
  The extensive information requested concerning the private employment agencies used by my Department and its agencies will take some time to assemble. I shall write to the hon. Member when I have further details and place a copy of the information in the Library.

  London Transport Finance
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the(a) total grants, (b) core business capital grants, (c) new lines and extensions capital grants and (d) revenue support grants, excluding the docklands light railway, awarded to London Transport in each year since 1978; and what is the planned expenditure for each year between 1996–97 and 1999–2000 in (i) cash prices and (ii) 1996–97 prices. [16027]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is set out in the following tables.
  733

  At 1996–97

  Year

  Core business capital grant

  Core business revenue support grant

  New lines and extensions capital grant

  Total grant

  1978

  211

  156

  —

  367

  1979

  278

  134

  —

  412

  1980

  306

  177

  —

  483

  1981

  273

  165

  —

  438

  1982

  358

  232

  —

  590

  1983

  301

  315

  —

  616

  1984–851

  235

  319

  —

  554

  1985–86

  296

  203

  —

  499

  1986–87

  354

  104

  —

  458

  1987–88

  238

  66

  —

  304

  1988–89

  211

  28

  —

  239

  1989–90

  268

  58

  —

  326

  1990–91

  445

  90

  54

  589

  1991–92

  463

  118

  74

  655

  1992–93

  599

  279

  91

  969

  1993–94

  540

  70

  128

  738

  1994–952

  380

  10

  433

  823

  1995–96

  453

  —

  471

  924

  1996–973 4 5

  Breakdown of figures not yet available for these years

  973

  1997–984 5 6

  687

  1998–994 5 6

  338

  1999–20005 6

  154

  1 15 months accounting period.

  2 In addition to grant in 1994–95 LT benefitted substantially from proceeds from the sale of the subsidiaries of London Buses Ltd.

  3 1996–97 outturn figure subject to end-year flexibility arrangements.

  4 Apportionment of grant between LT core business and the JLE will be determined by LT in the light of emerging requirements.

  5 Includes Croydon Tramlink.

  6 £30 million grant carried forward from 1995–96 not yet allocated to a particular year.

  Railtrack
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many people Railtrack employed(a) in total, (b) in its Intercity East Coast zone and (c) in its regional Railways North East zone at the time of its share flotation. [16643]

  Mr. Watts
  As detailed in the prospectus, as at 31 March 1996, Railtrack had approximately 11,500 employees. The information is not available by zone.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the Government's estimate of the value of Railtrack's(a) capital assets, including stations, light maintenance depots, arch accommodations and commercial property, investment property, track, bridges, tunnels, signalling systems and other land and capital assets and (b) annual commercial turnover (i) in total, (ii) in the Intercity East Coast zone and (iii) in the regional Railways North East zone at the time of the share flotation. [16642]

  Mr. Watts
  The historical cost of Railtrack's capital assets as described in the sale prospectus was £5,915 million as at 31 March 1994 and £6,492 at 31 March 1995 at current cost. The annual turnover for the year ended 31 March 1995 again as stated in the prospectus was £2,275 million and for the six months ended 30 September 1995 £1,139 million. The information is not available broken down by zone.

  South West Trains
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the compliance of South West Trains with its franchise agreement; what 734
  penalties it is subject to for non-compliance with its franchise agreement; and what liabilities it has incurred to date. [16914]

  Mr. Watts
  Compliance with franchise agreements is a matter for the franchising director. He has a range of options open to him to ensure that franchisees observe the terms of their agreements with him. In the case of South West Trains, the franchisee will be penalised financially for peak period cancellations he has made following the introduction of revised working arrangements for drivers. South West Trains has introduced a temporary timetable to minimise disruption to passengers, especially peak period services. Penalties are of the order of £600 per peak period cancellation.

  London Underground (Disabled People)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to ensure that(a) existing London underground stations and (b) London underground stations which are currently under construction are accessible for disabled people. [16521]

  Mr. Bowis
  This is a matter for London Underground. I understand that its policy is to maintain and improve existing levels of access for disabled passengers where practicable and to incorporate improved accessibility into all new and rebuilt trains, new lines and extensions and station redevelopments. For example, the Jubilee line extension, when completed, will be fully accessible to wheelchair users.

  More generally, access to stations and other public transport stations and terminals is covered by the provisions of part III of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which provides for the removal of physical barriers to access where that is deemed reasonable. The

  735
  Government have consulted on the timetable for implementation of those provisions and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Metrolink
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce a decision in relation to the outcome of the public inquiry into the extension of Metrolink into the Wythenshawe constituency; if the Minister from his Department to be present will make a statement about this at the meeting of the North West Regional Association on 24 February; and if he will make a statement. [16773]

  Mr. Watts
  The Secretary of State's decision on the application by the Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive for the Greater Manchester (LRTS) (Airport Extension) Order is expected shortly. If the decision is announced before the meeting of the Regional Annual Consultative Committee on 24 February, that meeting would provide an opportunity for any questions about the decision to be raised.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving examiners employed by the Driving Standards Agency have worked only one day in any one month period in the last 12 months; and on how many occasions a driving examiner employed by the Driving Standards Agency worked only one day in a month in the last 12 months. [16845]

  Mr. Bowis
  During 1996, all contract examiners were employed to the maximum of their guaranteed work under the terms of their particular contract. The reduced use of contract examiners started in December 1996 in response to falling demand for tests. Twenty contract examiners were employed for only one day in January 1997.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16747]

  Mr. Bowis
  Provision for all non-departmental public bodies is reviewed regularly and before annual budgets are set including expenditure on consultants. Audited accounts are published for each of these bodies.

  British Rail Property Board
  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what residual liabilities will need to be met through payment of grant in aid after the sale of the British Rail Property Board; [16502]

  (2) what provisions have been made in respect of the residual liabilities of British Rail Property Board following its sale. [16501]

  Mr. Watts
  No property assets or liabilities are to be included in the sale of the British Rail Property Board, which would become a property management business. No new liabilities would arise from its sale. Existing 736
  liabilities would remain with the BR board and provision would be made in the BR board's annual report and accounts in the usual way.

  Royal Train
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what rules govern whether a journey involving the use of the royal train by a member of the royal family is official or private. [16891]

  Mr. Watts
  A journey by a member of the royal family involving the use of the royal train is considered to be official if it is undertaken in pursuance of royal duties.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what basis repayments by members of the royal family are calculated for private use of the royal train. [16889]

  Mr. Watts
  Members of the royal family do not make private use of the royal train.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners' Behaviour (Diet)
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department(a) has commissioned and (b) plans to commission into the effects of diet on prisoners' behaviour; and if he will make a statement. [15284]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have not commissioned such research, but we have agreed to facilitate the nutritional rehabilitation project being run by Natural Justice Ltd. in Aylesbury young offender institution.

  Young Offender Institution (Colchester)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the first offenders to arrive at the new young offender institution in Colchester and if he will make a statement. [15292]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The first intake of young offenders arrived at Colchester young offender institution today.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action his Department has taken to increase the number of closed circuit television schemes. [15294]

  Mr. Maclean
  We will be investing more than £50 million in closed circuit television, funding more than 10,000 new cameras; 365 winning local partnerships have already been awarded more than £22 million. We will be announcing the results of the third competition, with another £15 million, very soon.

  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many CCTV cameras have been installed under the Government's CCTV challenge competitions in 1995 and 1996. [15302]

  Mr. Maclean
  If all the winning schemes go ahead as planned, we estimate that more than 4,000 closed circuit television cameras will be installed with the assistance of funding from the first two challenge competitions.
  737
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department has taken to increase the number of closed circuit television schemes. [15302]

  Mr. Maclean
  We will be investing more than £50 million in closed circuit television through our CCTV challenge competitions; 365 winning local partnerships have already been awarded more than £22 million in the first two competitions. We will be announcing the results of the third competition, with another £15 million, very soon.

  Crime Statistics
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police forces experienced a fall in their recorded crime figures in(a) 1995 and (b) the 12 months to June 1996. [15295]

  Mr. Maclean
  For both periods, the majority of police forces recorded falls in crime. In the 12 months to June 1996, 24 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales recorded decreases. For 1995, 35 forces recorded decreases.

  Prisoners (Handcuffing)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the guidelines issued to the Prison Service concerning the handcuffing of prisoners receiving hospital or hospice treatment. [15296]

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 18 January 1996, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made a statement to the House setting out policy on the handcuffing of prisoners receiving medical or antenatal treatment or giving birth outside the prison. The following day, the director of security and programmes issued an internal instruction announcing the new arrangements.

  The Prison Service has now issued further internal instructions giving more detailed guidance. These form part of the "Manual on Security", copies of which are held in the Library.

  Warwickshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received concerning Warwickshire fire and civil defence authority. [15297]

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations have been received from one hon. Member about fire service funding. In addition, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for the fire service, met a deputation in November to discuss the fire standard spending assessment distributional formula.

  Drug Trafficking and Dealing
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last discussed with the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service further initiatives to counter illegal drug trafficking and dealing. [15300]
  738
  Mr. Maclean
  My right hon. and learned Friend has not had such discussions recently with the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. However, the director general and his staff have regular contacts with Ministers and officials on a wide range of issues concerning serious and organised crime.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers are currently detained in prisons and in detention centres. [15301]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  As at 31 January 1997, there were a total of 768 persons whose detention resulted solely from powers conferred by schedules 2 or 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 and who had sought asylum at some stage.

  Mobile Phones (Police Investigation)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the use of mobile phones in police investigations. [15303]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary's reply of 12 February,Official Report, columns 215–16.

  Religious Cults
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assistance his Department provides to the families of members of religious cults. [15305]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department provides advice about the legal position and about other sources of help, including organisations which offer information and counselling.

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the proportion of recorded crime that resulted in prosecutions in(a) 1979 and (b) the latest period for which figures are available. [15306]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest information relates to 1995 and indicates that 10 per cent. of recorded offences against individuals and their property resulted in a prosecution. Information for 1979 is not available in the form requested and could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Security Breaches (Prisons)
  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that every prison has a suitable emergency procedure to follow in the event of a breach of security by prisoners. [15299]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Every prison establishment is required to have and maintain contingency plans for incidents that may occur within it, including breaches of security by prisoners.

  Drugs Seizures
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many seizures of(a) soft drugs and (b) hard drugs have been made from private dwellings in each of the past three years; what was the estimated street value of the seizures in each case; and if he will make a statement. [15461]

  Mr. Maclean
  No distinction is made between "soft" and "hard" drugs in drugs seizure statistics. National statistics on drug seizures are produced on the basis of class and type of drug. Seizure figures for each class for 1993,1994 and 1995 are as follows:

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Class A

  12,102

  13,876

  17,344

  Class B

  77,068

  95,997

  101,445

  Class C

  1,129

  1,627

  1,867

  Figures for 1996 are not yet available.

  Information relating to the place where drugs have been seized has not been collected at a national level since 1992. The street values of drugs seized are also not collected. Although they provide a useful operational tool for police officers, they are too subjective and liable to fluctuation to be included in national statistics.

  Holocaust Denial
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his response to recent proposals for legislation to make holocaust denial an offence. [15466]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Government's position on holocaust denial is well known and we have no plans to change it.

  Prison Inspectorate Reports
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 4 February,Official Report, column 554, if he will publish a list showing which prison each of 25 reports awaiting publication refer to; and how long each report has been awaiting publication. [14862]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The 25 establishments for which, at 4 February, an inspection report had been received from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons but had not yet been published, and the date on which the report was received from the inspectorate by my right hon. and learned Friend, is set out in the table:

  Establishment

  Date inspection report was received by the Home Secretary

  Acklington

  16 December 1996

  Albany

  22 October 1996

  Belmarsh

  17 December 1996

  Channings Wood

  22 October 1996

  Chelmsford

  16 December 1996

  Dartmoor

  29 August 1996

  Dover

  7 October 1996

  Eastwood Park

  6 January 1997

  Everthorpe

  14 November 1996

  Featherstone

  15 August 1996

  Gloucester

  22 October 1996

  Guys Marsh

  29 November 1996

  740

  Establishment

  Date inspection report was received by the Home Secretary

  Hatfield

  8 October 1996

  Holloway

  14 August 1996

  Lancaster Castle

  18 November 1996

  Low Newton

  22 October 1996

  Onley

  19 June 1996

  Portland

  8 October 1996

  Ranby

  15 August 1996

  Risley

  3 September 1996

  Shepton Mallet

  6 November 1996

  Usk/Prescoed

  14 November 1996

  The Verne

  15 August 1996

  Whitemoor

  29 November 1996

  Wormwood Scrubs

  31 October 1996

  The reports of the inspections of Portland and Hatfield were published on 13 February and 17 February respectively and those of four establishments, Guys Marsh, Holloway, Low Newton and Risley, will be published on 21 February.

  The reports of the inspections of the following 10 establishments are expected to be published during February and March: Channings Wood, Dartmoor, Dover, Featherstone, Gloucester, Lancaster Castle, Onley, Ranby, The Verne and Wormwood Scrubs.

  The remaining nine reports are under consideration. They will be published as soon as possible, but action in response to the recommendations made in an inspection report does not wait until publication of the report.

  Prisoners (Unlocked Periods)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average amount of time prisoners spent unlocked(a) for each prison, (b) for each prison type and (c) for the whole Prison Service, (i) for each month since January 1996 and (ii) for each year since 1989–90. [15976]

  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 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking for the average amount of time prisoners spent unlocked (a) for each prison, (b) for each prison type and (c) for the whole Prison Service, (i) for each month since January 1996 and (ii) for each year since 1989–90.
  Tables giving details of the information you requested have been placed in the Library. Time out of cell figures are not available for individual prisons prior to April 1994 so the yearly figures you requested are for April 1994 and April 1995 only.

  Prisoners (Employment)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list(a) the number of employment places provided by Prison Service laundries and (b) the number of prisoner hours spent working in Prison Service laundries in each year since 1989–90. [15974]
  741
  (2) if he will list (a) the number of employment places, (b) the total net cost of these employment places offered by Prison Service industries and farms and (c) the total number of hours of inmate occupation provided by these places in each year since 1989–90; [15972]

  (3) if he will list (a) the number of inmates and (b) the number of hours spent by inmates working directly for the private sector on a subcontract basis in each year since 1989–90. [15973]

  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 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your three recent Questions about the employment of prisoners.
  The attached tables detail the information you requested.
  The figures provided are from the earliest records available which, with the exception of the information for private sector work, exclude the period 1989–90. Figures provided for the current year are estimated rather than actual. Statistics relating to private sector work undertaken in prisons are not yet available for the period 1996–97.

  Year

  Number of employment places

  Net hours of work undertaken within Prison Service laundries

  1990–91

  988

  1,061,000

  1991–92

  1,090

  1,040,000

  1992–93

  1,051

  1,050,000

  1993–94

  1,053

  960,000

  1994–95

  982

  1,090,000

  1995–96

  984

  1,080,000

  1996–971

  906

  976,000

  1 Only estimated figures are available for the current year.

  Year

  Number of employment places

  Net cost of employment places £

  Number of hours of inmate occupation

  1991–92

  11,003

  26,107,000

  11,553,150

  1992–93

  10,172

  28,550,000

  10,680,600

  1993–94

  10,024

  27,748,000

  10,625,440

  1994–95

  9,250

  27,327,000

  10,175,000

  1995–96

  9,626

  27,369,000

  10,444,210

  1996–971

  10,320

  29,711,000

  11,868,000

  1 Only estimated figures are available for the current year.

  Year

  Number of inmates

  Number of hours spent by inmates working directly for the private sector on a sub-contract basis

  1989–90

  2,537

  1,602,255

  1990–91

  2,142

  1,465,637

  1991–92

  2,033

  1,296,000

  1992–93

  1,806

  1.387,058

  1993–94

  1,637

  1,395,239

  1994–95

  1,646

  1,416,024

  1995–961

  1,876

  1,587,917

  Figures are not available for 1996–97.

  1 Only estimated figures are available for this period.

  Minimum Age Requirements
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the minimum age requirements enforced by his Department. [15916]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office is responsible for legislation which sets various minimum age requirements covering firearms, gambling, liquor, sexual consent, supply of videos, access to cinemas and other matters, marriage, elections, nationality and aspects of the criminal law relating to juveniles. Readily available information on existing statutory provisions is set out in the table.

  In each case, criminal offences are not themselves enforced by the Home Office.

  Subject

  Age

  Details of legal requirement

  Firearms

  17

  Minimum age under the Firearms Acts to purchase or hire a rifle, pistol, revolver, high-powered air gun, shotgun or airgun or ammunition for such a firearm; or to have an air weapon in a public place (with various exceptions).

  15

  Minimum age under the Firearms Acts to have an assembled shotgun (unless with an adult) or to be given or lent a shotgun or ammunition for it.

  14

  Minimum age under the Firearms Acts to possess or be given or lent a rifle, pistol, revolver or high-powered airgun (with various exceptions); to be granted a certificate by the police for such a firearm or to have (unless under the supervision of someone 21 or over), or be given, an air weapon or ammunition for it.

  Gambling

  18

  Minimum age for participating in betting under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963; for participating in casino gambling under the Gaming Act 1968; for participating in bingo under the Gaming Act 1968; and for using amusement arcades with all cash amusement-with-prizes machines under the Gaming Act 1968.

  16

  Minimum age under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 for participating in football pools; and for participating in lotteries (excluding the National Lottery) under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976.

  Liquor

  18

  Minimum age under the Liquor Licensing Act 1964 to purchase alcohol in bars and off-licences; work in a licensed bar (soon to be 16 under current deregulation measure) or to sell alcohol unsupervised in an off-licence.

  16

  Minimum age under the Liquor Licensing Act 1964 to buy beer or cider with a meal.

  14

  Minimum age under the Liquor Licensing Act 1964 to be in the bar of licensed premises, unless a children's certificate is in force.

  Tobacco

  16

  Minimum age for buying tobacco or tobacco products under the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Act 1991.

  Intoxicating substances

  18

  Under the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, it is an offence to supply a substance to a person under 18 knowing or believing that the substance or its fumes are likely to be inhaled for the purposes of causing intoxication.

  Street trading

  17

  Minimum age under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and London Local Authorities Act 1990 for holding a street trading licence or street trading consent.

  743

  Subject

  Age

  Details of legal requirement

  Pedlars

  17

  Minimum age for holding a pedlars certificate under the Pedlars Act 1871.

  Hypnotism

  18

  Minimum age to be hypnotised as part of a public performance of hypnotism under the Hypnotism Act 1952.

  Tattooing

  18

  Minimum age for having a tattoo under the Tattooing of Minors Act 1969.

  Sexual consent

  18

  Minimum age for consent to male homosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

  16

  Minimum age for consent to heterosexual acts under the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (and de facto to female homosexual acts).

  Supply of video recordings

  18/15/12

  Under the Video Recordings Act, videos classified by the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) as '12', '15', or '18' may not be supplied to people under those ages.

  Access to cinema films

  18/15/12

  Under the Cinemas Act 1985, public cinemas must be under local authority licence which will require them to abide by age restrictions set in the classification certificates issued by the BBFC.

  Access to licensed sex establishments

  18

  Minimum age for access to, working in or being granted a licence to run, a sex shop or cinema in local authority areas which have adopted the relevant powers of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.

  Indecent photographs

  16

  Minimum age to be the subject of an indecent photograph (connected offences contained in the Protection of Children Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988).

  Marriage

  18

  Minimum age for marriage without the consent of a parent, parents or guardian under the Marriage Act 1949, as amended by the Family Law Act 1969.

  16

  Minimum age for marriage under the Marriage Act 1949, as amended by the Family Law Act 1969.

  Elections

  21

  Minimum age to stand for election at Parliamentary, European Parliamentary or local elections, under the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695, the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978 and the Local Government Act.

  18

  Minimum age to vote in Parliamentary, European Parliamentary or local elections, under the Representation of the People Act 1983 and the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, amended by the Family Law Reform Act 1969.

  Criminal law and penalties

  10

  Age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. (The jurisdiction of the youth court covers 10–17 year olds, though a juvenile may appear in the adult Magistrates' Court if charged with an adult, or in the Crown Court if the offence with which he is charged warrants it.)

  10

  Minimum age at which fines, compensation orders, bindovers, supervision orders, attendance centre orders and long term detention or detention during Her Majesty's pleasure become available, under the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 and 1969, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (all as amended).

  744

  Subject

  Age

  Details of legal requirement

  12

  Minimum age at which secure training order becomes available under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (maximum age 14). [Provisions not yet implemented.]

  15

  Minimum age at which detention in a Young Offender's Institution becomes available under the Criminal Justice Act 1982, as amended.

  16

  Minimum age at which probation orders, community service orders, combination orders or curfew orders become available under the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 and the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  18

  Minimum age at which custody for life becomes available under the Criminal Justice Act 1982, as amended.

  Nationality

  18

  Minimum age for application for naturalisation as a British citizen and for renunciation of British citizenship by single person under the British Nationality Act 1981.

  10

  Minimum age for application for registration as a British citizen by certain persons born in the UK who did not acquire citizenship at birth and for application for registration as a British citizen by a person born stateless outside the UK but resident in the UK for the past 5 years under the British Nationality Act 1981.

  In addition, services for which the Home Office or its Agencies have responsibility set the following minimum age requirements for recruitment:

  18 years for appointment as a firefighter (under the Fire Services (Appointment and Promotion) Regulations 1978);

  22 years for appointment as a probation officer (under the Probation Rules 1984);

  18 years and six months for appointment to a police force (under the Police Regulations 1995);

  18 years for appointment as an immigration officer;

  16 years for appointment as an assistant immigration officer, and

  20 years for appointment as a prison officer (this requirement is under review).

  Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many hours were spent in education by prisoners in each financial year since 1987–88; [15986]

  (2) what estimates he has made of level of (a) numeracy, (b) literacy and (c) educational and vocational qualifications of prisoners on (i) first reception into prison and (ii) leaving prison; [15971]

  (3) how much was paid by the Prison Service to local education authorities for teaching services in each financial year since 1985–86. [15987]

  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 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your three recent questions about education provision in prisons.

  745
  Information on the number of hours spent in education by prisoners is not available in the form requested. Since the contracting out of prison education in 1993 the number of hours spent in education by prisoners has been collected on a calendar year basis. The total number of prisoner hours spent in education was 9.2 million in 1994, the first full year under the contract arrangements, rising to 9.4 million in 1995. The predicted hours for 1996 are expected to be similar to 1995.
  Education hours for the financial years before contracting out, as published in the Prison Service Annual Report, are set out in the attached table.
  The Prison Service has made no specific estimates of the level of numeracy, literacy or educational and vocational qualifications of prisoners on first reception into prison and on leaving prison. Since 1 January this year, all prisoners are invited to take the Basic Skills Screening Test on reception into prison. This will provide comparative data on the level of literacy and numeracy among prisoners at the beginning and end of their sentences.
  The amounts paid by the Prison Service to local education authorities for teaching services are set out in the attached table. Expenditure for 1993–94 onwards covers all education providers contracted to supply teaching services to prison establishments, not just local education authorities.

  Education hours as published in the prison service annual report 1987–1993

  Hours

  1987–88

  5.56 million

  1988–89

  6.84 million

  1989–90

  7.75 million

  1990–91

  1Not available

  1991–92

  7.55 million

  1992–93

  7.57 million

  April to December 1993

  2Not available

  1 No figure published because the disturbances of that year made returns unreliable and incomplete.

  2 Developing and implementing the contracting-out process prevented figures from being collected for this period.

  Payments by the prison service to local education authorities for teaching services in each financial year since 1985–86

  Financial year

  £000s

  1985–86

  10,849

  1986–87

  13,445

  1987–88

  14,984

  1988–89

  17,395

  1989–90

  20,235

  1990–91

  22,924

  1991–92

  26,245

  1992–93

  28,383

  1993–94

  27,628

  1994–95

  33,069

  1995–96

  33,573

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the private employment agencies used by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years for which figures are available, indicating(a) the names of the agencies, (b) the numbers employed by the agencies in work for his Department, (c) the total cost to his Department of using employment agencies and the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. 116177]

  Mr. Howard
  The information recorded centrally is set out below. Additional information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The information given for the agencies has been provided by the Director General of the 746
  Prison Service and the chief executives of the Passport Agency, the Forensic Science Agency and the Fire Service College.

  Home Office (excluding the Agencies)

  (a) The following employment agencies have been used by central personnel units in the last three years:

  Alfred Marks

  Belle Recruitment

  Brook Street

  Excel Recruitment

  Josephine Sammons

  Kelly Services

  Manpower

  Michael Page Finance

  Office Angels

  Purcon

  Reed Employment

  Other agencies may have been used by local managers.

  (b) This information is not recorded centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (c) The total cost to central personnel units was approximately £260,000 in 1995 and £592,000 in 1996. Additional costs may have been incurred locally. The median cost paid to the agency per person recruited could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (d) This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. The majority of agency staff used are typists and secretaries who are booked on a weekly basis as required to provide cover for staff on sick leave, maternity leave or annual leave.

  HM Prison Service

  (a) The following employment agencies have been used by the central personnel unit in the last three years:

  Account Temps

  Adecco Alfred Marks

  Badenoch and Clark

  Capita

  Certes

  DBI Associates

  Excel

  Harrison Willis

  Hays Accountancy Personnel

  Inline KPG

  Insight

  Josephine Sammons

  Manpower

  Reed Employment

  R. Page

  (b) On 17 February 1997 the following agency staff were working in the Prison Service: 16 personal secretaries, four analysts, two administrative staff, 12 accounts clerks and 19 accountants. The total number of agency staff used in a year is not recorded.

  (c) This information is not recorded centrally as costs are met from local budgets.

  (d) This information is not recorded centrally as the arrangements in each case are made by local managers.

  Passport Agency

  (a) The following agencies have been used in the last two years:

  Kelly Services

  Manpower

  Maureen Lynn RA

  747

  (b) 1995: two agency staff were used.

  1996: four agency staff were used.

  (c) The total cost was £2,603.67 in 1995 and £25,865.14 in 1996.

  (d) Agency staff have been used for periods between 11 hours and eight months.

  Forensic Science Service

  (a) The following agencies have been used in the period 199394 to 1995–96:

  Alfred Marks

  Blue Arrow

  Brook Street

  Ecco

  Excel

  Harrison Willis

  Lab Staff

  Purcon

  The information available in response to (b), (c) and (d) is as follows:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–961

  Average number of agency staff used

  6

  23

  47

  Total cost

  £66,000

  £254,000

  £763,000

  Average length of stay (in weeks)

  31

  30

  42

  1 The establishment of the National DNA Database required a number of temporary posts at the outset which were subsequently converted to permanent positions.

  Fire Service College

  (a) The following agencies have been used in the period April 1995 to date:

  Apex

  Infomatch

  Premier (CBR)

  (b) This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (c) The total cost in 1995–96 was £33,147 and the total cost to date in 1996-97 has been £60,157. These figures include VAT which is not recoverable as the Fire Service College has exempt status for VAT purposes.

  (d) This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Open Prisons (Foreign Prisoners)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if convicted foreign nationals may be held in open prison. [16108]

  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. Peter Bottomley, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about whether convicted foreign nationals may be held in open prisons.
  Foreign nationals serving a sentence of imprisonment may not be held in open conditions if they are subject to removal from the United Kingdom at the end of the sentence under provisions of the Immigration Act 1971. This may be by reason of a court recommendation for deportation, a notice of intention to deport, a deportation order, a notice of illegal entry or a notice of refusal of leave to enter.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures his Department has initiated to combat drugs misuse in north-west England. [16154]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's strategy for combating drugs misuse is aimed at reducing both the supply of and demand for illegal drugs. In support of this, 105 local drug action teams have been set up across the country; 16 of these are in the north-west. In addition, two Home Office drugs prevention teams, based in Liverpool and Salford, are working with local people and groups to find effective and lasting ways to prevent drugs misuse in the community.

  Police and Customs activity in the region has achieved notable successes. A combined operation with Dutch police resulted in the seizure last October of cocaine valued at £75 million as well as considerable quantities of heroin and Ecstasy, and the breaking up of a major international drug trafficking organisation based in the north-west of England.

  Prisons (Lancashire)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisons there were in Lancashire in(a) 1996 and (b) 1979; [16152]

  (2) how many prisoners there were in Lancashire in (a) 1996 and (b) 1979. [16153]

  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. Nigel Evans, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of prisons and prisoners in Lancashire in 1996 compared with 1979.
  The Information you requested is as follows:

  1979

  1996

  Number of prisons

  6

  8

  Number of prisoners

  1,786

  3,046

  Source:

  Prison Service Annual Reports 1979 and 1995–96.

  The figures for 1979 relate to the calendar year and for 1996 to the financial year 1995–96.

  The daily average prison population for these two years was 42,220 and 51,664 respectively.

  Crime Prevention (Lancashire)
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what policies his Department has initiated to help the police combat crime in the north-west of England since 1992. [16151]

  Mr. Maclean
  Our policies to combat crime, which benefit the north-west of England equally with the rest of the country, are to prevent offences from being committed in the first place, to help the police catch criminals, to ensure that, when caught, suspects are tried fairly and speedily, and to give the courts the powers they need to punish the guilty. This approach has involved major new
  749
  legislation: substantial changes in the criminal justice system, including the creation of new offences and the revision of penalties; the development of new measures on crime prevention; and the targeting of persistent offenders.

  In the north-west, we have increased funding for the police—by £32.29 million in 1996–97 compared with 1995–96; we have provided nearly £2 million under the last two closed circuit television challenge competitions to assist with the installation of 36 schemes; and the single regeneration budget has provided nearly £14.5 million to successful round 1 bids in the area of crime and community safety.

  Through partnership initiatives to combat crime and the steadfast work of the police, we have seen recorded crime fall in the north-west by more than 13 per cent. during the past three years for which figures are available.

  Prison Medical Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the expenditure(a) in cash (b) at current prices and (c) per head of prison population incurred by the prison medical service in each year since 1990 on (a) mental illness research, (b) treatment by prescription medicines for (i) tranquillisers and (ii) anti-depressants and (c) treatment of drug abuses for each year. [15233]

  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 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about expenditure by the prison medical service each year since 1990 on mental illness research, prescription medicines for tranquillisers and anti-depressants and treatment of drug abuse.
  We do not keep full central records on expenditure in the categories you ask, which could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However we estimate that around £400,000 has been spent on research relating to mental disorder in prisoners between 1990 and 1996.

  Secure Accommodation (Kirklees)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assist Kirklees metropolitan borough council in meeting the costs of providing secure accommodation for Glenn and John Howells. [16440]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The cost of accommodating juveniles remanded to local authority accommodation is entirely a matter for the local authority concerned.

  Since the conviction and sentence of Glenn and John Howells on 12 February, the cost of their detention in secure local authority accommodation has been met by the Prison Service.

  Mr. Oscar Okoye (Death)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the circumstances leading to the death of Mr. Oscar Okoye following his arrest in south London. [16414]
  750
  Mr. Maclean
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that Mr. Okoye was arrested on Friday 14 June 1996 for failing to give a specimen of breath, being suspected of driving while under the influence of alcohol and suspected assault. Mr. Okoye was seen by the custody officer at Streatham police station and then referred to a forensic medical examiner, who was concerned about the level of alcohol Mr. Okoye had consumed as he was a diabetic. Mr. Okoye was taken to St. George's hospital. He was then transferred to Atkinson Morely hospital, where a scan revealed a frontal haematoma. An operation was carried out on 18 June, which appeared at that stage to be successful. Mr. Okoye remained in hospital and died on 11 November from acute renal failure, diabetes militis and intracerebral haemorrhage.

  Stalking
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his proposed timetable for implementing the provisions contained in the Protection from Harassment Bill. [16441]

  Mr. Maclean
  The exact timetable will depend on the progress of the Bill through Parliament. I expect that there will be a short period between Royal Assent and implementation of the provisions of the Bill in England and Wales to allow for the preparation of the courts, police and other relevant agencies. It is, however, the Government's intention to implement the provisions of this Bill as speedily as possible.

  Special Secure Units
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the principal conclusions of the report by Sir Donald Acheson into the effects of the current special secure unit regime on prisoners' health; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [16350]

  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. Kevin McNamara, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the conclusions of the report by Sir Donald Acheson into the effects of the current special secure unit (SSU) regime on prisoners' health.
  Sir Donald's report contained the following recommendations:

  1. Given the short duration of the present regime it is premature to come to a firm conclusion on its impact on prisoners' health. We therefore advise that the general health of prisoners detained in SSUs be reviewed at regular intervals, taking into account their degree of susceptibility to psychological symptoms.

  2. A standard set of procedures applicable to all SSUs should be devised, circulated to all parties and enforced to ensure the most expeditious transfer of prisoners requiring emergency treatment to NHS hospitals.

  3. SSUs should be provided with the same level of first aid and emergency aid equipment as other wings in the prison. Personnel trained in using the equipment should be on duty in the SSU at all times.

  4. Prisoners should be held in SSUs for as short a period possible.

  751

  5. Prisoners should be informed when their cases are coming before the SSU committee and be given the opportunity to submit written representations. When feasible, an indication as to how long prisoners will be required to stay in the SSU system should be given.

  6. Sentence planning should be introduced as with other long term prisoners.

  7. More opportunities for mental stimulation and physical exercise should be provided, including the provision of meaningful activity.

  8. It is the unanimous view of the group that in the interests of health prisoners in the SSUs should have access to open visits with members of their immediate family. We believe that it should be possible for the Prison Service to devise visits which prevent the passage of unauthorised items while at the same time retaining the advantages to the prisoners of physical contact possible only in open visits. Given the logistics involved in conducting secure open visits, it is for the Prison Service to determine their frequency and management.

  9. Staff should be encouraged to form relationships with prisoners, yet remain sufficiently detached to maintain objectivity and resist being compromised.

  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date a system for three-monthly reviews of the health of individual prisoners in special secure units was introduced; who has been asked to conduct the reviews; how many prisoner shave been examined; and if he will make a statement. [16351]

  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. Kevin McNamara, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the health reviews of prisoners in special secure units.
  A revised version f the Operating Standards for special secure units was issued on 7 January 1997. The Standards incorporated the amendments made to reflect the recommendations of the Acheson Report, including the requirement for the health of prisoners to be reviewed every three months. The first reviews will take place next month. Reviews will be undertaken by medical officers at each establishment with outside assistance where appropriate.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints about the behaviour of sniffer dogs have been made by visitors to each of the prisons containing special secure units in each of the last four years; how many of these complaints were upheld; and what action was taken as a result. [16352]

  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. Kevin McNamara, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of complaints made regarding the behaviour of sniffer dogs, by visitors to prisons containing special secure units.
  The Prison Service has received two complaints in the last four years. These complaints were fully investigated and no evidence was found to support them, consequently no further action was taken.
  752
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if consultations between prisoners held in special secure units and their legal advisers remain subject to closed visit restrictions. [16353]

  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. Kevin McNamara, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the closed visits policy for category A prisoners.
  Prison Service policy requires that exceptional risk category A prisoners have closed visits except in exceptional circumstances.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who made the decision that category A exceptional risk prisoners held in special secure units in 1994 did not have to have movement records in category A books within the discrete area of the special secure unit; and if this decision applied to all prisoners held in the special secure unit; [16545]

  (2) what is his Department's definition of the discrete area of a special secure unit; [16546]

  (3) if the Whitemoor escape trial prisoners had category A books before their arrival at HM prison Whitemoor; [16547]

  (4) where the information, other than movement records, normally held in a category A book, was kept for those involved in the Whitemoor attempted escape; [16548]

  (5) if he will place in the Library a sample of a category A book. [16549]

  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. Kevin McNamara, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions relating to the decision that category A prisoners held in the special secure unit (SSU) at Whitemoor prison did not need to have their movements within the discrete area of the SSU recorded in category A books.
  The governor of Whitemoor prison took the decision not to use category A books in the special secure unit, and this policy was applied to all prisoners in the SSU.
  The special secure unit is discrete from the rest of the prison as it is a self-contained building within its own secure perimeter inside the main prison. It contains living and cell accommodation, an exercise area, activity area and a visits facility.
  A category A book contains records of a prisoner's movement from one discrete area of the prison to another, signatures of the members of staff responsible for these movements and a photograph of the prisoner to facilitate identification. As these books were not used at Whitemoor this information was not recorded.
  Prior to their transfers to Whitemoor prison, three of the Whitemoor escape trial prisoners were subject to category A books. The remaining three were held in special units which did not use such books.
  I have arranged for a blank copy of a category A book to be placed in the Library. It is the same book as is used for prisoners on the escape list. I attach for your convenience a photocopy of the cover and of one of the pages (all of which are identical).
  755

  Whitemoor Prison (Escape)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long each of the accused in the Whitemoor escape trial was held in a special secure unit. [16544]

  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. Kevin McNamara, dated 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how long each of the accused in the Whitemoor prison escape trial was held in a special secure unit.
  The attached table shows how long the six prisoners involved in the attempted escape from the Whitemoor special secure unit have been held in a special secure unit.

  Number

  Name

  Date to special Number Name secure unit

  B83693

  Liam McCotter

  9 December 1988

  BR3783

  Paul Magee

  16 June 1992

  L48616

  Gilbert McNamee

  28 October 1987

  MT2485

  Liam O'Duibhir

  7 December 1990

  JA0023

  Andrew Russell

  15 April 1992

  B75880

  Peter Sherry

  24 June 1986

  Failed Prosecutions (Cleveland)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Cleveland regarding the role played by his officers in the failure of the cases Rv. Charrington and R v. Berriman; and if he will make a statement. [15286]

  Mr. Maclean
  No. The issues raised by these cases are matters for the relevant chief constables. It would not be appropriate for me to comment or intervene.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring takes place by his Department of the use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies. [16756]

  Mr. Howard
  The use of external consultants by non-departmental public bodies is not routinely monitored, since this would be incompatible with the delegated responsibility given to the governing bodies, but their use of consultants will often have been taken into account in the scrutiny of their annual budgets and business plans.

  Prisons (Education and Work Opportunities)
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions the Minister responsible for prisons has had with(a) trade unions, (b) boards of visitors and (c) prison managers about education and work opportunities in prisons. [15304]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have met trade union representatives and representatives of boards of visitors on a number of occasions. I have also had opportunities to discuss a range of issues including education and work 756
  opportunities with them during the 119 visits I have so far made to prison establishments. I meet prison managers frequently. I have made clear my support for the director general's guidance to governors that work and education are important elements of the prison regime.

  Anti-terrorist Legislation
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on Lord Lloyd of Berwick's recommendations in the report of his inquiry into legislation against terrorism. [17353]

  Mr. Howard
  Lord Lloyd has produced a thoughtful and comprehensive set of recommendations for new permanent counter-terrorism legislation covering the whole of the United Kingdom in the event of a lasting peace being established in Northern Ireland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and I are very grateful for this work, but in the continuing absence of a lasting peace we believe that it is too early to reach a firm view on possible fundamental legislative change. We hope that there will soon be a permanent cessation of violence which would enable us to look again at the possibility of providing a new legislative framework for combating terrorism.

  The Government do, however, intend to bring forward in due course proposals to strengthen existing controls on terrorist finances, along the lines of Lord Lloyd's very helpful analysis. These proposals will include extending existing controls more widely to international terrorism.

  Prison Service Funding
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much extra funding was made available, or expenditure incurred, in respect of implementing the recommendations for the Prison Service of(a) the Woodcock report and (b) the Learmont report, so far as separately identifiable for (i) 1994–95, (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97. [15511]

  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 20 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how much extra funding was made available, or expenditure incurred, in respect of implementing the recommendations for the Prison Service of (a) the Woodcock Report and (b) the Learmont Report, so far as separately identifiable, for (i) 1994–95 (ii) 1995–96 and (iii) 1996–97.
  The funding for 1996/97, the first year after the publication of the Learmont Report, includes money for both Woodcock and Learmont recommendations. It is not practical to separate spending on Woodcock and Learmont, as many of the measures funded by the 1996/97 provision implemented recommendations made in both reports. The figures are as follows:

  £million

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 Outturn

  1996–97 Provision

  Current

  0

  114.5

  40.6

  Capital

  23.3

  236.6

  239.2

  1 Estimated outturn: Our accounting system does not separately identify current expenditure on Woodcock.

  2 Does not include fees for design work etc.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
The Earl of Cawdor—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Legal Aid Expenditure
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider reducing the cost to the taxpayer of the provision of legal aid.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, last summer's White Paper, Striking the Balance, set out fundamental reforms that will allow us to control legal aid expenditure and ensure that the money spent is targeted on cost-effective services for the people in greatest need. In the meantime, the Government are doing all they can to control expenditure within the constraints of the present system.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. Is he aware that the old system under which counsel of fairly junior standing were employed in this work was a great deal cheaper to operate than the present system? What is the objection to reverting to that system?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the precise arrangements for particular cases are very much a matter over which the court has control in relation to certification. The controls that we are able to apply under the present system relate to the fees charged and to examination of the financial position of those who may apply. We have made some progress in providing better mechanisms for testing that than were hitherto available.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor agree how pleasant it is to see the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, back in his usual place and undertaking his usual function of irritating the Government? He has not attended as regularly over the past few days as we have grown accustomed to note.
Is the noble and learned Lord able to confirm that for the past six years the audit certificate relating to the administration of the legal aid budget has been limited to a qualified certificate? Is that qualification in respect of millions of pounds or hundreds of millions of pounds of public money?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, perhaps I may join with the noble Lord in welcoming my noble
776
friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. We are delighted to see him in his place. I do not of course agree that his principal function is to irritate the Government. Quite the opposite, I regard his Question as entirely in support of what I seek to achieve.
As regards the qualification of the legal aid accounts, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, is correct that the accounts have been qualified. The reason has been that the financial tests are applied by the justices' clerks and their staff in respect of the applications for criminal legal aid. Over the years the justices' clerks have not been able to show that those checks have been properly applied. We are trying to do everything we can to persuade them to do that properly. There has been a considerable improvement in the standard of checking. The only option available to me in this respect is to take the whole matter away from the courts altogether. That is not something that I am anxious to do because I believe that it will lead to further delay in the process of criminal justice. I would much prefer that the clerks were able to bring their checks up to the proper standard. As I say, in co-operation with them we have done all we can to encourage that, including trying to simplify the regulations.
The total sum involved is difficult to tell. One of the problems that the justices' clerks and their staff have is that it is highly probable that most of the people involved are qualified on financial grounds. It is the checking of that which requires to be done whatever one's prima facie view about the result of the check.
In respect of the last account the figure suggested by the National Audit Office that might be in question was of the order of £1.8 million. It is certainly not hundreds of millions or any of the other larger figures that the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, mentioned.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the amount of taxpayers' money going into legal aid is escalating tremendously? Are the terms of the Legal Aid Board—it is an independent body—sufficiently strict? Does my noble and learned friend also agree that if legal aid were extended to industrial tribunals and the borrowing requirement were to remain the same, in order to find the extra money for legal aid the Exchequer would require an increase in taxation or in the national insurance contribution at a cost to the British taxpayer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question but that the budget for legal aid, the amount spent on legal aid, has risen substantially over the past few years. The problem is that the existing system which has been in operation for some time is in the nature of a demand-led system. Therefore it is extremely difficult to control the ultimate budget. The question of allowing representation of industrial tribunals under the present system would mean an add-on to the budget. I do not know any way in which that can be controlled properly. If the system were changed, the Government would have an option about the priority areas in which a given predetermined sum might be spent. That would enable the fund to be targeted on areas of greater need.

777
My noble friend will know that the Legal Aid Board is concerned primarily with the civil aspect. As I said earlier, the courts grant legal aid in respect of criminal matters. The terms of reference under which the Legal Aid Board operates are terms of primary legislation. That is one of the reasons why the White Paper, Striking the Balance, requires fairly fundamental proposals if we are to effect substantial change.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord is doubtless aware, under Treasury guidelines Ministers may not attempt reductions in expenditure without first considering the resource implications for other departments. Will he give the House an assurance that, before any further reduction in legal aid, his department will observe that guideline? Will he tell us how it will set about doing so?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it will be a unique experience for me if there is a reduction of any kind in legal aid. That is very difficult to achieve. It has certainly not happened yet. I hope that, if I am here sufficiently long, I shall have a chance to achieve just that. The effects that one department's arrangements have on others is a matter for departments to take into account. I believe that I am quite exemplary in trying to do that.

Juvenile Prostitution
3.11 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, following legislation to limit sexual offences by British citizens against minors overseas, they will take steps to discover how many prostitutes under 18 years of age are active in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, it is very difficult to estimate the number of prostitutes of any age, but particularly those under 18. The covert nature of juvenile prostitution makes it difficult to arrive at meaningful figures for the actual number of children involved. However, I can tell the House that in 1995 there were 364 instances of females and five of males under the age of 18 being cautioned or convicted for offences under Section 1 of the Street Offences Act 1959.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, even if her figures seriously understate the problem. I wish also to thank Her Majesty's Government collectively for introducing Part II of the Sex Offenders Act following decisions made in this House. Do the Government accept all the recommendations of the report by the Children's Society on the subject of child prostitution produced in 1995, and in particular its bearing on co-operation between the Home Office and the Department of Health and among all relevant local agencies towards full implementation of the Children Act 1989?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments about the Government accepting Part II of the Sex Offenders Act. I put on record our thanks to the noble Lord for being so persistent and assiduous in making sure that the changes were brought about. It would be over-simplistic for me merely to answer yes to the question and say that I do not have time to give a considered response to the noble Lord's question about the Children's Society report.
One of the key aspects of the report is the recommendation of a multi-agency approach to the issue, with local authorities, health authorities, probation services, families, the voluntary sector and the Government all playing their part. We absolutely and wholeheartedly endorse that approach.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not want in any way to play down the issue of child prostitution or to say that it is not serious. However, may I ask the Minister a question as a survey researcher rather than as an Opposition spokesman? Has she asked the research and statistics division of the Home Office how it would tackle the problem of measuring prostitution? If so, what answer did she receive? It seems to me to be an impossible question.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord. As I said, it is very difficult. Sadly, juvenile prostitution frequently takes place behind closed doors; we are simply not aware of it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: So to speak!
Baroness Blatch: I do not regard it as a matter for hilarity. It is very serious. Young people are being used and abused behind closed doors. Therefore it is very difficult to be accurate about the extent of the problem. The emphasis, wherever we come across juvenile prostitution, is on the care of the juvenile. We are doing what we can. As the noble Lord is aware, we are strengthening sentencing; we are already reviewing the penalties for sex offences; and we are doing what we can to make sure that young people are diverted away from this activity. But there is no straight answer. The matter is very difficult.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the report by Barnardos on a project it undertook in Bradford last year? There it found many young girls aged between 13 and 17 who were prostitutes having horrific things done to them by their pimps. What are social services and the police in Bradford doing about the problem?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is probably the most evil trade of all. I refer to pimps, and the way in which they use not only children but adults too. Like Barnardos, we take the matter very seriously. We know from work done in Bradford that young people are inveigled by someone much older. They are daughters whose families in the first instance feel only slight worry about the liaison; eventually, however, the liaison becomes almost ownership of the young person.

779
The rest of the story is history. We are aware of the work done by Barnardos. We are doing what we can. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in my first answer, it is mainly a matter of working in a multi-agency way at local level to do what we can to make sure that these young people are protected and diverted away from this type of crime.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no young person under 18 is forced into prostitution because he or she lacks legal visible means of support?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the means of support for people in this country—I shall not say that it is "generous" because I should be shot down in flames, but it is such that nobody needs to resort to prostitution in order to eat and live. We will do what we can to divert people from this evil trade. I give the noble Earl an assurance that it is no part of this Government's policy that people should have to resort to prostitution in order to live.

The Merchant Fleet
3.16 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they account for the fact that the United Kingdom's merchant fleet has fallen from fourth place in the world league table of merchant fleets in 1979 to 29th by the end of 1996; and what steps they propose to take to prevent any further decline.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the United Kingdom flagged fleet, along with those of a number of other developed nations, has declined in size for reasons that include changing trade patterns and the emergence of low-cost fleets from the developing world. We will continue to pursue targeted measures to create and maintain the conditions in which British shipping can prosper and compete in international markets.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is that not a pathetic response? This Government inherited from the last Labour Government a fleet well in excess of 1,300 ships over 500 gross registered tonnes proudly flying the Red Ensign. Today, on the Government's own figures, it is 377 and is falling. Is the Minister aware that, at a time when there is a substantial upsurge in world shipping, there is a clear need for a strong, vibrant British marine force? Does he accept that this Government, through their neglect over the past 17 years, have failed the nation?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords; not surprisingly, I do not accept that for a moment. World trade patterns have changed considerably since then, including those of many other developed nations. One has only to see what has happened to France and Italy, to give just two
780
examples. We have seen a greater use of low-cost shipping from the developing nations. We have taken measures to address that problem. We have: clamped down on sub-standard shipping; addressed the factors that have caused companies to want to flag out from the UK; introduced targeted measures; increased funding towards the training of UK officers; deregulated; and put in roll-over relief, together with a number of other measures. They were implemented at the request of shipowners. We want to work with them to ensure the best possible conditions.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has located Britain at the heart of Europe, have the Government decided that we no longer need a merchant navy?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords, nothing could be further from the truth.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, while the figures on the Order Paper may appear dire, British-controlled shipping still represents some 11 per cent. of world shipping? While our interest in shipping may have declined somewhat over the years, is it not a fact that British shipping is far from dead and buried? Should we not take considerable pride in the fact that one of our oldest and most famous shipping companies is currently building the largest container ships in the world and is also among the top three cruise shipping companies—an area that has been among the most successful sectors of shipping in recent years?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The UK-owned fleet is much greater than just the UK-flagged fleet. When one includes vessels from the Red Ensign group, including the Isle of Man, it now ranks eighth in the world.
The noble Lord is right to point out that various sectors of the UK shipping industry are prosperous, lean and efficient and compete well with the rest of Europe. One only has to look at the cruise industry, the ferry industry and container ships. In addition, our ports industry is much leaner and more efficient than it used to be.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is quite wrong in suggesting that there was nothing wrong with the economy in 1979 when the Government took over a nearly bankrupt country? But does he not agree that, as far as the shipping industry is concerned, the reduction in capital allowances for shipping has in fact contributed to the reduction in our shipping fleet? Would it be a good idea to have a look at capital allowances for the shipping industry?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is a matter that shipowners feel very strongly about. Equally, we have introduced roll-over relief on capital allowances balancing charges, a measure which was sorely needed. We have also introduced the foreign earnings deduction for seafarers who spend up to 183 days in the UK.

781
We have put forward a number of measures. The shipping industry has welcomed them and now feels that the deregulated climate in the UK, coupled with the strength of the economy generally, is putting the industry in a good position to compete.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us how many ships flying flags of Liberia and other curious places are in fact owned by British companies? Is it the policy of the Government to deregulate down to Liberian standards in order to bring them back?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in an Answer to a Written Question from the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I gave the details that the noble Lord seeks. Essentially, in 1996 there were some 514 ships owned by United Kingdom companies of 500 gross tonnes and over.
The fact is that the face of shipping has changed. Many companies from all over the world have flagged out. One should not necessarily seize upon Liberia as being a low-quality flag. We have high standards in this country and seek to impose them on other countries by a very strong policy of port-state control. We inspect some 30 per cent. of foreign-flagged ships that visit this country. We believe that this policy has been extremely effective in raising standards.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, does the Minister view with equanimity the fact that the Isle of Man has more British tonnage flying its flag than does the UK itself? Does he accept that this has nothing to do with comparative labour costs and everything to do with better financial and fiscal treatment? Is he aware that the Red Ensign, to which he referred, is not waving but drowning?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no, I certainly do not accept that. Indeed, I understand that there will be a number of foreign-flagged ferries coming on to the UK register shortly.
Companies appreciate the benefits of operating with the Red Ensign. We want to introduce as many measures as we can, consistent with safety and the investment climate here, to encourage owners to do that.
Viscount Runciman of Doxford: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the Government are doing enough to address the urgent and growing problem of the shortage of British seafarers, who are important not only for the British shipping industry but for a wide range of related shore-based industries and, not least, to the nation's defence?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I certainly believe that training is a key issue for the merchant fleet. We have introduced two schemes, the government assistance for training (GAFT) scheme, introduced in the late 1980s, and the development of certificated seafarers scheme. Between them, these two schemes have seen the number
782
of cadets coming into the industry increase more than three-fold since their introduction. No eligible cadet has been refused entry to the GAFF scheme.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, it is extraordinary, is it not, that the Minister can claim comfort from a situation which is nothing short of disastrous? His views are not shared by the Council of Shipping, the trade unions or anyone who actually knows about the situation. Is the Minister not aware that the plans which he says the Government propose to introduce are 17 years too late? The Government are running out of time, thankfully; unhappily, so is the British fleet.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I find that very difficult to accept. I understood that the Labour Party had launched a new initiative in connection with the merchant fleet and the measures that they would take forward. I examined that carefully and could see no additional resources pledged to address this point, no additional resources for training and no other concessions.
The Government are pursuing a range of highly targeted measures which the shipping industry welcomes. The fact is that there is a very competitive market out there. We do not believe that joining an ever-increasing spiral of state subsidies is the way forward.

South West Trains Ltd.
3.28 p.m.
Lord Haskel Lord Haskel asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the cancellation of large numbers of train services, what action they propose to take to ensure that South West Trains Ltd. honour the obligations into which they entered when securing the franchise to provide a high quality service; and what measures will be taken to provide services for the passengers affected.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, compliance with franchise agreements is a matter for the Franchising Director. In the case of South West Trains, the franchisee will be financially penalised for peak-period cancellations which they have had to make following the introduction of revised working arrangements for drivers. The company has now introduced a temporary timetable to minimise disruption to passengers, particularly at peak-period services.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that rather evasive reply. Is he aware that, as the service on South West Trains has been deteriorating, so the notices telling passengers where to complain have been disappearing? Does the Minister agree that he has been able to stand at the Dispatch Box and tell us about the improving service and the reducing number of complaints because passengers no longer know where to complain to?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course that is nonsense. We have seen complaints on the privatised railway reduced by 30 per cent. If the Labour Party could point to an industry that they had run with a 30 per cent. reduction in complaints, I should be pleased to hear about it.
Undoubtedly the issue of South West Trains and its drivers could have been handled better by the company; no one disputes that. However, we know that this morning South West Trains announced that as a good will gesture travel on its services today would be free and that holders of monthly or longer season tickets would receive a free two-day extension to their tickets. In addition, passenger charter protections and compensations are in place which did not exist before.
South West Trains has a good record on reliability and punctuality since it introduced its services. I do not think we should decry that.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, would my noble friend remind the House of how many services were cancelled in the golden age of British Rail and how many days were lost in strikes?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the numbers involved here are tiny compared to the days that were lost due to strikes. In recent times when there have been strikes on the railways leading to the cancellation of services—though they have been far fewer in number, and we welcome that fact—I have not seen condemnation of that from the party opposite.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the concession of free travel today is limited to those travelling in standard class and that those travelling first class have to pay the full fare? Is that not a rather undesirable measure of class discrimination?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord speaks with the nation fully behind him about the plight of first class rail travellers!
We know that the deal for first class travellers on the railway, as for standard class travellers, has improved hugely. We welcome the recent announcement about the south-west coast mainline franchise and all the benefits that we shall see on that line.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the urgency of putting this matter right, in view of the pressure on the roads of the south west come the summer, if any?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have to put this matter in perspective. I understand that there were only three cancellations in this morning's peak period, and only one of them was a planned cancellation. That compares with an average of 45 for the same period in the past couple of weeks. It is clear that South West Trains is putting this problem right. It has admitted that
784
it did not handle the situation rightly and there were real problems. It is putting every endeavour into getting the service back to what it should be.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Franchising Director fining South West Trains £100,000 a week is little more than the cost that it has saved by sacking 70 drivers? Does he further agree that it is derisory, and no discouragement for the company not to repeat the process? Are the Government not embarrassed by this, their first franchise, which has gone so disastrously wrong?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there are two points to make. Firstly, in the old days—no doubt the noble Lord would believe them to be the good old days—of British Rail, there were no such penalties or constraints. British Rail could do precisely what it wanted to do. Now penalties are imposed by the Franchising Director. Secondly, as there is now a clear commercial incentive for South West Trains to attract as many consumers to its services as it can, probably the best incentive not to have a repetition is the commercial cost as well as the bad publicity.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that for a party with pretensions to government, the arithmetic shown by the previous question calls into doubt its competence? The sum of £100,000 to pay for 70 drivers for one week bears no relationship to any train driver's salary of which I have ever heard.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the proper question of mathematics that we must ask the party opposite is exactly which bits of the railway they intend to buy back and from where they will raise the finance.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we shall be answering the questions very shortly? Is it not remarkable that today for the first time we have elicited from the Minister a whimper of criticism of one of the privatised railway companies? What real compensation—not the derisory amounts—will passengers receive for that negligence on the part of that particular company? When will he take a firm line on some of the excesses, the extortionate gains that have been made by the executives of the Eversholt leasing company—for example, Mr. Andrew Jukes, who made an investment of £110,000 and obtained a profit of £15 million; Mr. Aylwood who made an investment of £80,000 and made a profit of £10 million; and Mr. Habgood, similarly? Is he happy with that situation?
Viscount Goschen: Oh dear, my Lords, we return to the politics of envy very quickly indeed. The fact is that those businesses were sold at the market price. If the noble Lord had wanted to put up his money to buy them, we should have treated his bid extremely seriously indeed. People put their money where there mouth was. They financed the businesses at a time when there was much political uncertainty about them, largely generated by noble Lords opposite. That has diminished and I am

785
sure that the railway industry, like the passengers, believe that there will be another Conservative Government coming along very shortly, with maybe further gains to be made.

Architects Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this consolidation Bill or to the other two consolidation Bills standing in my name on the Order Paper and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee on recommitment. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall move in each case that the order of recommitment be discharged. I beg to move in respect of this Bill that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lieutenancies Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

United Nations Personnel Bill
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Brougham and Vaux.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Sundays (Dancing and Licensing)Bill [H.L.]
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Geneva Conventions Bill [H.L.]
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Avebury, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. It is concise and admirable in all respects.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS, AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (36) as first printed by the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 6, page 3, line 6, at end insert ("unless the pistol complies with subsection (2A) below.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
8A Because the disassembly of pistols would not provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the public.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.
This issue has been thoroughly discussed at each stage of the Bill, both in this House and in another place. It would not be the best use of the House's time for me to rehearse the arguments with which by now your Lordships will be very familiar. The Government's position has always been that small calibre pistols in their complete form should be stored in secure licensed clubs. The case for disassembly was put with force. It is entirely understandable and indeed proper that it was considered again in another place. It is the right of this House to invite another place to reconsider any issue.
The other place has reconsidered this issue. The elected House of Parliament, having considered the arguments put forward here and in another place, has

787
come down on the side of the Bill as drafted and against the amendments. It did so overwhelmingly by a majority of 279 votes.
I believe that your Lordships should not insist on the amendments passed in this House. I accept, of course, that the arguments for and against disassembly are finely balanced, but it is the decided opinion of another place that the amendment does not provide an adequate level of protection for the public. Therefore, I invite this House not to insist on Amendment No. 8 for the reason numbered 8A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I expected to hear from the other side of the House, but clearly those Benches wish to remain silent. I am not prepared to remain silent on this issue. Indeed, I read the debate in the other place on the amendment with increasing incredulity, especially the speeches of the Home Secretary and my honourable friend Mr. Doug Henderson, who spoke from Labour's Front Bench. Reading the Home Secretary's speech, I thought he seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. He certainly seemed embarrassed to have to object to your Lordships' amendment. Indeed, he leaned very heavily on the plea of the Association of Chief Police Officers that disassembly could not be policed. It says that about many things. We should have to repeal huge tranches of the criminal law, especially the Road Traffic Acts, if that plea were accepted.
Let me repeat that I believe that public debate on this issue has been denied. The fact that the Cullen Report was not debated in both this House and another place and throughout the country means that the public did not have the opportunity to express their view on the Bill. Quite frankly, I have been rather put out that it has been represented—indeed, from the Government Front Bench today—that the House of Lords should yield to another place and not insist on its amendments because we have had our say. That is not good enough. This House is not simply concerned with having its say. The Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949 protect the position of the Commons as the elected House and the sovereign body. But this House also has rights under those two Acts and it is legitimate for us to exercise those rights.
If we are not prepared to insist on our amendments because we are being told that we have expressed our views and that should be an end of the matter, then we reduce ourselves to the status of a consultative council rather than a House of a sovereign Parliament. Furthermore, we would be undermining the principle of a bicameral Parliament and reducing it to a de facto unicameral Parliament. This is the only second Chamber that we have and those who believe in the bicameral system should persist in their right to insist on our amendments. Until we change the system, it is the only system we have.
The noble Baroness mentioned the large majority against this amendment in the House of Commons. However, was it a fact, as Mr. Marlow indicated on a
788
point of order, that Conservative Members of Parliament—other than the payroll vote—either voted against the Government or abstained from supporting the Government? If so, Conservative Peers should take heart and insist on the amendment. Not to do so would be letting down their colleagues in another place who had the courage to stand up and be counted in support of your Lordships' amendments.
It has also been suggested to me that there should be no Division because there may be a derisory vote in favour of insisting on our amendments. That is not a good reason for not dividing. If a measure is good in itself and in principle, then it is worthy of being tested. Those who wish to change their previous position must be seen to do so. Those who wish to maintain their position in the face of a Commons rejection must be given the opportunity to do so, and be seen to do so. If nobody else divides this House this afternoon, I shall certainly do so.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may put another point of view. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right in relation to the question of entitlement; no one could be more clear about that than myself. The question is, if we are to keep our bicameral structure, do we not have to be sensible and careful as to how we use it?
To ask another place to think again was our entitlement. It is our entitlement to insist; but to insist is quite another thing. To what constructive end do we insist? It is the settled will of the elected Chamber, as expressed by a substantial majority on two occasions, that this Bill in the form proposed on the Marshalled List shall receive Royal Assent. To what conceivable purpose are we to divide? The Opposition and the payroll vote would ensure that the Commons amendments and reasons would be accepted. One does not doubt the sincerity or courage of noble Lords who vote in the "Not-Content" Lobby.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Did he take the same attitude on the War Crimes Bill?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I took a different attitude as a matter of conscience; I took it on my own initiative; I lobbied no one and I did not think I would win. That was a wholly different affair and not comparable on any basis. That was a decision of the majority of this House. On this occasion we must question the judgment of noble Lords who, for no constructive purpose, enter the "Not-Content" Lobby.
There is no doubt that I supported the dismantling amendment. It does not matter what one thinks personally; what matters is the constitutional position of this House. We have the guiding rope in our hands; let it not become a noose around our necks.
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we can say what we like about my noble friend Lord Stoddart, but he has spirit. When many Members of this House on the Government Benches spent many hours in debate on these issues objecting strongly to the proposals in the Bill, it was my noble friend who was prepared to take it to the last ditch and suggest that the House should divide on the issue. I pay tribute to his spirit, even though I disagree with his arguments.
It was significant that my noble friend spent little time arguing the validity of the specific amendment before us. There were two amendments on disassembly. First, there was the amendment that was carried and, secondly, there was the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which came later in the list and was therefore withdrawn. I was inclined not to oppose the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, which was framed in extremely cautious terms so as to avoid, as far as possible, the risk to the public of disassembly. I cannot say that—of course on these matters I speak personally and not on behalf of my noble friends—about the amendment which was carried.
I do not believe that the House should have been convinced that there was no risk involved in disassembly; it should not have been convinced that it was not at least possible and, indeed, probable, that clever people would find ways of matching up the slide assembly with the rest of the gun. I do not believe that we should have accepted the argument that it was the gun itself which should be allowed to be kept outside the licensed premises. In short, the amendment was wrong. It is on that basis, as an individual, that I ask my noble friends to oppose the proposal of my noble friend Lord Stoddart and to support the Motion that we should not insist.
The issue remains as to whether it is right, under any circumstances, to engage in opposition to the Commons when it has expressed a contrary view a second time. I plead guilty to having put to this House on occasion a Motion that we should insist on our amendments; in other words, that we should oppose another place where it seems appropriate. My noble friend silenced the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who was unable to find any real distinction between his action on the War Crimes Bill and what he is opposing now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am fully able to find many distinctions. The time of the House is better employed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's view. I am always glad to hear from him. I believe the argument to be of great significance. We should acknowledge—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, did—that within the constitution
790
my noble friend is entirely right to bring this matter forward. As to whether it is wise, I take a different view. We are in the curious circumstance that we have legislation which is brought forward in the last Session of a Parliament and is brought forward because of a perceived risk—your Lordships may not all agree—arising from a clear unpleasant danger at Dunblane. The public reaction to the tragedy at Dunblane and the demand for change in our gun control laws ought not to be underestimated.
The risk that my noble friend takes were he to win in a Division is that the whole Bill would be lost. That is a risk we should not take. We should support the Government Motion that we do not insist on our amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I attended the debate in the other place and, as far as I am concerned, it debated the matters very carefully. It was of some interest to me to watch the Home Secretary attempt to justify his position on disassembly. I also watched the other place waste a considerable sum of public money. But that is its prerogative.
My feelings about the Bill are exactly the same as when the Bill first came to your Lordships' House. My feelings about the wisdom of disassembly are still exactly the same. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, for his comments supporting my amendment. I think it was a shame that it was not accepted. However, I am not convinced that it would be in the interests of your Lordships' House or any sector of your Lordships' House to pursue the amendment. I therefore do not think that we should send anything back to the other place.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and I should like to make one point that did not perhaps come out very fully in previous debates. I do not want to rehearse all the arguments about disassembly but I think it is true to say that the Bill is unsatisfactory because in the eyes of the uninformed it appears to advance public safety when in fact it does no such thing. It does nothing to attack the real problem of hundreds of thousands of illegal firearms in this country and their continuous supplementation by more such arms being smuggled across and under the Channel.
I shall not argue about figures and how much it will cost, but it might be better to spend the money on extra customs officers to search many more vehicles entering the country. That is hardly likely to be popular with motorists but it might be better for the general public as a whole to be put to some inconvenience in the genuine interests of public safety. To my mind such a measure would be a much more effective way of spending money to prevent another Dunblane than that which the Bill represents, which throws all the burden and expense on to a small

791
number of law-abiding citizens without achieving anything other than stress and agony. We have the wrong target in our sights.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that, to my regret, I was unable to be present at the very end of Third Reading last week. However, I have read in Hansard the compliments paid to the noble Baroness. If it is not improper for me to do so now, I should just like to say how very much I agreed with them, and, if it is not grossly impertinent on the part of a comparatively new boy, to add that I thoroughly endorse them all.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I wonder whether I might introduce yet another consideration which is perhaps very important at this stage. I refer to the interests—the strategic interests—of those who are interested in sport with handguns. The position we now face is that the other place, for better or worse, is determined to have a Bill. There is probably general agreement in this House that the Bill itself is an awful Bill. It would be better if it were not here at all. But that is an ideal situation which we do not face.
I wish to put the following consideration into everyone's mind. If as a result of our actions today the Bill were to fail and if, as a consequence, at some point in the future an even worse Bill was brought forward—such a course has on occasions been advocated from one or two places—we would have done nothing and achieved nothing on behalf of those whose interests we say we wish to support in trying to improve the Bill. We ought to have that consideration in mind in supporting the Minister on this matter.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I wish to mention something which has arisen out of these debates and which goes to the heart of your Lordships' existence. Every time some of us have supported amendments the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has said, "Ah, silly, old-fashioned, anachronistic hereditary Peers; that is why they should be abolished". I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, is nodding his head or shaking it—I am never quite sure with him.
The arguments against the Bill have been overwhelmingly solid and sensible and we have supported Lord Cullen. For perfectly sound, historical reasons, another place has panicked because a general election is approaching and the Secretary of State for Scotland represents Dunblane. I blame none of them for doing that. I would have done exactly the same had I been in any of their positions. All I suggest to your Lordships is that had the composition of your Lordships' House been more sensibly arranged we would have had the authority to insist on sensible changes. What the Front Bench opposite proposes for change is even sillier than what exists at the moment. This shows that the sooner your Lordships' House is sensibly reformed, can sensibly do its proper job and can sensibly make the House of Commons occasionally think again, the better.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down—I shall not follow him into his constitutional argument because I think that would be quite improper—I hope he will recognise that not a single one of the contentious amendments which were carried in this House and had to be reconsidered in another place would have been carried without the hereditary peerage.
The Earl of Onslow: So what!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I wonder whether the House will allow me to intervene for a moment on a purely procedural matter rather than the merits of the arguments of the case.
I have taken advice about what our normal procedures are in cases of this kind. I am advised that it is the practice of the House that a Motion to insist on a Lords amendment is taken before the Motion that this House do not insist on a Lords amendment. Defeating a negative Motion, if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, wishes to do, would not achieve, if I may put it this way, a positive result. Therefore, if he wished to push this to a Division and were he to win against my noble friend's Motion that this House do not insist, then, contrary to our present practice—but, under the circumstances, it might be sensible for us to do this—he would have to submit a manuscript amendment to the effect that this House does insist. It would be more usual, I am advised, if that Motion had been tabled earlier and it would be the normal practice of this House to take that Motion first before the do not insist Motion. I hope that is both clear and helpful to the House.
4 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, in what he said. What is the use of a revising Chamber if it is not allowed to revise and its views are not acted on? We have taken time to discuss an imperfect Bill at length and dispassionately. I am not going to rehearse the arguments in favour of disassembly in detail now. We have been through all that very thoroughly—at Committee stage and on Report—only to see our efforts ignored and kicked aside. We pride ourselves in having in this Chamber a variety of experts on every subject one can think of and the subject of this Bill is no exception. On these Benches we have many noble Lords who have a considerable knowledge of the subject matter of the Bill, which is more than can be said of noble Lords opposite and of many Members of the other place. I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
Lord Monson: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, decides whether or not to submit a manuscript amendment, unlike my two noble friends on these Benches who have spoken so far I believe that it is absolutely right to support the amendment. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested, there is not the slightest danger of the Bill being lost except in the extremely

793
unlikely event of the Cabinet having already decided on a 20th March general election. I do not imagine that anyone seriously believes that to be the case.
On Sunday there will be a demonstration by 25,000 shooters, their friends and families in London. If the Bill goes back to the other place, it will be able to reconsider it in the light of the views expressed at that demonstration. That is one additional reason for voting in favour of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred to my right honourable friend in another place and also, I believe, to one of his own colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench in the other place. I say to the noble Lord and to the House that my right honourable friend was not embarrassed. He was very conscious of the genuine and deeply felt concern on the part of those who supported disassembly. My right honourable friend has said—and I repeat it—that the arguments for and against disassembly were finely balanced. He made that point on Tuesday, and I make it again today. The arguments were indeed finely balanced.
This matter has not been easy because it is not an easy subject. Having the responsibility of addressing difficult issues, such as disassembly, falls to the Government and I believe that they have taken the matter extremely seriously. They have listened to the argument and have come to a conclusion.
Perhaps I may join the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He has indeed shown spirit, as indeed he always does. He is assiduous and he is always consistent. I believe that this House would be the poorer without noble Lords of such spirit. So long may this House act as an effective check and balance on another place, because I believe that that is the role of this House.
This House rightly asked another place to think again, and it has done that. It has sent us a clear view on the issue of disassembly. I have already given the voting record. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to those who voted in another place. Those who voted and how they voted is a matter of public record. What we do here today is both to consider the issue, which is the subject of the debate, but also to take into account the views expressed in another place, not once but twice, and to ask the question posed by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is this. What would be achieved by sending this issue back to another place knowing in advance of doing so that it has expressed an unequivocal view by a large majority? It is very probable that it would do so again. Once again I invite the House not to insist on Amendment No. 8.
4.4 p.m.
On Question, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 197; Not-Contents, 24.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elles, B.

Acton, L.

Erne, E.

Addison, V.

Feldman, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Ferrers, E.

Ailsa, M.

Fitt, L.

Aldington, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gainford, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gallacher, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Geraint, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Glasgow, E.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Goschen, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Astor, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hampton, L.

Balfour, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bath, M.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Hayman, B.

Belstead, L.

Hayter, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hemphill, L.

Berners, B.

Henley, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Blaker, L.

Hogg, B.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Borrie, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brentford, V.

Hooson, L.

Bridges, L.

Howe, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Butterfield, L.

Hunt, L.

Butterworth, L.

Inglewood, L.

Byford, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cadman, L.

Jeger, B.

Calverley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Kimball, L.

Carnock, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Chadlington, L.

Knollys, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Knutsford, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lauderdale, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lockwood, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Long, V.

Cockfield, L.

Lucas, L.

Coleraine, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cowley, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Crickhowell, L.

[Lord Chancellor.]

Cromer, E.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McNair, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McNally, L.

Davidson, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Marlesford, L.

Denbigh, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Merrivale, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Mersey, V.

Donoughue, L.

Meston, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Methuen, L.

Dubs, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Dundonald, E.

Milverton, L.

795

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Seccombe, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Serota, B.

Mountevans, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Nelson, E.

Southwark, Bp.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Strange, B.

Ogmore, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Suffield, L.

Paul, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Pender, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Peston, L.

Tenby, V.

Pike, B.

Terrington, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Teynham, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Tollemache, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Redesdale, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Richard, L.

Westbury, L.

Ripon, Bp.

White, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Romney, E.

Wise, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Wolfson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Blake, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Monson, L.

Clancarty, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Congleton, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Cross, V.

Sandwich, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Stallard, L.

Devonport, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Erroll, E.

Thurso, V.

Falkland, V.

Torphichen, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
4.16 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 6, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
"(2A) A pistol shall not be a small-calibre pistol for the purposes of this section provided—

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

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

(2B) If he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety, the Secretary of State may by order specify a component part other than the slide assembly or cylinder to be stored at a licensed club, and may do so in respect of a particular model or type of pistol to which this section applies.
(2C) This section applies to pistols chambered for 22 or smaller rim-fire cartridges.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
12A Because the disassembly of pistols would not provide adequate safeguards for the protection of the public.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 12A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 12 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 12A.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
15 Clause 7, page 4, line 6, leave out from ("to") to end of line 7 and insert ("a condition requiring the pistol to be kept at a licensed pistol club")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
15A Line 2, after 'at' insert 'licensed premises of',
and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
15B Page 3, line 43, leave out 'and used only.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A to Lords Amendment No. 15.
With this Group, it will be convenient for me to speak to Commons Amendments Nos. 15B, 34A, 50A, 79A, 84A, 96A, 98A and 105A to, or consequential to, Lords Amendments Nos. 15, 34, 50, 79, 84, 96, 98 and 105. These are all technical and drafting amendments and have no policy implications whatsoever.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15A to Lords Amendment No. 15.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15B to Lords Amendment No. 15.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15B to Lords Amendment No. 15.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
25 After Clause 11, 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.")

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
25A Because it involves a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill Lord Lester of Herne Hill rose to move, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu—
MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENT
25B After Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
COMPENSATION FOR FIREARMS DEALERS CONSEQUENT ON JUDGMENT OF EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may, 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 compensation which is declared by a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights to be required to be paid as a result of a breach or breaches of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights arising from the entry into force of this Act.
(2) A scheme under subsection (1) shall be contained in a statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A, but propose Amendment No. 25B as an amendment in lieu.
This is a matter upon which the relationship between the two Houses and their privilege is quite clear. The reasons given by another place relate to their privilege and it is perfectly right that we should not in any way seek to dispute that or to disagree. I should therefore like to explain why I seek to move an amendment in lieu.
The debate in another place on the compensation issue for registered firearms dealers took place in the shadow of their "guillotine" so that there was no time for proper consideration of the European Convention on Human Rights issues which underlay the extremely modest provision to compensate registered firearms dealers which this House approved. I have carefully studied the debate and all of the proceedings in this House, but I remain in the dark as to the Government's reasons for concluding, if they do so conclude, that to enact this Bill without providing any compensation for
798
the destruction of the businesses of registered firearms dealers would be in accordance with the obligations placed on Parliament as well as on the Executive under Article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention, read on its own and read with the non-discrimination guarantee in Article 14 of the convention.
The Government's responses so far to every attempt to clarify the position remind me of a very polite and extremely parliamentary version of the irritable father in Ring Lardner's marvellous story. Your Lordships remember that he describes a father being hopelessly lost while driving his naughty and inquisitive son through an urban wilderness. "Daddy, daddy", the little boy asks. "Where are we?" The father's reply is recorded as, "'Shut up', he explained." I am sure that the noble Baroness will do much better than that, but that is one reason for my having tabled this amendment in lieu. It is an attempt before the Bill is enacted to obtain sufficient information from the Government to enable this House and another place to know whether or not it is likely that the Parliament at Westminster is about to legislate in breach of international treaty obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom.
I do not intend to become a convention or constitution bore so I shall be brief. It is clear that the Bill will interfere with the property rights of firearms dealers registered on 16th October 1996 when the Government announced their intention to introduce the ban. It also seems clear that, taken together, the grant of a licence to such firearms dealers, the obligations imposed on Ministers by Questions of Procedure for Ministers to comply with the convention, and the rights conferred on firearms dealers by Article 1 of the first protocol created legitimate expectations on the part of firearms dealers that they would be entitled either to carry on their business under their licences or to receive compensation if the value of their licences to carry on their lawful business was destroyed or severely damaged as a result of the coming into force of the Bill.
I have previously sought to explain why in my view the fair balance required by Article 1 of the protocol cannot be struck and maintained between the general interests of the community on the one hand and the individual rights and interests of firearms dealers on the other, unless fair compensation is paid for the destruction of their businesses as a direct result of the operation of the Bill and in breach of their reasonable and legitimate expectations. To find a fair balance is the essence of the issue. An excessive burden must not be placed on any group in society. The losses that firearms dealers will inevitably sustain are excessive unless some compensation is paid to them. At no time in the debate on the issue in this House and in another place have Ministers ever stated that they consider this legislation strikes and maintains a fair balance between the general community on the one hand and registered firearms dealers on the other. They have spoken of a fair balance in general terms. That is the particular issue on which we must focus. Ministers have continued to assert that they believe that the legislation complies with our treaty obligations under the convention. They have not explained why they believe that to be so. They continue to rely on a distinction that they draw between property

799
consisting of handguns and accessories on the one hand and property that consists of the right to run a business on the other. They say that the former only is property within the scope of the convention.
On my reading of the case law neither the convention nor for that matter the common law makes such an arbitrary distinction between different kinds of property. The distinction has no rational basis. I do not understand, until it is explained to me, how it can possibly pass muster under the convention. That is my first concern.
My second concern is to try to achieve a fair and orderly means of compensating all registered firearms dealers if, and only if, any one of them were to succeed before the European Court of Human rights. That is why my amendment seeks to empower a future Secretary of State to introduce a scheme in the wake of a judgment in favour of any one firearms dealer; otherwise, there will be an unfair and shambles-like situation in which one registered firearms dealer wins his case and a number of other firearms dealers have not brought any cases. They should all be entitled in justice to receive compensation. There should be statutory authority to allow the Secretary of State to bring in a scheme to cover the entire category of firearms dealers registered on 16th October 1996 and to comply properly and speedily with the judgment of the court to cover the entire category.
My final and third concern—here we enter a more arcane and esoteric area but I mention it nonetheless—is to ensure that there is adequate parliamentary authority for recurring public expenditure that may arise, especially if there is no appropriate statutory scheme. Since the convention was ratified by the UK, and particularly since the right of petition was accepted 30 years ago, successive governments have incurred significant recurring expenditure to satisfy judgments of the European Court and to pay the costs of friendly settlements under the convention, as well as contributions towards the cost of the court and commission. It remains unclear to me whether there is proper legal authority for those payments. Two years ago I asked the Government what was the legal authority for paying out public funds for Strasbourg costs. On 3rd March 1994 I received the response:
"The costs are met from the Votes of the government departments concerned, as approved by Parliament in the annual Appropriation Act".—[Official Report, 3/3/94; col. WA83.]
I venture to doubt—when I say this I feel like the small child who observes that the emperor has no clothes—whether that is a sufficient response in respect of recurring expenditure (I emphasise "recurring expenditure") that is likely to arise if this Bill results in continuing findings of breaches of the first protocol.
Yesterday and this morning I wrote to the Minister raising my various concerns. I have also spoken to her ever-helpful private office. I am sorry that I did so only yesterday afternoon and this morning, but I had little time in which to consider the matter after the Bill had been considered in another place. I am sorry that she is faced with a series of questions. I will not bore the House by reading them out. I have raised these issues in question form. I very much hope that at the
800
eleventh hour the noble Baroness will be in a position to clarify these issues for the benefit of the House as a whole and, if necessary, for the benefit of the European Court of Human Rights. That will enable us, in the words of the noble Baroness, to act as an effective check and balance. I say to noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench that, assuming I am right, it is they who will have to pick up the pieces if they form a government in the spring election. They, too, should be interested in knowing exactly why it comes about and why the Government consider that they have a strong case under the convention, if they do. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose Amendment No. 25B as an amendment in lieu.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. Taken at face value, Amendment No. 25B assumes that the Court of Human Rights will order compensation under Article 1 in excess of that allowed under the Bill when enacted. Surely, it cannot be within the province of your Lordships' House to anticipate any judgment or finding as to a breach of the convention or any measure of compensation before Her Majesty's Government have argued their case before the court.
The noble Lord refers to esoteric concepts of case law and property. It is all pie in the sky until the matter has been argued and the court has come to a conclusion. Secondly, surely as a charge on the public revenue, as another place properly claims privilege and does not offer any further reason, can it be appropriate for your Lordships to resolve that a scheme for compensation introduced by virtue of such a judgment of the court shall be subject to annulment by a single House of Parliament, your Lordships' House?
There is more behind this than meets the eye. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has introduced yet again a Bill to incorporate the convention into our law notwithstanding "any rule of our law to the contrary". It would be premature, indeed it would be presumptuous, to assume that his Human Rights Bill will ever reach the statute book. In this regard this amendment savours of pre-emption. The convention was drafted over 40 years ago. It reflects the worries and concerns of post-war Europe. The meaning of incorporation has never been properly thought out. The convention was never designed to be and is not suitable to become a substitute Bill of Rights in the United Kingdom. We have our own unwritten constitution, well-established norms of conduct which regulate the relationship between the two Houses. These evolve with time. They are not immutable. The flexibility suits us and has served us well for centuries, as distinct from a written constitution, a Bill of Rights which incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I refused to follow the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, into a broader discussion of the reform of the House of Lords and I certainly refuse to follow the noble Lord,

801
Lord Campbell of Alloway (or indeed the noble Lord, Lord Lester), into a discussion of the repatriation of the European Convention on Human Rights into our law. That would be way outside our proper consideration at this stage of—may I remind the House—the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. That is despite the fact that I rather like the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that we shall have to deal with it within a very short space of time.
I want to return to the issue of compensation to gun clubs and gun dealers which is contained in the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, moved and which were carried in this House.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, what I am dealing with does not concern gun clubs, only registered firearms dealers.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted to accept that correction, but the issue is still the same. The point about compensation, either to gun dealers or gun clubs, is that it involves very substantial additional expenditure in compensation and the Commons, in their reason No. 25A, have said it involves a charge on the public revenue. The Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
There is of course no rule which lays down absolutely that we shall not resist a Speaker's ruling of privilege or the judgment of a committee of reasons in this case. However, there would have to be extraordinarily strong reasons for us to go against that reason No. 25A.
I do not find myself very much convinced by the reasoning of the noble Lord, Lord Lester. He is a great expert: he has spent a large part of his distinguished career concerned with the law as it relates to our international obligations. I respect him for that. But he is asking, as I understand it, that we should be sure now as to whether this particular example—the compensation of gun dealers—would be within or outwith the terms of the protocol to the European Convention. I do not see that we can ever do that. We argue on all these cases from analogy. It has, of course, been made clear that there are occasions when it is right and proper for Parliament to award compensation to those who suffer as a result of Acts of Parliament. That is indeed what is proposed in this Bill (I nearly said "this Act" because it nearly is this Act)—compensation for the loss of the weapons themselves. But the examples on the other side of no compensation—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware that his own party, in its admirable consultative document on incorporation of the convention, has advocated setting up a parliamentary committee with the express purpose of informing this House and another place before legislation is passed as to whether it might breach the convention.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, indeed, I am aware of that. In fact, as the noble Lord knows, we have both been involved in discussions on the point at different times. That would indeed be a very valuable procedure,
802
but we do not have that procedure. Without it we argue from analogy and, as I said, there are plenty of examples of compensation but there are also plenty of examples of no compensation being awarded on the basis that it is and must be an acceptable risk of being in business of any kind that one is subject to changing legislation. The examples which were given in the debates in this House, of changing health and safety legislation, changing drug approvals, and many others, seem to me to be very powerful indeed. On the merits of the issue itself as well as on the procedural matter, I would advise my noble friends not to support the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has made the most delightfully ingenious speech, to which I listened with great pleasure and a great deal of interest. However, I am not at all certain that it was on the question before the House.
The noble Lord alleged first that this amendment anticipates the ruling of the convention. It does no such thing. It merely asks the Government to accept what for my part I certainly accept, and what I heard my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill accept when he moved the original amendment, that any or all of us may be in error when we consider what a possible future judgment might be.
When Parliament, in a statute, prohibits certain conduct it does not make a prophecy that that conduct will take place. In the history of the statute book there are some very curious examples of that principle.
Nor does this amendment in any way pre-empt the question of incorporation. That question is not before the House. It may come before the House on some future occasion. It certainly is not now. What this amendment is concerned with is how Parliament might react to the meeting of a liability which may occur under an existing obligation. It is my understanding that it is the position of this Government, which I have heard stated many times since 1992, that this Government accept their international obligations and discharge their liabilities under them. It is an honourable position. I have heard it, I respect it, and I hear it with pleasure. We have an obligation under which a liability may arise. This amendment relates only to the means by which that obligation could be met. If the obligation should arise, I understand that legislation would be needed to accept it. Most business managers will tell you that in the middle of a busy legislative Session it is not easy to insert into that programme a major new controversial measure. I have heard the Minister many times asserting the virtues of flexibility. They are virtues. The amendment has them. It offers them to the Government, as I see it, for their convenience.
The Earl of Lytton: My Lords, I am no lawyer, as your Lordships will know. Therefore I cannot enter the fray on the matter of international or constitutional law, but I am inclined to support the noble Lord, Lord Lester, in his line of inquiry, particularly as he so ably carried forward a point, which I was unable to carry forward due to other commitments, on the whole question of compensation.

803
All the arguments have been rehearsed, and I shall not go over them again. It seems to me that governments must act, and must be seen to act, reasonably, not capriciously, with due regard for all the consequences and on proper and full consideration.
My concern is that the Government's approach to all those has fallen short of what I would have hoped in this instance. It is the hallmark of a free society that, if the government of the day have to take away legitimate minority rights, compensation should follow, especially—and this may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey—if the transitional arrangements are inadequate. If you are given time to restructure, of course you can take on the changes and suffer the losses, but if you have not been given that time, then you cannot do that, and you are in a cleft stick, because there are other legislative matters, including the insolvency laws, it might be said, which might come into play as well.
We have had our fair share of legislation in the past that has gone badly wrong. I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on a local government finance Bill. It may be appropriate that I am following the noble Earl, Lord Russell, because when we came to repeal part of that he referred to that repeal Bill as the black pudding removal Bill. I remember those words which I hope will go down as one of those immortal phrases. I hope that we do not have a black pudding removal Bill for this Bill when we have gone a few months or years down the road.
I hope and pray, although I am fearful that it will not be so, that we will not have a re-run of the Dangerous Dogs Act or the War Crimes Act—all measures which were introduced on a tide of public opinion fuelled by media interest. I do not say that that is wrong, but I say that it is wrong to go down that road without due consideration.
On poll tax, I seem to recall saying in my maiden speech—I have not looked it up to see what I said—that a law that was not fair and was not seen to be fair would fail. That is something that we do with our unwritten constitution which may well be subject to the hot brand of some other jurisdiction. I do not feel that we can necessarily accept—I do not feel that I can necessarily accept—the argument of a democratic superiority in relation to another place when in this House we are promised all the time that is necessary to debate while in another place the proceedings are the subject of a guillotine.
It goes on from that that we cannot claim due process if the expert report—in this case the very able and full report of Lord Cullen—is not followed to the letter, and, worse still, Parliament is not given time to debate that before legislation is introduced, and introduced without pause for breath, because the Bill was produced, and the Government's response was there before there was time to turn round and read the first 10 pages, I suspect, of Lord Cullen's report. That is a poor reaction, poor treatment and poor due diligence in respect of that report.
There is reason here—I am not sure what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, wishes to do with his line of inquiry this afternoon—to have a clear statement that the
804
provisions of the Bill fall short on wisdom, fairness and the proper balance to be struck. I say no more than that. But it would be wrong for the Bill to pass into law, as I am sure that it will, without that clear message going back to another place, and some Members of this House saying—I feel that my views are probably shared by many others—that, notwithstanding the procedures that have been followed through, we still have a poor piece of legislation going onto the statute book.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I entirely endorse the remarks made by the noble Earl towards the end of his speech. It is far from clear to me whether the amendment will be helpful to those who may or may not seek redress through the European Court. That remains to be seen. I do not know whether they will do so. If they do, all I can say is that I wish them every bit of success and every bit of luck, because they deserve it.
These will be my last words on the Bill, but I have looked at the reasons why the other place decided to overturn all the amendments on compensation:
"Because it involves a charge on the public revenue … trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient".
I suggest that that is not sufficient. That is a pathetic reason for not giving people compensation for livelihoods which will be destroyed by the Bill.
I am immensely disappointed that another place did not take into due consideration the lengthy and considered debates of your Lordships on this matter. I take the view—I abstained on the previous Division despite the very great respect I have for the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart—that we have gone as far as we can on this matter, and we should now abide by the decisions made in another place, even though I believe that its decisions on this matter are nothing short of disgraceful.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, like the previous two speakers, I believe that this is a thoroughly bad Bill of which Parliament should be ashamed. This may or may not be the last word I shall say on it; I shall consider my position. I hope to be able to persuade the noble Earl, Lord Peel, to support the amendment even though he did not support the previous one.
This amendment is of course different in quality from the previous one. The other place has more right—if I may put it that way—to reject it out of hand, because it has to raise the money to pay for the financial costs. There is a qualitative difference if I may put it that way; but nevertheless I believe that the other place was mean-minded not to accept our amendment, because there are many people who will be adversely financially affected, and some will lose their business. I hope that this is not a breach of privilege, but I believe that the other place was mean-minded not to accept the modest amendment which was sent to it.
I have read the debate in the other place. One after another of the Members there instanced constituents of theirs who would be badly affected by the Bill. They repeatedly urged the Home Secretary to accept our amendment. I believe that they were right. Indeed, it is significant that 145 Members of the House of Commons

805
voted in favour of our amendment. That is a large number and I believe noble Lords opposite should take it into account.
Finally, I wish to outline the reason that I shall support the amendment. It may or may not be well known that I am very suspicious of both European courts; namely, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Nevertheless, I shall support the amendment because I believe that the House of Commons ought to have yet another look at the compensation provisions. So many ordinary people will be hurt, which is why I believe we should give the Commons an opportunity to reconsider what it has done and what it should do. The amendment, which would send the Bill back to the Commons, would give it that opportunity. It does not have to accept the amendment; it can table an amendment to our amendment. That is why I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, who I am sure is with me on this issue, will vote for the amendment. It does no harm to the Bill and will enable the Commons to reconsider the matter. It can then, if it so wishes, table an amendment to our amendment.
Lord Monson: My Lords, to deprive people of their livelihoods, and in many cases of their houses when they are mortgaged as security for their business overdrafts, not for genuine safety reasons but the purpose of gesture politics is immoral. But if pleas of morality cut no ice with the de facto Conservative/Labour Front Bench coalition, at least let them consider pragmatically a slowly but surely turning tide of public opinion.
A recent unpublicised MORI public opinion poll reveals that 55 per cent. of the population now believe that target pistol shooters will be unfairly penalised by the changes in the law. Only 40 per cent. believe otherwise, with 5 per cent. undecided. I suggest that the proportion of the population believing that it is wrong to deprive people of their livelihoods is even greater. Let the Front Bench coalition consider at the very least the consequence of flouting this majority public sense of what is just and fair and what is unjust and unfair. I urge your Lordships to support the amendment.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I cannot match the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, on European matters; the knowledge of property matters of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton; or the knowledge of the firearms trade of the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
However, during the passage of the Bill through Parliament the Government have referred to environmental and safety legislation and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned it today. I believe that the cost benefit analysis, if one has been carried out, is appalling. We have tragically lost 30 lives, including those at Hungerford and Dunblane, and as a result of the legislation we are to spend about £300 million. That is £10 million a life. If in respect of a road safety scheme or a hospital the idea was to spend £10 million to save a life, I suggest that the Government would not find that an attractive cost benefit analysis. That is why I believe that the Bill is appalling in terms of the use of taxpayers' money and the penalty to business, which will lose as a result.
806
It is important to debate the issue and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for returning to it. I support his motives, but my view on sending the matter back to another place is exactly the same as it was on the previous debate.
Lord Cottlesloe: My Lords, I shall be brief. I have some sympathy with the amendment, modest though it is, but, whatever the legal niceties, it is sad, to put it mildly, that we must resort for justice to the European Court of Human Rights. The Magna Carta has been around a good deal longer and states clearly:
"To no man will we sell; to no man will we deny justice".
I fear that we are about to deny justice to many loyal, law-abiding, decent men and women. Nevertheless, I have sympathy with the amendment and I hope that it is acceptable. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that this will be my last word on the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, I am tempted to follow the example set by the father of the little boy who persisted in asking questions. But it would not be in keeping with the conventions of this House; nor, I hope, would it be characteristic of me to be so rude.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, takes the view that the Government's proposals on compensation are not in accordance with the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government simply do not agree with that view. It would be wholly improper to pass legislation with a view that it would be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, to make provision that it just might at some time in the future be challenged, and to take this moment to provide remedies in advance.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was right in saying that if we took that route on a Bill that we do not regard as being in breach of the European Convention, it would be importing provisions and anticipating what a future judgment of the European Court of Human Rights might be on a challenge yet undefined. That certainly would mean importing the interpretation of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the convention. I do not believe that we should go down that road. Therefore, what my noble friend said was entirely pertinent to the debate and not outside it.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested that we need to introduce flexibility. This degree of flexibility would he absurd. Passing a Bill which we do not believe to be in breach of the convention, anticipating that it might be in breach of the convention at some time in the future against a challenge about which we know not, would be taking our duties too far.
If the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, were right in saying that there will be no compensation, I should have a great deal of sympathy with him. Indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy for the people on whose behalf he spoke because there will be some pain and distress as a result of the passing of the Bill. But of course there is a compensation scheme. People will be compensated for loss of stock, as will people who have guns but will not be shooting in future and will wish to surrender them.

807
Therefore, there will be a generous compensation scheme which we believe will be administered efficiently and quickly.
The Government have considered the matter most carefully and we are satisfied that the proposals are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. We are satisfied that the Government have properly addressed the question of striking a fair balance, as interpreted in the cases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, within the margin of appreciation which the Government enjoy for this purpose. We have undertaken to compensate dealers for their stocks of newly prohibited firearms and ancillary equipment. We take the view that we are not obliged to compensate dealers for business losses which flow from a control of the use of handguns under Rule 3 of Article 1.
The noble Lord raised specific questions about the application of the European Convention on Human Rights. He asked, first, whether the Government accepted that the business of registered firearms dealers is within the concept of property under Article 1. Ultimately, only the European Court of Human Rights would be able to give an authoritative interpretation, but we do not dispute that the goodwill in the business of a firearms dealer could be regarded as property for the purposes of the convention. However, we would not accept that the effect of the Bill on dealers will amount to depriving them of the use of their business in the sense meant by Article 1 of the convention.
The noble Lord asked me also whether the Government accept that the coming into force of the Bill will constitute an interference with the property rights of firearms dealers. It is implicit in all that I have said that the Government do not believe that it would be. It is clear that the implementation of the legislation will have an effect on the business of some registered firearms dealers, although the extent of that effect will vary between different businesses and cannot be predicted accurately. We would not agree that the effect of the Bill amounts to expropriation of the dealers' business. We consider that the measures are contained within the margin of appreciation which the Government enjoy to determine measures of control over the use of property in accordance with the general interest.
Another question posed by the noble Lord was whether the Government accept that the grant of licences to firearms dealers creates legitimate expectations that they would receive compensation as a result of the legislation. We do not accept that the granting of licences to deal in firearms created expectations that compensation would be paid if the value of the business were to diminish. Registration of a firearms dealer does no more than give that person lawful authority to deal in firearms.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, asked how a fair balance can be achieved between the general interests of the community and the individual rights of dealers without the payment of compensation for the loss of business in breach of their legitimate expectations. We do not accept the premise that legitimate expectations to
808
compensation for loss of business will have been created by giving authority to persons to deal in firearms. We are satisfied that our proposals represent a fair balance between the demands of the general interest of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual's fundamental rights.
We believe that it would be unfair and would not represent that balance if we were to establish a precedent which meant that compensation was to be paid for any loss of business which might result from legislative requirements imposed in the interests of public safety.
The noble Lord asked how the United Kingdom can justify the difference in treatment between the owners of handguns who are to receive compensation, and registered firearms dealers who are to receive no compensation. There is no difference in treatment. As we made clear all along, compensation will be available both to lawful private owners of prohibited handguns and ancillary equipment and to firearms dealers. The Government will pay fair compensation to dealers for their stock of newly prohibited handguns, just as we shall pay fair compensation to individual firearms owners for the weapons which they will no longer be permitted to hold.
The noble Lord asked how Parliament could ensure that firearms dealers were paid compensation in the event of one of them succeeding in establishing a breach of the European convention. He went on to ask that in the event of the European Court of Human Rights ruling in favour of a registered firearms dealer, would there not be recurring expenditure of public funds which would require specific legislative authority?
It follows from what I have said that we do not accept the premise of those questions. We are satisfied that our proposals are in accordance with our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Those questions and the noble Lord's amendment in effect invite us to speculate about what might happen in the future if a firearms dealer were to seek to bring a case; if the Commission were to entertain such an application and if, in that event, the court were to find that a person had established a breach of his rights under the convention. We do not believe that that will happen. If it does, the Government will have to reconsider the position. But we cannot anticipate now what might or might not happen in the future and what the government of the day might or might not do in that event. Even if the court were to find that a violation had occurred, we cannot possibly predict what the violation would be nor the conclusion that the European Court might reach or in what terms it might make such a judgment. Therefore, we cannot say whether any future ruling of the court would create a need for expenditure of public funds which would require specific legislative authority.
It would be strange legislation indeed that contained a provision which said, in effect, that if other provisions of the legislation turned out to be in breach of international obligations, then we should do something else instead. That would be the effect of the noble Lord's amendment and I urge the House to reject it.

809
When that has been dealt with, I shall move that the House do not insist on Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may ask this. The matter was put before the House by the noble Lord as a probing amendment for information. The Minister has provided the information. Is that the end of the matter or are we now to have a Division?
5 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am probably the better person to answer that question. I shall do so in a moment. First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting and important debate. I make it clear also that I have not been speaking against the Bill, as some noble Lords have done. I support the broad objectives of the Bill. I have been speaking on a narrow issue, an issue which is important to me. I am not a shooter although I was once a marksman in the Army during the time of my national service. I am not in favour of or against shooters. I take no particular position on the Bill. I believe that where businesses are blighted, however, by the operation of law, and where legitimate expectation has been created, Parliament and the taxpayer should pay the consequences.
I am indebted to the Minister for the care with which she has answered each of my questions. I listened very carefully to those answers. I made it clear that the main purpose in introducing the matter was to obtain clarification. I would bet the Bank of England to a blood orange that other noble Lords remain as uncertain as I am having listened to those answers as to what is the true position.
Of course, in the end, this is a matter now for a judgment at Strasbourg rather than a matter for the judgment of this House and another place. At one point, the Minister referred to the margin of appreciation, using Euro-speak, as being that of the Government. There I think she was in error. It is not a margin of appreciation enjoyed by the Government. It is a margin of appreciation allowed to Parliament. The problem is that Parliament is now enacting a law and all these debates and everything said by noble Lords and Members of another place will no doubt be relied upon by the Government and against the Government if those proceedings take place.
The good news, no doubt for shooters as well as for the Government, is that I shall not have the pleasure of taking part in those proceedings in view of the part that I have played in my parliamentary role. But it is unsatisfactory that this House has no authoritative way of finding out what are our international treaty obligations and what the implications of passing legislation are likely to be except through the kind of exchange which your Lordships have had to bear today with me attempting to put questions to the Minister and the Minister having the disagreeable task of having to answer those questions, some of which are highly legalistic. I do not mean that the answers are legalistic; the issues are.
810
One noble Lord referred to Magna Carta. Another provision of Magna Carta, chapter 39, says that no free man shall be disseized of his possessions. I am very sorry as someone who is generally pro-European that we alone in Europe have no constitutional guarantees of basic rights and freedoms, including, I believe, the right to peaceful enjoyment of one's possessions. It is that gap which cannot be cured by my amendment or any other amendment today which gives rise to that problem.
I am afraid that we must now pass the question not to another place, because I agree with those noble Lords who have pointed out the futility of seeking to do that at this stage, and not passing it as it should be passed to another place and for a judgment of both Houses, properly informed. I fear that now there must be litigation in Strasbourg which will take six years at least. Heaven knows who will then be in power to pick up the pieces. However, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: No.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, the Question is that the Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, "Not content."
Noble Lords: Not content.
The Deputy Speaker: The Not-Contents have it.
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: Clear the Bar.
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (Amendment No. 25B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,24; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harrowby, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hooson, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hylton, L.

Clancarty, E.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Congleton, L.

Munster, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L

Devonport, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Glasgow, E

Stallard, L.

811

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Warnock, B.

Swansea, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Thurso, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Goschen, V.

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Addison, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Aldington, L.

Haskel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Hayman, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Hemphill, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hogg, B.

Astor, V.

Holderness, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Balfour, E.

Hooper, B.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Howe, E.

Barnett, L.

Hughes, L.

Belstead, L.

Ilchester, E.

Berkeley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Berners, B.

Jeger, B.

Birdwood, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Keyes, L.

Blaker, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Borrie, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bowness, L.

Knollys, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Butterfield, L.

Longford, E.

Byford, B.

Lucas, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

McNally, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Merrivale, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Mersey, V.

Cobbold, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Coleraine, L.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Cowley, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mottistone, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Nelson, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Nickson, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Nicol, B.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Norrie, L.

David, B.

Northesk, E.

Davidson, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Denbigh, E.

Pike, B.

Denham, L.

Quinton, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Dubs, L.

Rees, L.

Dudley, E.

Richard, L.

Dundonald, E.

Romney, E.

Elles, B.

Rotherwick, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rowallan, L.

Elton, L.

St Davids, V.

Erne, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Feldman, L.

Seccombe, B.

Ferrers, E.

Serota, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

812

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Tollemache, L.

Stewartby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Westbury, L.

Sudeley, L.

White, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Wolfson, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Wynford, L.

Tenby, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 25 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 25A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
27 After Clause 11, insert the following 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.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
27A Because it involves a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further Reason trusting the above Reason may be deemed sufficient.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 27A.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
34 Clause 19, page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("(2D) A small-calibre pistol delivered into police custody by virtue of a notice under section 18(2) above shall not be released to any person except on the authority of the chief officer of police into whose custody it was delivered.
(2E) The holder of a firearm certificate relating to the pistol, or any other person who may lawfully have the pistol in his possession, may apply in writing to the chief officer for the release of the pistol (whether to him or to a person nominated by him).
(2F) When such an application is made the chief officer of police may require such written statements, from any person, as he considers necessary for the purpose of determining the application.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
34A Line 3, leave out 'section 18(2)' and insert 'subsection (2)'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A to Lords Amendment No. 34.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34A to Lords Amendment No. 34.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
40 Clause 20, 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 Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu—
40A Page 7, line 26, leave out from 'premises' to first 'a' in line 27 and insert 'in connection with target shooting, unless the club is a licensed pistol club.
(1A) No licensed pistol club shall allow a small-calibre pistol to be stored or used on any of its club premises by any holder of'.
40B Page 7, line 29, leave out from beginning to second 'the'.
40C Page 7, line 35, leave out from beginning to first 'the' and insert 'Subsection (1A) above does not apply to—

(a) the storage on licensed premises of a licensed pistol club of a small-calibre pistol purchased or acquired by the responsible officer of that club for use only by members of the club in connection with target shooting;

(b) the use on licensed premises of a licensed pistol club of a small-calibre pistol by a member of the club who is permitted to have it in his possession by virtue of section 20(3) below; or

(c)'.

40D Page 7, line 40, after '(1)' insert 'or (1A)'.
40E Page 8, line 19, at end insert—
'( ) A licence may include limitations excluding or restricting the application of section 20(3) below to members of the club.'
40F Page 10, line 16, at end insert—
'(3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, a member of a licensed pistol club who has not previously held a firearm certificate in relation to a small-calibre pistol may, without holding a firearm certificate, have in his possession a small-calibre pistol and ammunition on licensed premises of that club when engaged in connection with target shooting under the supervision of an officer of the club.
(4) Subsection (3) above shall not apply to a person after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the first day on which he has a small-calibre pistol in his possession by virtue of that subsection.
(5) The application of subsection (3) above to members of a licensed pistol club may be excluded or restricted in relation to the club by limitations contained in the licence.'
40G Page 11, line 36, leave out from 'any' to 'are' in line 37 and insert 'limitations or conditions contained in the licence of the club'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A to 40G in lieu thereof.
In accepting Amendment No. 40 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, at Third Reading, I undertook to explore urgently with the police and others whether a workable arrangement could be found which would allow a person to shoot at a licensed pistol club for a limited period of time without the need to hold a full firearm certificate.
The amendments tabled in another place in lieu of Amendment No. 40 are the Government's response. They make provisions for people who wish to take up target pistol shooting.
The general rule for small-calibre pistol clubs under the Bill will be that anyone who shoots there will have to have a personal firearm certificate issued by the police. However, we agree that it is unreasonable to expect people who are interested in the sport to obtain and pay the fee for a firearm certificate for a small-calibre pistol before even having a chance to try out the sport.
The amendments that the Government have now made to the Bill allow for the Secretary of State, when he issues a licence to a pistol club, to permit starter shooters to use small-calibre pistols without having a firearm certificate for a period of up to 28 days. The police expressed concerns about the length of time—60 days—which the original amendment would allow. We have taken that advice and have accepted that 28 days is a reasonable compromise. I commend the amendments to the House.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 40, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 40A to 40G in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, we must be grateful for small mercies. I am truly grateful to the noble Baroness for having been able to persuade her right honourable friends of the need for an amendment along these lines.
I am not happy about the 28-day limitation. I had already reduced the trial period from 90 to 60 days in the belief that that was the period of time acceptable to the Government. Twenty-eight days may well be adequate—albeit barely adequate—for a beginner who happens to live within two, three, or four miles of a pistol club. That person could attend three or four times a week. But only a minority of clubs, as we understand it, will be licensed to accommodate what might be described as 28-day probationers. Moreover, the expensive security provisions that will be required in the absence of the disassembly amendment which was not carried will drive many pistol clubs out of business.
It therefore appears likely that the majority of beginners will be limited to practising once a week over a period of four weeks—four times in all. Realistically, although there was a lot of opposition in another place

815
to the 28-day limitation from honourable Members on both sides, it is probably too late to do anything about the matter now.
However, another possible problem arises. In the other place two days ago the Minister, Miss Ann Widdecombe, (at cols. 817 and 818 of Commons Hansard) seemed to imply that a probationer who, after 28 days, decided that he would indeed like to take up pistol shooting would have to pay for the firearm certificate, backdated to the first day of his 28-day probationary period, even though it takes several weeks for a firearm certificate to be granted. If that were to be case, he would effectively be paying for about three months in all when he would be able to shoot only four or so times.
I had been advised, confusing though the Minister's statement was, that I had misinterpreted it and there was no need to worry on that score, and that any licence taken up will run from the day that it is issued and will not be backdated. Before we leave this amendment, will the noble Baroness be so kind as to reassure me on that score?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to reassure the noble Lord about the position. The fee of £56 for the granting of a firearm certificate does not become payable until the certificate is granted. The certificate lasts for five years from when it is granted. The 28 days which the person spends as a starter shooter will not be deducted from that period.
For example, if a starter shooter began shooting on 1st February, he could shoot in that club until the end of February without holding or having applied for a firearm certificate. If he wanted to take up shooting, he should then apply for a firearm certificate. If the application was successful, and if a certificate was granted, for example, on 20th March, it would last five years from 20th March and he would pay the usual fee of £56 and no more.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am entirely content with that. I thank the Minister.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
50 Clause 27, page 13, line 12, at end insert ("or a visitor's firearm or shot gun permit")
The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
50A Page 13. line 12, after 'a' insert firearm or shotgun'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 50. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 50.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
79 Clause 35, page 19, line 10, after ("rifle") insert ("or muzzle-loading pistol")
The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
79A Page 19, line 16, after 'club' insert 'or, as the case may be, muzzle-loading pistol club'.
LORDS AMENDMENT
84 Clause 36, page 19, line 27, leave out second ("firearm") and insert ("rifle")
The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
84A Page 19, line 32, leave out firearms' and insert 'rifles'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 84A, as consequential amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 84.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 79A and 84A as consequential amendments to Lords Amendments Nos. 79 and 84.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
93 Clause 39, page 21, line 25, after ("11") insert ("or(Compensation scheme for firearms dealers)")
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu—
93A Page 21, line 25, leave out 'section 11 above' and insert 'this Act'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 93, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93A in lieu thereof.
This is a technical amendment. It ensures that any sums required to be paid for compensation under the Act shall be paid for out of money provided by Parliament.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 93, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 93A in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
96 Schedule 1, page 23, line 7, leave out ("purchased or acquired") and insert ("contracted to acquire")
The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
96A Page 23, line 24, leave out from 'possession' to end of line 25.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 96. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 96A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 96.—(Baroness Blotch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
98 Schedule 1, page 23, line 36, leave out ("at a designated police station") and insert ("in police custody")
The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
98A Page 4, line 24, leave out from 'from' to 'under' in line 25 and insert 'police custody'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 98A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 98. I commend the amendment.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 98A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 98.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
105 Schedule 2, page 26, line 39, at end insert—
(".In section 38(8) (surrender of register of transactions by dealer) after the words "this Act" there shall be inserted "(or, if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the information comprised in that register in a visible and legible form)".")
The Commons agreed to this amendment and have made the following consequential amendment to the Bill—
105A Page 10, line 1, leave out from 'him' to 'within' in line 2 and insert 'the register kept by him under section 21 below (or, if the register is kept by means of a computer, a copy of the information comprised in the register in a visible and legible form)'.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 105. I commend the amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 105A, as a consequential amendment to Lords Amendment No. 105.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
5.29 p.m.
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 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
[Amendment No. 65 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 24 [Duty to release certain life prisoners]:
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 17, line 24, leave out from ("fulfilled") to end of line 26.
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 66, I shall speak also to the connected Amendment No. 67. These amendments provide that trial judges and not the Home Secretary should set the tariff when juveniles convicted of murder receive sentences of detention during Her Majesty's pleasure. When a child or young person aged under 18 is found guilty of murder, the mandatory sentence under Section 53(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, which is the juvenile equivalent of the mandatory life sentence that was introduced in 1908 in lieu of the death sentence.
Since 1983 the procedures following the imposition of such a sentence have been as follows. As in the case of adult life sentences, a minimum term—the tariff—is set which the offender must serve to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence. The trial judge makes a recommendation to the Home Secretary on the appropriate length of the tariff period; the Lord Chief Justice also makes a recommendation. In the absence of any mechanism for appeal against the tariff, this is intended to help to provide a check against inconsistencies as between different judges. However, it is the Home Secretary who makes the final decision and he does not have to accept either of those judicial recommendations.
For example, in the case of the two boys who killed James Bulger, the trial judge recommended an eight-year tariff period; the Lord Chief Justice recommended 10 years; but the Home Secretary fixed the tariff at 15 years, stating that he had taken account of the judicial recommendations as well as all other relevant factors, including the circumstances of the case, public concern about it and the need to maintain confidence in the criminal justice system. That is the process at the beginning of the sentence period.
At the end of the tariff period the Parole Board considers the case and makes a recommendation as to whether the offender can safely be released. However, the Home Secretary is not currently obliged to accept a recommendation for release.
The feature of the process which is widely regarded as most objectionable is the role of the Home Secretary in setting the tariff and making release decisions. The setting of the tariff at the outset is a sentencing decision. Yet it is not taken by the trial judge, who has heard all the evidence and may well have heard that evidence tested as well as seen and heard the young offender concerned. It is a paper exercise by the executive, taken in private with no hearing, no right for the defendant to be present or represented and no right of appeal.
That procedure must contravene all the basic requirements of natural justice. When politicians make these decisions, there is a risk that they will be influenced by electoral considerations and the prospect of headlines in the tabloid media rather than by the merits of the case. One must not lose sight of the fact that these are often highly emotive cases, particularly when the victim as well as the offender is a child.
This procedure may he disturbing enough in the case of adult offenders, but in the case of children and young persons, where justice demands that the process should take account of their immaturity and their capacity for change, as well as their degree of psychological disturbance, I suggest that it is indefensible.
In February 1996, in the cases of Hussain v. the United Kingdom and Singh v. the United Kingdom the European Court of Human Rights held that the system for making release decisions at the end of the tariff period of a juvenile sentenced under Section 53(1) of the 1933 Act contravened Article 5(4) of the European Convention and that such young people were entitled to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed by a court or by a court-like body. The Government agreed to abide by that decision, which would involve replacing the current system with one in which a judicial hearing—that is, a panel of the Parole Board sitting according to a judicial procedure—would make release decisions. It is Clause 24 which provides for this welcome change. However, the clause does not affect the procedure for setting tariffs at the beginning of the sentence.
These amendments propose that the setting of the tariff should also not be taken by the Home Secretary but should be taken out of the Home Secretary's hands and determined by the trial judge. If that happened, the tariff would be subject to appeal by the defence if they considered it too harsh or to a reference by the Attorney-General if the prosecution considered it too lenient. The process would be open, judicial and, unlike the present system, would satisfy the requirements of natural justice.
There are wider arguments relating to consistency in setting tariffs and the procedures involved in mandatory life sentences but I think the best argument is the simplest one: that tariff-setting ought to be a matter for the judge in open court, in these cases in particular. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The amendments will take away from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary his powers to set the tariff to be served for retribution and deterrence for those sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure, the mandatory sentence for juveniles convicted of murder while under the age of 18.
Our well established position is that the Home Secretary has a legitimate and valuable role in the sentence imposed on those convicted of the unique and heinous crime of murder, whether they be adults or juveniles. This role is essential in establishing the distinctive nature of the penalty for murder.
To remove the role of the Home Secretary would downgrade the unique seriousness of the offence. It would mean that the penalty for murder committed by
820
juveniles would operate in exactly the same way as the life sentence for those offences where it is the maximum rather than the only penalty.
Murder is unique because it involves the deprivation of another person's life with the intent at least to cause them grievous bodily harm. It is an offence generally regarded by society with revulsion. The current arrangements allow for regard to public confidence in the criminal justice system to be taken into account and mark out the uniqueness of murder. The Home Secretary's decision is principally informed by the recommendations of the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice. However, he takes into account all relevant factors, which may include, as your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity agreed in the case of Doody,
"broader considerations of a public character than those which apply to an ordinary sentencing function".
The unique value of the Home Secretary's role lies in his ability to consider these broader considerations which judicial recommendations may not adequately reflect. Such considerations as setting the tariff for those convicted of murder is a role which falls properly to the executive and which cannot be taken by anyone who does not have the same level of direct accountability to Parliament. If the courts were to set the tariff, there would be no direct accountability to Parliament for the decisions taken, which we believe, given the particular nature of the offence of murder, there should be.
Members of the Committee may be aware that the House, sitting in its judicial capacity, has recently heard the appeal against the Court of Appeal's ruling last summer in the cases of Thompson and Venables. Thompson and Venables are the two boys convicted of the murder of James Bulger. They sought judicial review of the Home Secretary's decision to set a tariff of 15 years in their cases. Although the Divisional Court questioned the Home Secretary's powers, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Home Secretary's tariff-setting powers for those sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure were lawful. We await the judgment on the appeal. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments.
Earl Russell: I must apologise to the noble Baroness for speaking after her. While my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and I were deferring to each other as to who should speak next, the noble Baroness leapt into the breach with great speed and anticipated us. Perhaps I may take the opportunity to make a few remarks now.
Two issues arise from this amendment, which I think should be considered separately. One is the respective roles of the judiciary and the executive in fixing the length of punishment. That is an issue with a very long history. The basic purpose of the rule of law, as people in this country have fought for it over many centuries, has been to shift the balance to bring the process of deciding on detention more under the control of the judiciary and less under the control of the executive. My noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill mentioned Chapter 39 of Magna Carta—the due process provision. That arose from the conduct of King John, who on one

821
occasion imprisoned somebody for no better reason than, in his own words, "because we were cross with him".
There is always a balance to be struck between the prerogative of the Home Secretary and the powers of the judiciary. It is a matter of some concern that that balance may be tilting a little in the Home Secretary's direction. That point was addressed by my noble friend Lord Meston.
My other point concerns the treatment of the young. It is a fairly recognised procedure that, when dealing with younger offenders, one must be more capable of considering the arguments for mercy than perhaps with those one considers might be old enough to know better. That is a point of some substance. It is also an area in which we must consider circumstances. In all sentencing one should consider circumstances, but it is particularly important when considering sentencing those between the ages of 16 and 18. The noble Baroness and I have already crossed swords today at Question Time. But she must be aware, because we have had so many exchanges on this point, that people between the ages of 16 and 18 are not as a general rule free to claim benefits.
Let there be no mistake, crime is crime regardless of the circumstances. I do not wish to say anything which casts one moment's doubt on that. But the noble Baroness will recall the study by the South Glamorgan Tech of teenagers in South Glamorgan. It was shown that about one sixth of that age group at any given time was without visible legal means of support and therefore had no legal way of getting anything to eat. During one exchange with the noble Baroness, I quoted from that report that among that group of people the word "shopping" meant shoplifting. She told me that I was shockingly cynical to have said any such thing.
First, I had quoted the words of an academic study, which I believe I was entitled to do. Second, I do not feel that the noble Baroness took on board that I referred to people whose only other option was starvation. I have said that it does not excuse them but it could be something which could count towards the mitigation of a justly imposed penalty. My noble friend's amendment would make that possible and to me it is a very big point in its favour.
Lord Ackner: I expected to hear the noble Baroness utter the time hallowed phrase used in previous debates that murder is a uniquely heinous crime. I still find it difficult to accept, when thinking back to the case of Private Clegg. If that was a uniquely heinous crime, why was he given his freedom after some two and a half years? There was no issue but that he killed and intended to kill. What is uniquely heinous about the murder—it is murder—resulting from mercy killing? There is an intention to kill. But no one could look on that as being in the same category as murder carried out in an outrageously violent way.
The unique feature is said to be killing with intent to do grievous bodily harm. But that occurs in manslaughter cases, where the reason for reducing the
822
crime from murder to manslaughter is provocation: there was an intent to kill but to kill in circumstances which provided a defence of provocation.
I recall, I hope correctly, that the all-party Home Affairs Committee, while maintaining that murder should still receive an automatic life sentence, said that the Home Secretary's involvement should be removed and he should not set the tariff. The reason given—it was an all party committee—was that a politician deciding in private for how long a person should lose his liberty was repugnant to anyone with an ordinary sense of justice.
In those circumstances, it seems to me to be totally unjustified to cling on desperately—which is what the Home Secretary has been doing throughout all our debates on this subject—to the power to fix a tariff. In doing so, he deprives the accused of any right to challenge what he has done. Where the tariff is fixed by a judge, there is a right of appeal. First of all, one has the benefit of argument in open court as to what the tariff should be; then, a reasoned judgment in open court is provided; and there is an appeal, when the same process is gone through. But apparently the Home Secretary feels that it is just and proper for him to retain that tiny segment of power. I can only suggest that the reason is power for the sake of power. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister justified retention of the right of the Home Secretary to fix the tariff in respect of children on the grounds that for a judge to fix that tariff would downgrade the unique and heinous nature of the crime. I do not see how that follows. I am in accord with the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he pointed out that murder is a crime which can vary from a killing in the course of rape or robbery to a killing as a result of domestic violence all the way through to mercy killing. There are infinite grades of killing. The only thing that is unique about murder cases is that someone dies.
Another circumstance which should be looked at in this context is killing by children, which is a particularly highly emotive issue. Let me give two instances. The first was the Phillip Lawrence murder by a 14 year-old, which had a peculiar horror to it. I declare an interest as a defence counsel for a co-accused in that case. The fact that a child was involved in that killing gave it an emotive charge which has perhaps resulted in some useful legislation that may come before this House next week. Nevertheless, it is a subject which causes high emotion among the public.
The second instance was the Jamie Bulger case. There, the Home Secretary fixed a tariff which the Court of Appeal found to be wrong and his methods to be wrong in a number of important respects. It is illustrative of the points that need to be made. First, the Home Secretary erroneously applied the same principles to tariff setting as in adult mandatory life sentences. That was one finding of the Court of Appeal. Then, he failed to appreciate that with young children one has to

823
be more merciful, to consider rehabilitation and have in mind that children will change much more between the ages of, say, 10 years and 15 years than adults will change over the same period. And not only had the Home Secretary applied an adult approach to his decision in fixing a tariff in that case, but he took into account petitions that had been organised by a tabloid newspaper. The Committee has to think for only a moment of what public outcry there would be if a judge were presented with 50,000 names on a petition prior to sentencing in court—names collected by a tabloid newspaper. Everybody would regard that as a gross interference with the processes of justice. The Home Secretary having made those mistakes, it is right to remember that there was no possibility of the counsel appearing for the two defendants—
Baroness Blatch: It is a convention of this Chamber, when a case is before the House and not yet determined, that we do not discuss it. The noble Lord, in talking to this amendment, made subjective comments about the Home Secretary. I believe that what the noble Lord is saying is wholly inappropriate in the context of these amendments.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: If I am erring, I plead ignorance to it and apologise. I was referring to the judgment of the Court of Appeal. I appreciate that the matter is now before this House in the Judicial Committee and I shall await to hear, in due course, what the House says.
Perhaps I should move swiftly from that tragic case and say to the Committee that if a child is found guilty of murder in emotive circumstances, surely it is better that the judge fixes the tariff in open court, with all the representations being heard for both the Crown and the defence; also, that the matter be transparent and open not simply for the sake of the children themselves, but also for the sake of the victims' families and their own families. I support the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: When I looked around earlier I was surprised that nobody wished to speak to the amendments, only to be accused that I had sprung to my feet rather quickly. Therefore, if I seemed hesitant, it was because I wanted to give everybody the opportunity to speak. I shall assume when I sit down that most people who wanted to speak in fact do not intend to.
The Government will simply have to rest their case and agree to differ with those Members of the Committee who have spoken. It having been established in court that a murder has taken place, we assume that it is an activity that has taken place with intent. We also believe that the tariff set reflects the degree of seriousness of the murder.
In coming to a view in the case of murder where the Home Secretary has a role in setting the tariff, he takes into account what is said either privately or in open court by the trial judge. Equally, he takes into account what is said by the Lord Chief Justice. He submits to
824
the prisoner all the recommendations that have come to him from the trial judge, from the Lord Chief Justice and the action he is minded to take. The prisoner is given an opportunity to make representations in writing to the Home Secretary before the tariff is set.
In response to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, while not all murders are uniquely heinous, the present arrangements allow for different tariff lengths to be set which reflect the varying needs of retribution and deterrence. But the present arrangements make the sentence for murder unique. The Home Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, to which reference has already been made, agrees that there should not be any downgrading of the crime of murder. That is what the amendments would do.
Lord Meston: I avoided reference to the Jamie Bulger case in any detail, knowing that it was still subject to the appellate process.
The Minister suggested and has just repeated that, somehow or other, these amendments downgrade the uniqueness of murder as a criminal offence. I suggest that they do nothing of the sort and are not intended to do anything of the sort. Of course it must be recognised, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, that murder is committed in a wide range of circumstances. That applies as much to murders by juveniles as to any other type of murder.
The noble Baroness referred to confidence in the judicial system and suggested that it was the Home Secretary's peculiar responsibility to act in those cases to uphold public confidence. But surely it is the judges who are primarily responsible for confidence in the system, and I suggest that they take that responsibility seriously.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness for a clear exposition as to why the Executive is somehow better informed or better equipped to set the tariff in those cases. I have not been convinced. I listened carefully to the Minister's response to see whether she could explain why the paper process I described is somehow better than the process I suggest; namely, the setting of the tariff by the trial judge who has heard all the evidence at first hand. The noble Baroness has not convinced me. I suggest that the Government should grasp the nettle; but if they will not, I wish to test the opinion of the Committee.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 66 shall be agreed to?
Division called.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Question is, That Amendment No. 66 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content".

825
In the absence of any Lord to say "Content" at the second Question, I declare that the "Not-Contents" have it.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I do not know whether I can raise a point of order, and if not—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I intend to persist in the matter until I am ruled out of order. There is clearly a misunderstanding—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Strathclyde: Perhaps I may—
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I am on my feet. I have no intention of giving way. I shall gladly give way if noble Lords on the other side stop shouting and if I may be allowed for a moment to explain why I am on my feet in the first place. The normal courtesies of the House are that if a noble Lord does not give way, even to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, he shall be allowed to finish what he has to say.
I understand—and this is why the Committee is at the moment in some confusion—that when my noble friend Lord Meston called in the Division Lobby in favour of our amendment his voice was not heard. I do not know what redress there may be if the word "Content" is not heard in such circumstances but I should have thought that it was normally within the courtesies of your Lordships' House—and in this respect greatly different from what happens in another place—if your Lordships, having not heard a call of "Content", at least give the opportunity to consider whether it is a fault on their part or on the part of those who may not have raised their voices. I should be glad to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, now, provided there is no further shouting from the other side, to deal with this clear and particular point. If "Content" was shouted but not heard, what redress have we now in order to enable your Lordships to do what they wish to do? Clearly, a number of noble Lords are assembled for the very purpose of voting for or against the amendment. Surely it is right that they should be given the opportunity of exercising their views in a Division, because that is what your Lordships very clearly wish.
Lord Strathclyde: I think I must try to put the Committee back into some kind of order. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, was not speaking to a Motion. As the noble Lord knows, in this House we do not have points of order in quite the same way as they have in another place. I understand that the Question was put for the second time and no word was heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I am not in a position to say whether or not the word "Content" was shouted. All I know is that it was not heard and the Motion was therefore carried in favour of the "Not-Contents". There is a simple solution to this. The next amendment is in the name of the noble Lord,
826
Lord Meston. I understand that the issues are connected. If he wishes to move that amendment as soon as he possibly can, we can carry on with the Division and see which way the Vote would have gone.
Lord Meston: I thank the noble Lord. He anticipated precisely what I was going to suggest. I am sorry if this matter has been unduly prolonged, but I certainly intend to move the next amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I call Amendment No. 67.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 17, line 29, after ("law") insert ("or he was under 18 at the time when he committed the offence for which his sentence was imposed").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
6.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 67) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 124.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

McNair, L.

Acton, L.

McNally, L.

Addington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E [Teller.]

Bath, M.

Meston, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Methuen, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ogmore, L.

Calverley, L.

Onslow, E.

Carlisle, E.

Oxford, Bp.

Dahrendorf, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Davies, L.

Rea, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Falkland, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Geraint, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hooson, L.

Sandwich, E.

Hughes, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Hunt, L.

Tenby, V.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Thurso, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Tope, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Tordoff, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Warnock, B.

Longford, E.

Wigoder, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Astor, V.

Addison, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ailsa, M.

Balfour, E.

Aldington, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Beaverbrook, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Berners, B.

Annaly, L.

Blaker, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blatch, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Bowness, L.

827

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Byford, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Nickson, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Davidson, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Denbigh, E.

Peel, E.

Denham, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Quinton, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rees, L.

Dudley, E.

Rowallan, L.

Dundonald, E.

Saatchi, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erne, E.

St John of Bletso, L.

Feldman, L.

Savile, L.

Ferrers, E.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gisborough, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Goschen, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Haddington, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stewartby, L.

Henley, L.

Stockton, E.

Hogg, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hooper, B.

Swinfen, L.

Howe, E.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Keyes, L.

Torphichen, L,

Kimball, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Trumpington, B.

Kitchener, E.

Ullswater, V.

Knollys, V.

Wise, L.

Knutsford, V.

Wrenbury, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Belstead: I have given my noble friend the Minister notice that the reason for opposing this clause is to ask whether the Government recognise that resources will be needed to bring Clause 24 into effect; yet no costs concerning that clause are mentioned, as regards the Parole Board, in the Financial Memorandum. I must of course declare an interest as chairman of that board.
The effect of this clause is to transfer from the Home Secretary to the Parole Board the responsibility for deciding on the release of prisoners under the age of
828
18 years convicted of murder and detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. That follows a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights and is being put into effect by Clause 24 by applying the existing arrangements for the release of discretionary life prisoners by the Parole Board to Her Majesty's Pleasure prisoners.
However, discretionary life reviews on which this clause is based are the most costly of all the reviews that the Parole Board undertakes. In total I am sure that we are talking about a small sum—in fact, a very small sum—in public expenditure terms. Nonetheless, I am asking my noble friend Lady Blatch whether the Government have made an assessment of the additional costs which this work will entail, because the Financial Memorandum has not, and whether the Government will provide the necessary resources.
Baroness Blatch: Clause 24 also requires the Secretary of State to set a tariff for juvenile murderers, but does not restrict the exercise of his discretion in so doing. The clause is required to give effect to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Singh and Hussain, which we have undertaken to do.
The point that has been raised by my noble friend has nothing to do with the purpose of the clause, but with the extra burdens that we put on the Parole Board and the issue of resources related to it. I am happy to confirm to my noble friend that we shall meet all of the bids for additional funding in the next financial year. Perhaps I may just remind my noble friend that they cover providing internal audit for the Parole Board; Her Majesty's Pleasure cases; an extra SEO to assume responsibility for finance and administration; a part-time AO to process board members' claims for fees, etc.; and meeting some reprographic costs. I can now confirm all of these will be met.
Lord Belstead: I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that detailed reply. I hope that meeting those costs will extend beyond the forthcoming year.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Duration and conditions of licences]:
[Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Recall of life prisoners while on licence]:
[Amendments Nos. 70 to 76 not moved.]
6.15 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 19, line 44, leave out from ("directs") to end of line 1 on page 20.
The noble Earl said: I hope that the noble Baroness, in her Christian charity, will overlook the authorship of this amendment. I can assure her that it is in no way an attack on the present Government, but a straightforward appeal to common sense and decency. I realise that, looking at this amendment, no one will be able to make head or tail of its implications. I would not know what

829
it amounts to so perhaps I may explain and say at the same time why I shall move it and then, after any discussion, withdraw it; then I shall move it again at the next stage so that Members of the House will have time to understand its implications.
The purpose of the amendment is extremely simple. It is to the effect that if those who receive mandatory life sentences—in other words, murderers—are recalled to prison, they should be subject to the same process as discretionary life prisoners. It is as simple as that. I shall give one example of a mandatory life prisoner without mentioning his name. However, the noble Baroness will be familiar with the case because it has been mentioned to the Home Office in the past and I have given her notice that I shall mention it today.
This particular prisoner killed his wife in a fit of rage and spent 13 years in prison where I visited him every now and then. He came out and, after 13 months, without being convicted of any crime, his conduct was judged to be unsuitable by a probation officer. On the say-so of that officer he was returned to prison. He has now been in prison for three years where I visit him from time to time at different places. He has recently been told that within the next month or so he will go to an open prison for at least a year, which will make four years in prison and—this is the point—without ever going before a tribunal.
If he were a discretionary life prisoner he would go before a tribunal at an early stage. The finding of that body would be binding on the Government. I am simply saying that in terms of natural justice, common sense and decency, it is right that the two kinds of convicted life prisoners should be put on the same footing. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I remind the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that if this amendment is agreed to, he will be unable to move Amendment No. 78 which, I imagine, he does not wish to move anyway.
Baroness Blatch: The noble—and dare I say—indefatigable Earl, Lord Longford, seeks to bring the procedure for dealing with the recall of a mandatory life sentence prisoner precisely into line with the procedure for a discretionary life sentence prisoner. On the first of his amendments I can offer the noble Earl the comfort that the current law, which the Bill, as drafted, would merely re-enact, already provides for the Parole Board's recommendation to be binding upon the Secretary of State. In the case of discretionary life sentence prisoners, the board has the power to direct immediate release following a recall. For those convicted of murder and serving a mandatory life sentence, the board may recommend immediate release following a recall, but Clause 28 clearly provides that the Secretary of State shall give effect to such a recommendation. I believe that is clear.
The second amendment raises a more difficult issue. First, for a discretionary lifer—and now in juvenile
830
murder cases—Parliament has accepted the need for a body with judicial procedures to decide on release once the period of punishment or tariff has been served. Such a body is also necessary to determine whether a sentence should be effectively re-commenced after revocation of a life sentence or whether the recalled licensee should be immediately released.
But as domestic and European courts have recognised, the position for adult murderers has always been different. Their initial release is determined by the Secretary of State and depends on whether he considers that they are safe to be released. The power to recall such a prisoner after release is naturally exercised with great care. In all but emergency cases, it is the board itself which must recommend to the Home Secretary that this step be taken, and since the Parole Board was set up in 1967 Parliament has given it the power to recommend the immediate release of a recalled life licensee. Where the board takes the view, upon consideration of the recalled licensee's representations, that the recall should not have taken place, the Home Secretary is required to release him. But if the prisoner is not released at this point it is again the Home Secretary alone who can decide to release him thereafter.
The board does not operate with judicial procedures in these cases because there is no need for it to do so. It is performing the function of a check on the wide power to recall a life licensee, sometimes where he is not even charged with having committed a new criminal offence. It only adopts a judicial character in dealing with discretionary lifers and juvenile murderers, who are serving sentences of a quite different nature to the mandatory life sentence.
The noble Earl would doubtless prefer the Parole Board to adopt court-like procedures for all its decisions but that is to ignore the fundamental difference between a mandatory life sentence and a discretionary life sentence. Supported by domestic and European courts, the Government remain persuaded that oral hearings are not necessary in mandatory cases and that current procedures for consideration of immediate release following recall in mandatory cases are both appropriate and just. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will not press his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Minister has given my noble friend some reassurance on the first of his amendments and I suppose we must accept that. However, without fully understanding the literal impact of my noble friend's amendment, I am still worried about the case that he raised and about whether it is being dealt with justly. My noble friend referred to the case of someone who had served 13 years, who was out of gaol and who, simply on the say-so of a probation officer, was recalled. Because he was a mandatory life prisoner he had no access to any appeal tribunal. I understand about the differences between mandatory and discretionary life prisoners. But can that be just?
Baroness Blatch: I was not going to use the details of the case which the noble Earl raised, but I think perhaps I should now do so in response to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

831
Mr. Rundle was sentenced to life imprisonment in July 1980 for the murder of his wife whose body he burnt and later disposed of. He had a history of volatile relationships with vulnerable women. The circumstances leading to his arrest revealed a tendency to deceptive behaviour. Mr. Rundle was released in February 1993 on life licence and under the supervision of the Probation Service.
Within a few months of his release, Mr. Rundle formed a relationship with a woman. The Probation Service considered her to be unstable and advised Mr. Rundle that it was an unsuitable match which was likely to place him at risk. Threats of violence by Mr. Rundle towards the woman were investigated in December and in the light of other signs of worrying behaviour in relation to his attitude to supervision, a formal warning letter was issued by the Home Office in January 1994.
In March 1994 it was reported that Mr. Rundle had deceived his probation officer over his continuing relationship with the woman. It was also alleged that he had made threats to kill her and had abducted her. The police regarded Mr. Rundle as extremely dangerous. The Probation Service recommended immediate recall in view of the risk which Mr. Rundle was considered to pose.
The Secretary of State considered that Mr. Rundle no longer represented an acceptable risk to remain at liberty in the community and on 16th March the Home Secretary agreed to the revocation of this life licence under the emergency recall provisions set out in Section 39(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.
All such cases are considered in great depth. There is no question of the Home Secretary simply taking the word of the Probation Service. However, the Probation Service takes extremely seriously its role of supervising people who are out on life licence. Probation officers are usually the first people to know when there are signs of problems and they are usually the first people to alert the authorities to any problems. I could give more details of the case, if the noble Lord wishes, but I think that there were very good reasons for recall. The matter was properly considered—and rightly so.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: In the light of that reply, I have no criticism whatever—and no reason to make any criticism—of the Probation Service, the police or anyone else involved in that case. Incidentally, I did not name the person concerned. It was not my intention to be critical; I intervened only to ask this. Whatever the merits of the case, can it be just that there should be no appeal to a tribunal for a mandatory life prisoner when there is such a right for discretionary life prisoners? That is not taking sides in the case of Mr. Rundle. I raised a more general question.
Lord Hylton: In general support of what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, says, I have no doubt that the action taken in recalling that person was prudent and correct. But would it not have been very much better for the case to be reviewed by an independent and impartial body, such as the Parole Board, after he had been recalled? Can the
832
noble Baroness say anything about whether the additional seven years that the man has served since recall are justified and whether or not they have been reviewed?
Baroness Blatch: At the risk of going on for rather too long, I shall continue to give the information that I have on the case. In April 1994—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the Minister will forgive me—
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to finish because a particular question has been raised about the involvement of the Parole Board and about whether that gentleman was allowed to make his case. The points that I am about to make seem entirely pertinent to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton.
Mr. Rundle was invited to make representations to the Parole Board against his recall. He did so on 8th June and on 8th July the Parole Board considered his representations but deferred its decision pending more reports from the police and the Probation Service. I could go on but, as I have said, Mr. Rundle was given an opportunity and there was Parole Board involvement.
The Earl of Longford: I am bound to say that the noble Baroness does not know the gentleman and knows very little about him. I have known him for 17 years, so I know rather more about him. One or two points should be borne in mind when listening to the Minister's very ex parte statements. The noble Baroness should realise that that gentleman was warned against the woman on the grounds that she was unstable. As I understand it, when he was recalled the police did not rely on her evidence because she was unstable and regarded, I believe, as a bit of a dipsomaniac. At any rate the evidence of alleged attacks on the woman came from someone who was judged so unstable that the man was told that he should not go about with her. That is one aspect of the case.
Another aspect, not mentioned in the brief, is that at a certain point the Parole Board recommended that that gentleman should go to an open prison. What happened to that suggestion? It was turned down by the Home Office. I went to see the Minister's predecessor at the Home Office about that very point. No one could produce any reason, but the Parole Board was defied in that case by the Home Secretary. Perhaps the Minister has not been told about that. Before I raise the matter at the next stage, I should like to give her the opportunity to think the case over.
Finally, I should add that the probation officer who previously found that gentleman's conduct so unsatisfactory is now in favour of his release. Although, in all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, I shall certainly return to it at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 78, 78A and 79 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 80:
Before Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
WARRANT OF COMMITMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FINE
(". The following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (6) of section 82 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980—
"(6) Where a magistrates' court issues a warrant of commitment on the ground that one of the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) or (4) above is satisfied, it shall state that fact, specifying the ground. in the warrant and where it specifies the ground that the conditions mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above are satisfied it shall state in open court the reasons for its opinion that all other methods of enforcing payment of the sum are inappropriate or unsuccessful.".").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 80, I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 82, 85 and 86. The purpose of Amendment No. 80 is to require a magistrates' court to give reasons if it concludes that it wishes to reject other methods of enforcing a fine when imprisoning a fine defaulter. Essentially, this derives from the judgment of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of R. v. Oldham Justices and another, ex parte Cawley. He said, in words that seem generally appropriate:
"In respect of each apparent option"—
that is, enforcement option—
"there must be such a reason, for it is imperative that justices rigorously examine each, and only discard it for good reason … The reasoning process must be gone through. The reasons must be clearly capable of articulation. They must indeed be articulated in open court".
That is precisely what Amendment No. 80 seeks to do; in other words, a magistrates' court, in issuing a warrant of commitment, shall state in open court the reasons for its opinion that all other methods of enforcing payment of the sum are inappropriate or unsuccessful.
The alternatives are well known: a distress warrant; deduction from income support; attachment of earnings; attendance centre; money payment supervision order; and enforcement in the civil courts. It is not without interest that there has been a dramatic reduction in what most people consider to be a social blight, namely the imprisonment of fine defaulters, from 20,157 in 1995 to 8,807 in 1996. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Divisional Court which was given by Lord Justice Staughton in December 1996 held that the obligation to give reasons for discarding alternatives did not apply to those defaulters who were 21 and over.
The reason for this amendment, therefore, is to impose upon a magistrates' court, when it is considering taking a step that most regard as a last resort to be taken only after the most careful consideration of alternatives, the statutory discipline of giving reasons for rejecting all other enforcement options. The stance that we take, which we believe to be a practical one, is that the discipline of giving reasons means that the previous discipline is enforced and that the magistrates' minds must be directed specifically to alternative sanctions. That is the basis of the amendment. I hope that the Government will see the sense of it and accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I support Amendment No. 80. I should like to say a word or two about the experience in
834
Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland the number of admissions to prison for fine default constitutes a very high proportion of the prison intake in any given year. I do not have the exact figure. Voluntary organisations, in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Parole Board, have worked out that it would be quite easy to have a scheme functioning at least on a pilot basis during the next 12 months under which fine defaulters and other non-payers who came before the courts would be obliged by court order to do useful work for non-governmental organisations in lieu of having to go to prison. I have urged this on the responsible Minister in Northern Ireland. The reply I have been given is that the department does not want to do it yet but prefers first to see how comparable schemes in England work out. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell the Committee what stage the comparable schemes have reached. I hope that they are making very good progress.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I also support Amendments Nos. 80 and 86 to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has spoken. I like the fact that in Amendment No. 80 it is clearly established that imprisonment for fine default is the last resort. Amendment No. 86 establishes and gives appropriate status to a community service order or curfew order as the penultimate disposal.
Baroness Blatch: No one wishes to see fine defaulters committed to prison except as a last resort. We have consistently proclaimed our determination to see the number of fine defaulters in prison reduced, and our efforts have paid off. But equally there are occasions when detention is called for. Perhaps I may give an indication of the progress that has been made. In 1995 20,157 fine defaulters were committed to prison. In 1996 that figure had fallen to 8,806. The Government cannot prove it, but there is a view that the Cawley judgment has had a considerable impact and that courts are now much more rigorous in ensuring that any committal to prison is very much the last resort.
Section 82 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 provides that a person may not be committed to prison for fine default unless the court is satisfied that his default is due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect to pay, and, furthermore, that it has considered or tried all other methods of enforcing payment and it appears that they are inappropriate or unsuccessful. If a person who is committed to prison for fine default believes that these legal requirements have not been met or that he has in any other way been treated unfairly by the court it is open to him to appeal.
The practical objections to this amendment are overwhelming. A defaulter's case is likely to be considered by the court on a number of separate occasions before the point at which commitment to prison arises. It would be a considerable additional burden on the court if there were a statutory duty requiring the court to keep a written record of the magistrates' reasons at each stage of the enforcement process in every case, so that if it reached the point of commitment to prison the justices on that occasion would be able to refer to reasons for decisions taken

835
earlier. Let me put this proposed amendment in context. Approximately, three-quarters of those convicted by the courts are fined—almost one million people in 1995. Keeping the kind of records required by this amendment in all cases would be a heavy burden. In practice this is not a necessary burden. Informal checklists to ensure compliance with the requirement of Section 82 are already in place in many courts, and recent high profile successful appeals against commitment have highlighted to courts the need to ensure that the correct procedures as set out in that section are followed. I do not believe that the case for placing an onerous new requirement on the courts has been made out, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Turning now to Amendments Nos. 82, 85 and 86, I agree that a court should not have the power to impose a community service order or curfew order for fine default unless it has tried or considered all other enforcement methods short of imprisonment. The Bill already provides in Clause 31(1) that the court may use the powers in subsection (2) to impose a community service order or curfew order on a fine defaulter only where it has power under the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to issue a warrant of commitment to prison for fine default. The 1980 Act makes clear that the court may not issue such a warrant unless it has tried or considered all other enforcement methods and they have either failed or the court has concluded that they are inappropriate. It follows that, in order to satisfy the restrictions on its power to impose a community service or curfew order which Clause 31(1) provides, the court must have previously tried or considered all other enforcement methods. Consequently, these amendments are unnecessary. We are at one on the need for this measure, but the Government do not believe that Amendment No. 80 is necessary.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We are at one. Obviously, I have failed to make myself clear. I told the Committee of the statistical fall from 20,157 in 1995 to 8,807 in 1996. I indicated that in part the Cawley judgment had brought that about. There were two other causes. I refer to the model checklist which the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society offered to magistrates, which they by and large took up, and also—credit where it is due—the Lord Chancellor's Department's working group on the enforcement of financial penalties.
The Minister said that this would impose onerous new requirements. Not so. The Cawley judgment is binding on magistrates' courts in the case of offenders under the age of 21. The difficulty arose in December 1996 in the Crown v. Stockport Justices, ex parte Conlan and the Crown v. Newcastle Justices, ex parte Keenaghan in which it was held that the requirement did not apply to those over the age of 21.
There is no great difficulty in our Amendment No. 80. It is not required that every differently constituted bench should give reasons because the preceding hearings do not lead to the issue of a warrant of committal. Amendment No. 80 is perfectly simple, practical and workable. It only relates to the magistrates' court that issues the warrant of committal, and that
836
warrant of committal being issued has to have endorsed upon it the reasons in open court why the magistrates' court has decided that all other methods of enforcing payment are inappropriate or unsuccessful, virtually a paraphrase, or indeed a recitation, of what Lord Justice Simon Brown said in Cawley.
The Minister says that Cawley was an excellent decision and of course we agree. She said it has beneficial consequences and of course we agree. The Cawley ruling imposed upon the court a discipline, not an onerous new requirement. There is nothing new about what we suggest. This is a matter of such importance that unless the Minister is able to say that the Government can give Amendment No. 80 in particular further consideration—this is, I think the issue between us—I shall be inclined to test the opinion of the Committee. Since we are early on and heat has not yet been engendered and we have not had our dinner, I do not know whether the Minister is able to give that modest encouragement to me; otherwise, I shall feel obliged to test the opinion of the Committee.
Baroness Blatch: I will not prolong the debate by responding in any kind of detail to the particular point the noble Lord made except to say that in order to put the information on the warrant which would need to be put on the warrant there would have to be some recording of all the preceding occasions when the defendant was before the court and efforts were being made for him to pay the fine. However, I give the noble Lord an assurance, as I hope I always do, that of course I will study everything that has been said without prejudice to the outcome. If I cannot satisfy the noble Lord, no doubt he will not be reticent in putting down this amendment again at the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: Bearing in mind that it is not my birthday and it is not Christmas, the Minister has been extremely generous. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 21, line 41, leave out ("community service") and insert ("supervised attendance and work").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 83 I would like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 87, 95 and 97. Those who cast a casual eye at the amendments may think that all we are doing is making a change in name of non-custodial sentences which are presently called community service orders. That is not the case. This is a more important series of amendments than that because we are seeking different, separate arrangements for non-custodial sentences for fine defaulters from those which apply to other offenders, in particular, of course, more serious offenders. I preface my remarks by saying that we are in general supportive of the Government's proposals to seek to keep fine defaulters

837
out of prison. I hope that the indications which the Minister gave to my noble friend just now will contribute to that even further. We are looking for the same objective as the Government in this part of the Bill.
There is a serious difficulty in the use of community service orders for fine defaulters. First, there is the danger of a substantial number of fine defaulters receiving this sentence which could swamp the community service order procedures. Indeed, unless there is a firm indication that there are going to be greater resources available for community service orders (in other words, that any savings produced by a reduction in custodial sentences are to be turned to community service orders) the provision of community service for more serious offenders could be damaged.
Secondly, the community service order is intended to be a substantial penalty suitable for more serious offenders as a way of keeping them out of prison. Inevitably, the orders which apply to fine defaulters, serious as they may be, are not going to be as serious as the original community service orders. Then there is the problem—we shall be debating amendments later on—that fine defaulters can buy out of any community service orders because, after all, what they are being awarded is a punishment for not paying the fine and if they do pay the fine, under the circumstances we are discussing, it will no longer be appropriate.
We propose that instead of the name and the fact of community service orders there should be an order called a supervised attendance and work order. This is an amalgamation of the proposal of the Magistrates' Association, which has proposed a comparable order to be called a work order, and the suggestion of the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and NACRO of the supervised attendance order, which is the phrase used in Scotland. We have combined the two into the supervised attendance and work order in order to avoid the potential for conflict and confusion inherent in the Government's proposals and to ensure that the content of the proposed order can be different from that of community service orders. I shall not go into details of how they could be different. But there is no reason, for example, why an order for fine defaulters should not include guidance on proper family or individual budgeting or guidance against alcohol abuse.
When this issue was discussed in slightly different terms in the Commons the Minister seemed to think that our amendments were in conflict with the need to ensure efficient and effective use of community service order resources. I want to suggest that that is not the case, and that our amendments would produce a more efficient and effective use of community service orders and a more appropriate non-custodial punishment for fine defaulters. As I said, there is the danger that the new demand on community service orders could divert resources from more serious offenders. Secondly, the supervised attendance and work order could add a different and more appropriate content to the orders, and, thirdly, as I think Ministers recognise, the supervised attendance order in Scotland actually works. It is being adopted by more and more local areas within
838
Scotland. That seems to me, as a half-Scot and from a long time ago, rather a good recommendation. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I wanted to ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, before he sits down to comment on the difference between the person who has money and refuses to pay the fine and the person who has perhaps a family to support and has great difficulty paying the fine. There needs to be a difference between the two.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Earl. That is not really an issue in these amendments. We are talking about different forms of non-custodial sentence. When magistrates are considering whether it is a wilful refusal to pay a fine or because of difficulty in finding the money for the fine they will make their judgment as between a custodial and a non-custodial sentence. We are talking about the occasions when they have already decided that a non-custodial sentence is right.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I listened with great care and interest to everything said by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. One has great respect for the pedigree of the amendment. However, I am bound to say, I still did not see what change he was making other than a change in name. Surely this is a community service order under another name. The only difference appears to be that rather than a period of hours of 40 to 240 there has been inserted the hours of 20 to no more than 100.
Normally anyone receiving a CSO for fine default would expect to get a period of less than 100 hours' community service. Although I am sure that the intention behind the amendment is good, my concern is that by having two tiers of community service we may reduce in the eyes of the court the importance of community service which I understand has always been looked upon as an alternative to imprisonment, whether for an offence or a fine default. I hope that we shall hear from my noble friend the Minister that she has great faith in community service. I hope that she will be able to tell us that it is working. If that is so, is it not better to leave it as it is rather than to introduce what may be a complication without any great advantage?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I believe that the risk of appearing to trivialise community service for offenders is too great, and that loss of status would be detrimental to the perception by offenders, recipients of help from the scheme and the general public. Community service orders and probation orders, especially those involving an intensive programme, represent the heavy end of community sentences, and are rightly classified as alternatives to custody.
As has been said, the amendment proposes the introduction of a scheme similar to the Scottish supervised attendance order. As I see it, the principal difference between a CSO and a supervised attendance order is that in the former (the CSO) the offender is matched carefully to a specific task, often on a third party's property and under the supervision of that third party, whereas in a supervised attendance order

839
purposeful activity is arranged within the supervised attendance centre and organised and supervised by that centre's staff.
A typical programme, as in the one proposed for Falkirk, would be 80 per cent. physical work and 20 per cent. education and social programmes. Those programmes would discuss subjects such as drugs, alcohol, assertiveness and personal skills, which I hope include budgeting. Those supervised attendance orders have been piloted in Scotland, and are now accepted as a core part of the Scottish criminal justice system. It suits short-time attendance, so I commend the proposed supervised attendance and work order scheme to the Committee.
Viscount Tenby: I give the amendment qualified support. I say "qualified" because I should prefer the simple title "work order", a view which is shared by the Magistrates' Association, of which I am a member. I must therefore declare an interest as a magistrate. On the principle contained in the amendment, however, I am as one with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. I said on Second Reading that I warmly support the initiative contained in the Bill of making CSOs available as an alternative to custody for repeat offenders and those who wilfully refuse to pay fines.
CSOs have been a success over the years. There is no reason why these new orders should not be equally useful, provided, of course, that there is sufficient will put behind them in terms of resources and so forth. However, the CSO is a serious disposal, as the noble Lord has just said, consequent on the ordering of a pre-sentence report on the grounds that the offence was serious enough to warrant such a disposal. I therefore believe that there should be a distinction between it and the new order. We must take care, surely, not to let CSOs become devalued by the new orders. Any confusion must be avoided at all costs. I realise that it is unrealistic and counterproductive to squabble over alternative titles, and since experience north of the Border, as so often, indicates that supervised attendance and work orders have bedded down well, let us run with that. I support the amendment.
Lord Hylton: I should like to give some examples of the many different kinds of work which are needed and which will be suitable for work orders. Both in town and country, there is enormous scope for the removal of litter, the scraping off and cleaning off of graffiti, the repainting of signposts of a certain old-fashioned type, and the painting even of school buildings, particularly at weekends and during holidays. In addition there are many different kinds of environmental work; dealing with oil spills, maintaining footpaths and so forth. Whether such things can be satisfactorily done by offenders will turn entirely on supervision. Here there is a case for a lower grade of supervision than that currently being used by CSOs. I believe that the amendments have merit.
Baroness Blatch: We believe that community service orders imposed for fine default and persistent petty offending should operate in the same way as other community service orders imposed as a penalty by the courts. In practice, those given community service orders,
840
for whatever reason, must be dealt with in the same way. This will ensure an efficient and effective use of existing arrangements and the resources devoted to delivering community service. It was a particular pleasure for me to pick up from the Committee how much CSOs are valued.
It is not helpful to the courts, the probation service, offenders or victims to have a new name for an existing disposal. I agree with my noble friend Lord Carlisle who picked up that point. It is simply a recipe for confusion and error. There may be a case for renaming community service orders but, if so, then all community service orders should be renamed.
This amendment proposes that the "supervised attendance and work order" would not operate in the same way as existing community service, but instead would be a completely new scheme, governed by its own rules. Our proposal, which has been widely welcomed by respondents to our consultation paper, is much simpler. It is that fine defaulters and persistent petty offenders should be required to undertake community service. Everyone, and particularly the courts and the probation service, which is responsible for delivering community service, understand what is meant by community service. The probation service will be able to deal with fine defaulters and persistent petty offenders alongside other offenders upon whom community service has been imposed without any disruption to their existing arrangements.
It would be confusing and wasteful to set up what would in effect be very similar community service type schemes solely for this small group of offenders. And it is just not necessary. The existing community service arrangements are well established and we know that they work well. It is sensible to extend their application to fine defaulters and petty offenders, as we propose. It is not sensible to set up a whole new, but separate, scheme which operates in much the same way. It is not an efficient use of the disposals already in place, and the resources devoted to them.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, mentioned Scotland. Even if there were to be a new name—the name suggested is supervised attendance and work order—apart from being cumbersome it is likely to risk confusion with the supervised attendance order which is available to the courts in Scotland.
A supervised attendance order is not the same as community service. It is more like an attendance centre which helps offenders. It might be unhelpful duplication to try to replicate it in England and Wales when we already have many disposals for fine defaulters, including money payment supervision orders.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, that there is no danger that community service as a community penalty will be downgraded by its use for fine defaulters and persistent petty offenders. A change of name is not needed for that purpose. The difference in the minimum and maximum hours available in the different circumstances differentiate between the two groups. But for practical purposes, all community service orders should be managed in the same way and it is therefore proper that they should be called the same. The range proposed for fine defaulters would be a minimum of 20 and a

841
maximum of 100 hours and for persistent offenders a minimum of 40 and a maximum of 240 hours, which gives greater flexibility.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to fine defaulters as possibly swamping community service provision. I know why the noble Lord should make that point, but we are piloting the scheme in order to see what impact it has on the Probation Service. As regards downgrading, I have already referred to the differential maximum and minimum sentences which will reflect the two types of offenders; namely, fine defaulters and persistent offenders.
There is not much between us on these amendments, but I do not believe that a change of name would achieve anything, other than cause confusion.
7 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I call that response stubborn. I do not call the Minister stubborn, although on reflection that might do her credit with the Home Secretary. We have not moved far since the debate on a comparable issue in another place. The Minister is simply asserting that to have two tiers of community service, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, described it, would be confusing. The advice of the Magistrates' Association, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation and NACRO, which were particularly concerned with alternatives to prison, is to the contrary. When such advice has been given in response not only to the 1996 White Paper but to the earlier consultation document, I am surprised that Ministers are still making the same comments.
If the Minister prays in aid the pilot system, my response is, yes, the pilot system is good but what happens if it indicates that I am right and that the relevant associations and noble Lords such as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who know more about these issues than I do, are right? What changes can be made in the provision if the pilot system indicates a view different from the Minister's? What changes are possible as a result of different experience in the pilot scheme?
Baroness Blatch: It would be most unwise of me to predict the outcome of a pilot scheme, the whole point of which is to see precisely how it works and what it is indicating about the effectiveness of the alternative proposal. We believe that the proposal is interesting and that it will work. We believe that the Probation Service will cope very well with the scheme, but the reason we are piloting it is genuinely to judge its impact.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not ask the Minister to predict the results of the pilot scheme. I asked what action could be taken. For example, if the pilot indicated it, could there be, without further legislation, a different form of non-custodial sentence for fine defaulters?
Baroness Blatch: I return to my original answer. It is impossible to give the noble Lord an answer. One can say
842
that whatever comes out of a pilot scheme will be placed before the Ministers of the day who will consider its evaluation and decide how it should be taken forward. They will decide whether it should be taken into mainstream provision or whether the provision should be modified. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of a pilot scheme.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not ask for that answer. I am not making progress. If I am not making myself understood, my management assumption is that it must be my fault.
Of course I agree with the Minister that we are 90 per cent., or whatever it is, in agreement on what we want to achieve. I do not believe that the Minister has made a case against this rather modest plea for more discrimination between more serious and less serious forms of non-custodial sentence. However, in view of the scepticism in particular of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, whose opinion on these matters I much respect, I shall not press the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In doing so, perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage should begin again not before five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1997
Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1997
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1997
Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1997
Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1997
7.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish)The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) rose to move, That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 31st January and 10th February be approved [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft orders and regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper en bloc. I understand that is acceptable to those of your Lordships who take part in such debates.
In introducing the draft orders, we are discussing the uprating of the social security benefits from this April and allowing for the consequential rerating of national insurance. The orders before us also decrease national insurance contributions paid by share fishermen and increase the level of therapeutic earnings in incapacity benefit.
The normal procedure is that we have a wide-ranging debate on the social security system and I do not suppose that today will be any exception. Indeed, yesterday the other place dealt with the orders and had a fairly wide-ranging debate. When I went down late in the evening to hear the summing up of my honourable friend Mr. Alistair Burt, I could not help noticing that the Opposition Front Bench was supported in its endeavours by only two Back-Benchers. The Government Benches seemed to be better attended. I am pleased to see that I have a few of my colleagues here tonight—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: How many?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have one more than the Front Bench of the party opposite had in another place. Given the fact that the party opposite claim almost exclusive concern on social security matters, I found the attendance in the other place an interesting reflection on the real interest that it has on these issues.
I wish to spend a few minutes discussing the progress that we have made in containing social security expenditure. For the 50 years after Beveridge, the annual growth was increasing at an average of 5 per cent.
From 1991–92 until 1995–96 there was a £15 billion real term increase in the social security budget. Of this, £10.8 billion went to the elderly and the long term sick and disabled. But despite these significant increases because the elderly, happily, are living longer, and because of the comprehensive support of the sick and the disabled, we now expect real annual growth over the next three years to be about 1.5 per cent.
A considerable part of the budget, over 40 per cent., is spent on the elderly. I know that we are all encouraged that so many are now retiring with additional pensions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State yesterday published the latest estimates of UK pension funds which has now reached £650 billion. These assets, in savings and investments, and so forth, earning interest, exceed those of all the other EU member states put together, and as I have said on a number of occasions, leave us better placed to ensure decent pensions for our pensioners of the future.
Now that growth is contained within our means, and within the growth of the economy, it would seem that the Opposition wish to commit themselves to the same budget as the Government. However, given their record of constant criticism of our measures to control expenditure, their commitment must be in doubt. Indeed, on the many occasions that I have been at the Dispatch Box discussing these matters, the language used by the noble Baroness in opposing our measures is not the language I associate with an adequate budget but the
844
language of someone who wishes to spend more. However, I must say that probably under pressure from the shadow Chancellor her language has been somewhat modified recently, as I am sure it will be this evening.
Of course, the simplest way to save money and keep within budget would be not to uprate because the uprating measure before us this evening costs £1.7 billion. That is despite the fact that it is responding to a very low level of inflation. That would be the simplest thing to do. Your Lordships may find a recent statement by the shadow Chancellor rather alarming with regard to uprating. In the speech last month he said:
"We will keep a tough grip on the cash totals of departmental spending … there cannot be an assumption that totals will he automatically adjusted upwards in the event of a change in inflation".
That statement is in marked contrast to our record of uprating annually in line with inflation. We make it clear that we continue to consider that that is an important pledge to those people who are on benefits.
In last November's Budget, a number of measures were announced which are essential to keep DSS spending within projected levels, projected levels which are now agreed by the shadow Chancellor Mr. Gordon Brown as being sensible and levels which, in the unlikely event of him becoming Chancellor, he would seek to continue for the next two years. The various savings measures that we announced will total something like £1 billion a year in the long-term; that is, by the year 2000–01. The budget is based on the assumption that they will be implemented. I should like to mention just a couple of them.
First, we propose to equalise the treatment of lone parents with that of other families. That measure will not reduce benefit to existing claimants and are fair in their own right. Ultimately that will save £05 billion each year. The proposals require legislation which we intend to introduce early in the next Session. My right honourable friend asked yesterday—and I am not sure that he received an answer and I ask again—whether the Opposition would implement those proposals. Will they agree with us when we implement them? If they are not committed to making those £0.5 billion savings, then the money must come from somewhere in order to meet Mr. Gordon Brown's commitment to live within the budgets and spending plans that we have laid down. If it does not come from that proposal, where will it come from? Will it come from married people, the single childless, the elderly or the disabled? It is extremely unlikely that it will come from the Opposition's proposals to get lone parents back to work because the Parent Plus scheme that we are currently piloting, based on studies of initiatives going on throughout the world, shows that those things do not save money. We are under no illusions. We believe that money must be spent to help people to get back to work. That is why we have made provision for extra spending in order to make sure that those schemes can run properly.
Another point of saving and another point which keeps the budget under control and down to the level which Mr. Gordon Brown says that he would continue to obey were he to be returned after the next election is the plan to reduce the complexity surrounding

845
back-dating. There are so many different rules on back-dating right across the benefits system that that makes for a very difficult and complex system to administer. We are introducing a single set of rules for the back-dating of benefits. Those are important. If they are not implemented, then £100 million of long-term savings will be required from elsewhere.
I suspect that the noble Baroness will tell us this evening that huge savings can be made by getting people back to work. That tends to ignore the costs of back-to-work schemes. The truth is that unemployment in this country is down by more than 1 million since 1992 and it is continuing to fall. We have the lowest unemployment for more than six years and, indeed, it is markedly lower—and falling—than the levels of unemployment found in the countries of our fellow members of the European Union. I shall use the ILO statistics rather than our figures because the party opposite always objects when I use our figures. Therefore, I shall use the ILO figures to make sure that the point and the message is rammed home.
The message is a simple, arithmetical one. Unemployment in the UK in November was 7.5 per cent. In Germany it was 9.3 per cent.; in France it was 12.5 per cent.; in Italy it was 12.2 per cent.; and in Spain it was 22.3 per cent. Those countries are still seeing unemployment rising. Here it is falling. We have an excellent record in getting people back to work. We are seeing it happen; it is happening. More of our working age population is in employment than in the countries of our European partners. In this country, 68 per cent. of the working age population is in employment. In Germany it is 65 per cent.; in France, it is 60 per cent.; in Italy, it is 50 per cent.; and in Spain, it is 46 per cent. Therefore, the reduction in unemployment is real and the increase in employment is real. Despite competitive conditions, for the past four years we have managed to create more jobs in Britain than in all the other major European countries put together.
Through the JSA we have strengthened the link between benefit entitlement and labour market participation. I seem to recall pledges to abolish JSA. I wonder whether those pledges are still in place or have they, like so many others, been binned? We have deliberately reduced non-wage labour costs to the lowest for any major European country. We have transformed industrial relations. That is the way to get unemployment down and that is the way in which unemployment has come down in this country. But I have no doubt that we shall hear the Opposition's plans for getting people back to work. They have a recipe for reducing unemployment by 250,000 more than the 400,000 we have already achieved in the past year alone. The main ingredient would be a short-term subsidy.
There is a puzzle here. The Opposition expect employers to react to a £60 per week reduction in the cost of labour. Yet they claim also that employers would be indifferent to a £60 per week penalty which would be brought about by a minimum wage adding, say, an extra £1.50 per hour to labour costs. You cannot have it both ways. Either labour costs are important or they are
846
not. If the Opposition think that they are important when it comes to giving out a subsidy, they must accept also that they are important when it comes to putting up labour costs and actually losing jobs. The minimum wage and the full on-costs of the European social model cost our European neighbours dear. From this Dispatch Box, usually in economic debates, I point out that for every £100 in wages, non-wage labour costs in this country are £15. In Germany it is double that; for France it is £41; and for Italy it is £44.
If the minimum wage and the social model so beloved by the party opposite, which it is so anxious to import into this country, is not the cause of high unemployment on the Continent, then what is? It is also no good reinforcing the argument by saying that a minimum wage will reduce the burdens on the taxpayer by significantly cutting in-work benefits. A minimum wage of £3 per hour will reduce the family credit bill by 3 per cent. At £4.50 per hour, the bill will be reduced by 15 per cent.
The harsh fact is that there is no certainty in this world that new welfare-to-work schemes will save money. That is why we pilot new approaches such as Parent Plus and we budget for the costs. For example, Project Work may be self-financing but we are certainly not banking on making savings in the way that the Opposition seem to keep hoping.
These measures, and the budget measures, are part of our continuing approach to social security expenditure. We are committed to improve the targeting of finite resources while protecting those most in need. In uprating the important benefits, these benefits continue to fulfil the objective of targeting resources on those most in need. I commend the orders and regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That, the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 31st January and 10th February be approved. [11th and 12th Reports from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are pleased that the uprating of the standard benefits is in line with inflation. However, as we review the Government's stewardship of the welfare state over not just the past year but over this Parliament we can see little else to welcome.
As was said by my right honourable friend Mrs. Harman in another place yesterday, since 1992 and the last general election, the cost of social security has risen by £15 billion, inevitably crowding out expenditure on investment and education which is where we prefer that money to be. That growth is not so much, as the Secretary of State likes to claim, because of the increasing number of elderly or disabled—they account for about half that growth—but because of the increase in unemployment and its knock-on effects. Of that £15 billion growth since Mr. Lilley became Secretary of State, £8 billion is due to the direct and indirect costs of unemployment—not demography but poverty. The size of the DSS budget is a sign not of government generosity but of the Government's economic failure. It is widely accepted—I doubt whether there is much difference between the Minister and ourselves on this—

847
that benefits alone cannot make people comfortably off. Only access to a working wage, if one is of working age, will do that.
I have studied the figures that Mr. Lilley put in the Library, on which he bantered with the shadow Secretary of State. I tell the Minister that they misrepresent the position. The difference between us is this. Mr. Lilley's figures counted only the direct cost of unemployment benefit and little of the knock-on consequences for the DSS, including money spent on lone parents, disability and in-work benefits.
We have seen a growth of £15 billion in DSS expenditure under the stewardship of Mr. Lilley. At least half of that is due to poverty and economic failure. And why? Because the DSS is spending money on keeping people out of work rather than helping them into work; we have seen a growth in youth unemployment and long term unemployment. In addition, other groups marginal to the labour market which would like to work are being squeezed out when labour is abundant; they include the partially sick and disabled. They are not able to find the work they would like. Because such groups are not sustained by the minimum wage, when we help them into the labour market the taxpayer ends up subsidising the exploitative employer by wage subsidies.
In consequence not only has money spent directly on unemployment benefit, income support and JSA for the unemployed risen, as we would expect, but so have the associated benefits of housing benefit and council tax benefit for those out of work, as the Minister knows well. Equally, sickness and disability benefits have risen in part. I emphasise "in part" because in a difficult labour market those men who are middle aged with a manual background and in poor health, who nonetheless want to work and could do some work, lose out in the competition for jobs. We can add to that the fact that the wages of the poorest have been cut since the ending of the wages boards, which effectively set a minimum wage for a large swathe of the poorest paid industries. We have seen that wages have fallen and jobs have been lost simultaneously. In consequence in-work benefits have soared and with that the need for related housing benefit and council tax benefit.
Add to that the fact, for which the Minister claimed credit a few moments ago, that 90 per cent. of the jobs created since 1979 have been part-time and/or temporary and need to be shored up by a whole array of DSS benefits if they are to provide enough to live on, and it is not surprising that unemployment, directly or indirectly—I refer to its effect on the labour market—has contributed to the burgeoning cost of the welfare state. I shall not use the term "blossoming" that a Tory MP used yesterday.
As Keynes said—and we would do well to remember it—look after unemployment and the budget will look after itself. He could have been speaking about this Government's DSS policies.
In consequence, the Government are caught in the most almighty tangle. Because unemployment and underemployment—they require in-work payments—directly and indirectly have added some £8 billion to the
848
DSS bill, the Government have responded in two ways. One path is regrettable; the other to which I shall come later is deplorable.
I refer to the regrettable response from Government. As a way of capping budget, the Government have tried to target benefit on those financially most in need. And because the Minister and his department did not get their heads around the problem, the Government targeted that budget in the simple minded way of extending means testing at the expense of insurance-based budget benefits. A third of all benefit expenditure is now means tested compared with about only 10 per cent. a few years ago. JSA has a six months rather than a 12 months insurance or contributory base. Housing benefit now subsidises the individual rather than the same money being invested in building new property.
I ask the Minister for once not to use the knee-jerk, ready made, stale phrases about not subsidising bricks and mortar but instead subsidising the individual. I ask him to think, as I know he can. The same money spent by the DoE on new social housing is investment, creates jobs and adds to the stock of decent homes in this country. Because the supply is increased, rents are lower and less housing benefit is needed to afford it. It is all very virtuous. But cut housing investment and for every pound saved, 75p is spent on housing benefit. What is the result? Productive investment is converted into dead end unproductive revenue spend. Rents rise and families need more housing benefit to pay a rising rent on the same property. The only beneficiary is the landlord. Everyone else, including the taxpayer, is the loser.
That is deeply regrettable. The Government's own research last year on the take-up of means tested benefit shows that, with the exception of housing benefit, where there is automatic delivery to those in council housing, the take-up figure on those means-tested benefits is about three-quarters. One in four of those entitled do not claim. Those who claim find themselves caught in a benefit trap of dependency created by the Government's own means testing, because if every benefit is means tested they face a marginal tax rate of 97p in the pound if they move into work. Unless they can get a particularly well paid job, it is not worth doing so. How many of the Minister's friends would work at a marginal tax rate of 97p in the pound? Yet that is what we ask the poorest in our society to do. The consequence of means testing is that we trap people into dependency.
The second consequence is that, because such benefits are not just means tested but family means tested, we pull the wife in part-time work out of work because for every pound out of 10 that she earns he loses benefit, so she does not work. Yet we all know that the only way he is likely to get a job is not through the Jobcentre or dead-end government training schemes but because she is in the labour market and knows that a vacancy is coming up. It is because of that pattern that we have developed into a work rich/work poor society in which married women work only when their husbands are in work because only they can afford to; and they do not work when their husbands do not work because they cannot afford to. That is the society which family means testing has created.

849
The result is that while in three families in five both husband and wife work, in one family in five of working age neither parent works; and the result for them and their children is calamitous.
The third consequence of means testing is that those men in the twilight decade of their 50s who are pushed out of the labour market but are too young to draw a pension have to survive increasingly on means tested benefits like JSA because they are no longer eligible for the invalidity benefit, using up any savings that they may have. That means that in that twilight decade the unemployed, the semi-employed, the temporarily unemployed or the seldom employed enter their old age with no cushion. They therefore face old age on benefit as well. They carry the poverty of their unemployment with them from their working life into their old age. So the more the Government seek to curb DSS expenditure by shifting it on to a means-tested basis, the more DSS expenditure they are likely to incur in the longer term. Everyone is trapped—not just the claimant and his family, but the Government and the taxpayer as well. All of this is regrettable, and we shall try to sort it out. The only way to sort out the problem is to encourage people back into work.
I accept, indeed welcome, that, belatedly, the Government are coming up with various schemes—for instance, earnings top-up, Parents Plus and the like. We support such schemes—not surprisingly since many of them were proposed in the 1994 Borne Report. But, as they are not underpinned by a minimum wage, they will ultimately not be cost-effective either for individuals or for taxpayers.
I had hoped that the Government might avoid reiterating the stale stuff about the minimum wage. If the Minister will just think, as I know he can, he will realise that if Labour had done what the Minister is now doing, he and his Right-wing think-tanks would be the first to tell us that we were throwing taxpayers' money at landlords and employers who should be paying the market wage and charging the market rent, not, instead, paying a low wage on one hand and a high rent on the other because they know that both will be artificially subsidised by the Government.
Of course there is a place for in-work benefits to help those who are marginal to the labour market, and a place for housing benefit to help the poorest afford decent housing. But the Government have abused the role of in-work benefits and housing benefit. The DSS bill reflects the cost of their failure. All of that is regrettable. It is the price that we have paid for moving away from an insurance base to a means-tested system.
I now turn to the second way in which the Government have sought to cut the DSS budget—and the cuts are indeed deplorable. This uprating incorporates two of the most disastrous, and I shall refer to a third. It continues an attack on lone parents; it seeks to cap housing benefit for single people under 60; and it continues to remove benefits from asylum seekers.
The Government propose to cut the one-parent benefit, though this requires primary legislation for it ever to be enacted. I am baffled by the Government's
850
attitude to single parents. On the one hand they blame them for the burgeoning DSS bill. It is perfectly true that some £10 billion of DSS expenditure goes to lone parents. Yet on the other hand, at least until the eleventh hour, the Government have failed to work with the grain of choice of single parents; that is, as soon as childcare and after-school arrangements are in place, like everyone else, lone parents want to work. They want the money; they want the company; they want a life—and rightly so. If the Government had spent less time abusing lone parents at the party conference and more time over the past 15 years devising constructive paths for them to move out of poverty and dependency, the world for lone parents, their children and, incidentally, the taxpayer would have been a better place.
However, in this uprating, by simultaneously cutting future lone-parent benefit and therefore making it harder to spring the dependency trap, the Government have simply ensured that children will inherit not only their mother's poverty but quite possibly her dependency and unemployment.
We welcome the belated moves in the past two years of the childcare disregard for family credit. But it is worth absolutely nothing for those who are on full family credit and need it most. We welcome Parents Plus, though we wish it had been introduced far earlier. It is too little, too late. Yet at the same time as recognising that lone parents need support and help to come back into work, the Government are cutting the lone-parent benefit which, precisely because it is not means-tested, can be carried as a modest dowry back into work. It is one of the very few benefits that do not trap a parent in dependency. So, lo and behold, the Government propose in future to remove it. Why? What on earth are the Government thinking of?
I hope that the Minister will not reiterate that we should not privilege lone parents over those who are married. That is like saying: we will not go for Job Match or other employment schemes for those who are not in the labour market, because we are otherwise privileging the unemployed over the employed. Why is it that the Government think straight when they deal with men, as most of the long-term unemployed are, and think bent when it comes to women, as most lone parents are? Why is it that lone parents act rationally, and want to work, and the Government act irrationally and remove the one benefit that helps them back into work? In any case, the reason married women can, and do, return to work is not that they have more moral fibre—as evidenced by the fact that they are and remain married—but because they have the support of their husbands and in-laws for childcare; and, as the husband is likely to be in work, the married woman faces no benefit penalty for doing so. In other words, married women do not need help to get back into work, and lone parents do. It is as simple as that, and the Government are removing one of the very few benefits that target help on lone parents without a means-testing penalty. It is batty.
The second, utterly disgraceful area of cuts is the limiting of housing benefit for those under 60 to shared accommodation. I find it hard to give voice to my anger. It will be bad enough for men who lose a job and who

851
may need to claim housing benefit and who will then probably lose their home as well. A third of a million single people currently live in accommodation that would not be adequately funded by housing benefit if they should lose their jobs. Each of those will now be at risk under these proposals.
However, it is infinitely worse for women. They are more physically vulnerable and are at risk of abuse and assault. The middle-aged woman, the widow, the carer—poor, vulnerable and bereaved—will, from next October, if she loses her husband or her elderly parent, lose her home as well unless she has generous savings. She will be forced into the grubbiest, shabbiest and most dangerous housing on the market—a room in a house in multiple occupation, where she will share a soiled kitchen and a soiled bathroom possibly with ex-offenders, alcoholics and drug users. For women, it will be the stuff of nightmares. I know. I have inspected that kind of housing. I do not know how the Government can do this.
I wish briefly to touch on the third area of cuts; namely, removal of benefit from asylum seekers who apply in-country. The Government believed that if enough of them collapsed on the streets, it would deter the Nigerian or Somali from coming to Britain. The Government in the other place cruelly overturned our "three working days" amendment which would have saved some unnecessary suffering. Now, the courts have effectively overturned the rest of the Government's policy. In his reply, will the Minister please tell the House, on the assumption that any appeal to the House of Lords is lost, what the Government now estimate will be the net savings to public expenditure given that the DSS has exported its costs to local authorities and, in turn, the DoH is having to reimburse them? At the end of all this unfortunate churning, what will be the full cost to public funds, and what amount is estimated to be net government savings? We warned the Government that this would happen. They would not listen. So we have a burgeoning DSS budget—the sign of economic failure—which is subverting sound public finances.
Yet what has been the Government's response during the period of their stewardship? It has been to increase means-testing and to lock people on to benefit dependency; to support exploitative landlords and exploitative employers; to stigmatise and impoverish lone parents and asylum seekers; and to cap housing benefit by forcing vulnerable middle-aged women into insanitary, substandard and sometimes dangerous housing. It is a pretty record, is it not? That is how the Government have acted as steward for the welfare state. I hope that, if and when we introduce the uprating statement next year, we shall be able to show how we are renewing and rebuilding the welfare state.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Don Bradman, whom I used to enjoy watching when I was a boy, once had a nightmare. He was playing at Lord's on the sort of dreadful day that only an English June can produce. It was so dark that you were hardly certain it was daylight, so cold that you were hardly certain it was not December and the air was so moist that you could not tell whether it was raining or not. But still the game
852
went on. There was one solitary spectator high up in the stands. When Bradman was fielding on the boundary, he turned to the spectator and said: "Why don't you pack it in and let us go home? You must be very cold". The spectator stood up and, as he did so, Bradman saw a long tail projecting from the back of his overcoat. He said: "Yes, I am cold, colder than I've been in a million years, but I'm waiting to take one of you home".
Those of us who attempt electioneering in the House of Lords in the dinner break might well remember that story. After all, the audience we address here does not contain any voters. None of us has the vote. Therefore we speak more for conversation between ourselves and for the written record.
I should like to begin by welcoming the good news—because there is good news. The Minister was entitled to say what he said about the success of the present Secretary of State in maintaining the annual uprating during his term of office. I should like to congratulate him on it. However, in saying that, I do not wish to imply that I am happy with benefit levels as they are at present.
I believe that the Minister is entitled to ask us to welcome lower unemployment. I do not know how much lower it is, but I believe it is lower, and I am glad of that. The Minister asked us why there was the difference between this country and continental European countries. I think the answer is quite simply that we are running on a rather different cycle. There was a period when they were doing much better than we were and Ministers did not welcome comparison at all. Now it is the other way around and comparisons are constantly made. I think that economic comparisons need to be made over a full cycle, in which case there is probably not much difference in it, though I have not studied the figures today.
With a reduction in the level of unemployment, social security becomes cheaper, but not by as much as it should. I think it is common ground that the reduction in unemployment has largely taken place in low-wage, part-time jobs. The Equal Opportunities Commission recently made some comments about that which I think deserve attention. That reduces the gain to the Exchequer in two ways. One is by continuing expenditure in in-work benefits where the total wage is below benefit level; the other is by lower yield in contributions—in national insurance, income tax and VAT.
If I may digress for a moment into another Bill, some of your Lordships probably heard the noble Lord, Lord Bingham of Cornhill, say that if you abolish discretion, you simply move it to another place. I sometimes suspect that if you try to abolish costs, you simply move them to another place. The Minister made great play on labour costs to employers. That is a real issue; it has a real effect. But, by keeping those costs down, if you diminish revenue to the Exchequer, you simply force the Exchequer to put higher taxes on a diminishing tax base. So at the end of the day we go round the mulberry bush and the game is not what people might have wished it to be.

853
In looking at the national insurance contributions uprating order, I looked at the lower earnings limit. As near as I can work it out without using a calculator, it came out at something like £3 per hour for a 40 hour week. I say nothing, any more than the party on my left does, about the level at which a minimum wage might be fixed, and I hope that nothing I say will be interpreted as anything but illustrative. Assume for the sake of argument that a minimum wage were fixed at £3.50 an hour. That would make a considerable difference in revenue, both in terms of employees' national insurance and employers' national insurance. The PSBR effect would be considerable. Such matters need to be taken into account as well as the points about labour costs which the Minister perfectly properly made. We need to strike a balance between them.
In thinking about national insurance rates, I have had a look at the report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the National Insurance Fund. He makes a series of technical points to which I hope we might return in the course of the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill about the way the accounts are put together. He says that they are not sufficiently developed to provide the information required for accruals-based accounting. That makes it difficult to investigate the extent of debt and underpayment and to have proper communication between national insurance and the Inland Revenue.
I understand that the department is aware of the problem and is taking action. I hope that when we come back to the fraud Bill we may hear something about that.
There seems to be a problem of underpayment of national insurance. The Inland Revenue and compliance officers have found underpayments of £291 million. If the Minister gets out his proverbial calculator, he can do quite a lot with £291 million. We should all be looking at maximising revenue. Where the money is already legally due, it should be paid by those who are liable to pay it rather than by those who pay their taxes already. I hope that that matter will receive some consideration.
I notice that in the uprating order the savings figure for family credit, disability working allowance, income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit remains at £3,000. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me when that figure was last uprated for inflation.
I should also be grateful to know exactly how the savings limit is supposed to work. Are the savings calculated as income or as capital? It makes a considerable difference to how the savings limit ought to be calculated. If it is calculated on the assumption that the capital provides income, ought we not to take interest rates into account in uprating the savings limits and, with falling interest rates, ought we not to have a rather higher savings limit?
If it is considered as capital, ought not the sum to be at least high enough to equate to one year's income support? Would there be sense in index-linking it at that figure? Do we need another Rooker-Wise amendment to cover savings limits? I suspect that we do.
854
I welcome the uprating of child benefit. I welcome the success of the Secretary of State in preserving it, as he pledged to do, throughout the length of this Parliament. But the words have always been "during the lifetime of this Parliament". I hope that fairly soon we shall be hearing what, if they should be given the opportunity, the Government might do in the next Parliament.
I agree with everything that the noble Baroness has said with regard to asylum. When the Minister writes to her in reply to her questions about net savings, I should be extremely grateful if he would send me a copy.
To turn to housing benefit and shared residence, we already know of cases where people are losing accommodation because a shared residence is not available and because, having to find accommodation which is not a shared residence, they cannot afford a place at all on the housing benefit that they receive. I notice from a Written Answer to my honourable friend Mr. Bruce at the beginning of this week that the Government have already downgraded by £3 million the savings they expect to make. That is an interestingly precise figure. I should like to know why.
The Minister again outlined his case for, as he put it, equalising the treatment of single parents and married parents. Is "equalising" the correct way to describe identical treatment of two things that are not equal? I recall asking the Minister at Question Time, following a question by the noble Baroness, whether he could recall any other country which had practised this principle of equality, from biblical Israel to the present day.
The Minister confined himself to saying that he is not an historian. That is fair enough, but one does not have to be an historian to know about the treatment of single parents in our main industrial competitors within the European Union and the United States. If any of those practise the principle of equality, as the Minister set it out, I should be rather glad to hear about it. The work has been done and the Bradshaw study of 20 countries has the research base for answering that kind of question. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness said about giving single parents a chance to return to work, including that it is a chance for company. I also hope she will agree with me that single parents who have young children also have a right not to work. We are concerned about freedom of choice. Mr. Tony Blair, in his lecture at Amsterdam, talked about interviews with single parents to investigate whether ways might be found of getting them into work. He can ensure that the interviews are so conducted by officials—some of them a very long way down the chain—that no element of threat is found. If the noble Baroness is able to intervene and give me an assurance on that I should be most grateful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure about the propriety of responding across the Benches in this way. However, what the noble Earl said is certainly right. Our policy is to work with the grain of lone parents' choices, to encourage them and to help them find ways back into work, which we know from all the research evidence, including that of Jonathan

855
Bradshaw, is exactly what lone parents want. Personally, I accept entirely the implication of the noble Earl's comments to the effect that parenting of young children is at least as important a social responsibility as it is to get off benefit and back to work.
Earl Russell: I thank the noble Baroness warmly for that response, by which I am considerably reassured.
I move on to the application of JSA and the actively seeking work regulations under it. I recently received a figure from unofficial sources (which is why I shall not use it) about the number of people totally disentitled to benefit since JSA came in. I should be grateful to be told—not at the moment but in writing when the Minister has had an opportunity to check it—the correct figures for the number of people totally disentitled to benefit and the number of people partially disentitled to benefit. He knows my view on total disentitlement to benefit. I do not need to delay the House by repeating it.
The Minister also knows my view from the first day of Committee on the Jobseekers Bill about the difficulties of introducing JSA in a short time scale. If he has looked, as I am sure he has done, at the last social policy bulletin of the citizens advice bureaux, he will have found considerable evidence of a certain amount of confusion in the administration of JSA. There are several different computer streams operating at the same time which have to be interlocked. One unfortunate claimant had two letters on the same day, one which told him that he had been awarded JSA and the other which assured him very firmly that he had not. The claimant did not know which of them to believe.
Another case which caused me some concern comes from the same source. A man who had no money on which to live—he was destitute and without means—had a claim to JSA with an entitlement to backdating. He was told that if he gave up the claim to backdating, his claim could go through one channel which would give him payment immediately; but if he claimed the backdating, his claim had to go through a different office with a different computer procedure and he would have to wait several weeks. So he gave up the backdating.
There are difficulties which clearly need ironing out. I hope that we can hear, either today or later—I gave the Minister very late notice of this point—that something is being done. The next time that any major new change in the benefit system is made, I hope that someone will study the wise words of Sir Michael Partridge when he gave evidence in the other place to the Select Committee. He said that the DSS should never attempt at one and the same time to introduce a major new benefit, a major new computer system and a major change in the administrative structure. Those were wise words. I hope that they will not again be forgotten.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, a little like last night, we have had an interesting debate with the usual suspects taking part, as in last night's debate on sending information on the convergence criteria to the European Commission. As usual, this has been an interesting debate. On some matters, all three of us agree; on other matters two out of the three agree; and
856
on yet other matters, I suspect that I am still alone and both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl still disagree with me.
The noble Earl rightly reminded me—perhaps I should say "us"—that none of us has a vote. So there is no point in making electioneering speeches. Last night I had to remind his noble friend Lord McNally of that fact, as the noble Lord began to launch into a suggestion that we might vote for his party. I told him that he was wasting his time because none of us has a vote—aside from the fact that none of us would listen to his advice. So I agree with the noble Earl and shall try not to fall into the trap against which he cautioned me.
We have covered a number of issues. I shall try to manage as quickly as I can to deal with them. If I have to write about one or two matters, I am sure that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will understand.
I know that there is some dispute—I think that is the word—over the £15 billion increase in real terms in social security expenditure between 1991–92 and 1995–96. The fact seems to be that £3.3 billion is down to the elderly and £7.5 billion is down to the long-term sick and disabled, which in my view and my arithmetic makes £10.8 billion out of the £15 billion increase. Then £4.1 billion relates to the family, and unemployment has fallen by £0.6 billion, for all the reasons I have just mentioned. So, as I said in my introduction, two thirds of the extra expenditure in real terms since 1991–92 is clearly down to the elderly and to the sick and disabled. There are a number of reasons for that. There is the increase in the number of elderly; but also we have rightly increased the number and range of benefits, especially for the sick and disabled, over the past few years. That increases the cost. Lone parents, as the noble Baroness said, are one of the growth areas in expenditure, for the reason that they form one of the growth areas in numbers. I shall return to them in a moment.
The noble Baroness mentioned youth unemployment. We consider it a problem and are working very hard, especially the Department for Education and Employment, on helping young people who leave school without qualifications to find routes into the job market. We have had success in that regard. The position in this country is not one with which we in government are happy. It was 13.8 per cent. in November last on the Eurostat figures. In that regard, taking the noble Earl's point to heart—namely, that I must look at the good figures as well as the bad ones—the Germans do better than we do at 9.8 per cent. But—my goodness!—when I look at France, Italy and Spain, respectively at 29 per cent., 32.6 per cent. and 42.9 per cent., again I ask myself what part the social costs that I mentioned in my original speech—minimum wages and the like—play in those figures, which none of us would want to see in this country.
Perhaps I can move to one point raised specifically by the noble Earl in relation to the National Audit Office report on the National Insurance Fund. When he reads the report—I am sure he has already read it—the noble Earl will see that the fund saw an increase in net national insurance contributions collected from £37.7 billion in

857
1994–95 to £39.8 billion in 1995–96. In November the Contributions Agency secured resources for the next three years to combat fraud and abuse. We take seriously the question of fraud and abuse in relation to national insurance contributions.
Under this initiative, in its first year, the Contributions Agency will receive an additional £9 million in order to combat fraud and abuse and expects to secure additional national insurance revenue of £82 million. I hope that that reassures the noble Earl that we are indeed mindful of the need to collect all the money we possibly can from national insurance and ensure that people are not finding a way to escape their obligations to pay national insurance charges, any more than they find ways to escape their obligations to pay tax.
One other self-standing point—if I can call it that—came out in the speech of the noble Baroness, and the noble Earl indicated his support. That related to asylum seekers. I do not want to go over some of the speeches I have made from this Dispatch Box on the subject of asylum seekers. We are no longer prepared—we believe that the country is with us on this—to pay social security benefits to all asylum seekers when it is clear that the vast majority of applications are unfounded.
Your Lordships will remember the statistics I explained in our debates last summer. In fact, since those debates, the number of people applying for asylum has reduced—comparing one month to the same month in the previous year—by around 50 per cent. time after time. That can only indicate and reinforce the points I made; that is, that many of those asylum seekers were not fleeing from persecution. They were economic migrants. If they were fleeing from asylum, they would be continuing to apply for asylum regardless of what we had done to the benefit system. They would have continued to apply for asylum. The fact that they are not continuing to apply underlines my argument.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. If he looks at the monthly breakdown of figures for 1996 and 1995, he is correct that the figures reduced sharply through April, May, June and July. But will he not accept that from October onwards they have grown by up to 3,000 a month and are almost—not quite, but almost—back to the equivalent figures and equivalent levels of the preceding year?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, while the Minister is thinking about his reply, will he bear in mind that the burden that used to fall on central funds has now largely been shifted onto the backs of local authorities, particularly in London?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that the burden should fall on either the taxpayer or the local council tax payer. We have responsibility to genuine asylum seekers and that responsibility includes making sure that the vast numbers who came into this country last year and the year before and who did not qualify for asylum, but who stayed here for some years on benefit, should not be able to do that. It is not fair to
858
the British taxpayer; it is not fair to the council tax payer; and it is not fair to the genuine asylum seeker who has to wait longer for his case to be considered because all the other cases are clogging up the system unjustifiably.
Earl Russell: My Lords, when we debated this matter—I hope we do not prolong it—the Minister admitted that he could not, in any individual case, tell at the moment of withdrawing benefit whether or not the claim was genuine. I hope he does not withdraw that statement.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not see any need to do that. The point is that anyone coming to this country claiming asylum and who does so at the port of entry will receive benefit. That is the position.
I am not entirely sure where the noble Baroness obtained her figures. As I read September, October, November and December, the decrease is 50 per cent., 53.16 per cent., 59 per cent. and 35 per cent. Those are significant reductions. We believe that the withdrawal of benefit from in-country applicants will save around £200 million a year. The cost to local authorities of supporting refugees will be nowhere near that figure. As I explained, we are discussing with local authorities the problems that they experience to see how we can best help them.
The noble Earl asked me about jobseeker's allowance and about the numbers disentitled to benefit.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I can ask the Minister one last point. Will he be giving in letters to myself and the noble Earl rather more hard information about what he expects will be the total cost to public funds of the Government's response to asylum seekers? He expects to save £200 million. What does he expect to be the cost incurred by local authorities and to what extent will the Government reimburse them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I have been over that point before. I said that we are discussing these matters with local authorities. I gave hard evidence about the reduction in applications, which rather contradicts the looser evidence given by the noble Baroness.
On jobseeker's allowance I was about to say that I shall need to consult my colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment before I can respond to the question in relation to disentitlement to benefit. It has been a complex arrangement to introduce, with a new computer system. There have been difficulties. My understanding—I discussed some of the problems the other day with officials—is that the difficulties have been worked round and overcome and that the system, given its complexity, is working remarkably well. I am afraid that no matter how much time and effort we put in, there will always be the odd person in a system as big as the one we try to operate who will receive letters which appear contradictory or are wrong. In the real world we can never escape from that. However, I believe the system is working reasonably well.

859
I turn now to housing benefit. We have to be sure that there is a balance between those people who are in work—perhaps not well paid work—looking after their housing needs and looking for housing, and those people who are on housing benefit looking for housing. Restricting housing benefit to the local reference rent and, for single people, restricting housing benefit to the single room rate means that such claimants are not able to obtain better or larger accommodation at the taxpayers' expense than other people in similar circumstances who have a job. Those who are employed have to try to measure their housing needs against the amount of money they earn. In relation to hard cases, local authorities have a discretion to pay up to the full value of eligible rent in order to prevent exceptional hardship.
The increasing number of lone parents is a problem, particularly the increase in the number of "never marrieds". Increasingly, we have placed an emphasis on work incentives to help them to work. The introduction of family credit in 1988 and subsequent improvements in benefit have all had a positive effect which has been shown by independent research. In April 1992 the qualifying hours for family credit were reduced from 24 to 16 hours, which was particularly helpful to lone parents working part time. A disregard for the first £15 of maintenance was introduced in 1992, and in October 1994 a disregard of £40 a week for childcare expenses was introduced for children under 11 cared for by a registered childminder or nursery.
Since 1992 over 200,000 lone parents have moved from income support into work supported by family credit. Other measures beneficial to lone parents include, from April 1996, an increase in the disregard for childcare expenses and in-work benefits from the £40 I mentioned to £60 and housing benefit and council tax benefits to be paid for four weeks after taking up a job for those out of work for six months or more. From October 1996 the back-to-work bonus, which allows those on income support or JSA and working part-time to build up a bonus of £1,000 payable as a tax-free lump sum on leaving benefit to take up work, will be helpful. From April 1997 the new parent-plus pilot scheme which is expected to offer help to up to 100,000 lone parents on income support who want to work will be introduced. The introduction of the child maintenance bonus, worth up to £1,000, which will be payable to parents with care who have been receiving maintenance on leaving income support or JSA (income based) in order to take up work, are all there in order to try to help and encourage lone parents into work.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has made a hat trick of asking why the capital limits of £3,000 and £8,000 have not been increased, having done so on each of the previous outings we have had on these matters. I regret to tell him that my answer is the same as last year's. We believe that capital limits are not a first priority. The cost of our uprating these amounts for pensioners in 1997–98 by prices since their introduction would be £50 million and the cost of doubling the upper limit to £16,000 would be £40 million. We believe that, in the
860
language of priorities, it would be better spending that money in other ways, particularly on the general uprating.
I answered a Question the other day about uptake. I do not want to speak at any length on that. However, we are actively pursuing campaigns of information, posters and so on to make sure that people know about benefits, so that if they wish, they can apply for them and take them up. That is particularly true of pensioners, who have the information on the back of their pension books about the other benefits, who will see posters in the post office when they go in and so on. We do a great deal to try to make sure that people understand about the benefits that are available.
On a number of occasions the noble Baroness has rightly drawn our attention, as she did again today, to the question of what we all know as "no work households". There are a variety of reasons for them. One is the growth of single adult households—lone parents—where it is less likely that the lone parent will be an earner, so the household is without an adult earner. An increase in the number of students is one of the factors leading to an increase in the number of households where no one works.
I do not want to go into a long discussion about that but it is not unique to this country—not by any means. All our friends in the European Community are seeing similar levels of this phenomenon—partly for the reasons I have mentioned and also for the reason that the number of jobs for those with few qualifications or perhaps with a lot of brawn to offer rather than brain has been reduced. At the other end of the scale—this is important when one considers averages—there has been a huge increase in the number of two-earner households. That means that even if the bottom position stays the same, averages and medians begin to go upwards as the top is pulling away because of the two-income families.
I can assure your Lordships that I do not therefore conclude that we should not allow women to go out to work. One of the great advances over the past 50 years has been the number of women who have continued to be able to pursue their careers. That has been of great value to themselves and of even greater value to their families and to the economy. One just has to accept that, if one is encouraging women to go out to work and have two income families, inevitably, households which are in that situation will pull away from those households with either only one earner or with no earners. That is a simple fact of life. I can conceive of ways by which a redistributive party could tax people in order to remove the advantage they have from both going out to work. However, I certainly do not believe that I would ever find it comfortable to countenance doing anything like that.
Perhaps I may conclude by reminding your Lordships of the simple fact of the employment position and unemployment position in our country. Our approach works. Over the past year our employment has risen by 300,000. Unemployment is down by 1 million—the lowest unemployment for six years. Unemployment in France and Germany is at very high levels. While I think the noble Earl would have a justification for his

861
argument about positions in the economic cycle, the unemployment levels being experienced by some of our friends on the Continent are way beyond those which one would expect in the normal economic cycle that those countries have had. That is especially true of Germany, which over many years has had an extremely good record on unemployment. I think it is a little more than just an economic cycle.
Of course some of the jobs are part time. But 85 per cent. of people who have part-time jobs tell interviewers that that is what they want. They do not want full-time jobs. They want part-time jobs. The idea that the new jobs that have been created in this country are temporary jobs does not stack up. I commend to your Lordships table 4.11 in Social Trends which shows the percentage of employees in temporary jobs in comparison with our European friends. If your Lordships had been listening to the Opposition you would think that the figure in this country is very high indeed. The figure in this country is 7 per cent. In comparison, the European average is 11 per cent.; the figure in Germany is 10 per cent.; in France it is 12 per cent.; in Sweden it is 12 per cent.; in Finland it is 16 per cent.; and in Spain it is 35 per cent. The part-time jobs are, by and large, for people who want part-time jobs and the full-time jobs are full-time permanent jobs. They are not temporary jobs, as we often hear.
As I said in my speech, and as I have said on a number of occasions, low non-wage labour costs and a flexible labour market, as the noble Lord, Lord Currie, reminded the readers of the Economist Intelligence Unit just the other day, are very important factors when it comes to looking at the success of our economy. I agree with the Opposition that the more people we can get back into work the better. But one does not get them back into work by the Government piling on more and more money on the one hand and taking more and more money from employers on the other. I have not heard a convincing argument to the point that if a job subsidy is needed, as the Opposition think it is, in order to get employers to take people on, how can putting the burden of the minimum wage and other social charges on to employers do anything other than lose jobs? Indeed, it was Mr. John Prescott who admitted that in his blunt and usual manner. I do not think we can afford to take the kind of risks with jobs and opportunities that the party opposite would do.
What we have in front of us this evening in the uprating statement is a clear indication that we honour our obligation and pledge to uprate benefits year after year. We have done that. We have also honoured our pledge to reform social security in order to make it affordable, not just this year but into the years ahead. The reforms in the past four Budgets will save £6 billion by the year 2000–2001. That is a very significant amount. We have had to get there on our own. I do not think I have ever come to the Dispatch Box and had any agreement from the party opposite on any of the measures we have taken to contain social security spending. It is important that we contain social security spending for our economy's sake so that we can pay
862
benefits to the people who need them and so that we can also, as we are doing this evening, approve the uprating, by £1.7 billion, of the benefits that go to those people who need them. I commend the orders to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Validity of Civil Preliminaries to Marriage) Order 1997
8.18 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [13th Report from the Deregulation Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the risk of tempting fate, I think this will be one of the least controversial measures I will have introduced to your Lordships' House. However, I am afraid that I shall have to say a few words about it if only to make sure that people reading the record will understand and appreciate what we have been doing.
This order is under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and it is concerned with removing the burden imposed on couples whereby a marriage may only be solemnised within three months of the date that the notice of marriage was given to a superintendent registrar and entered in the marriage notice book. The proposal has completed a preliminary scrutiny procedure for deregulation orders under the 1994 Act. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House and the Deregulation Committee of the other place have separately assessed and reported on the proposal. Both Committees have indicated that they are content.
The purpose of the order is to amend the Marriage Act 1949 to extend the period in which notice of marriage can be attested from three months to 12 months, which will remove an unnecessary restriction. This should allow couples to enter into firm legal arrangements for their wedding further in advance if they wish to do so. The present three months' period does not always give couples sufficient opportunity to make firm arrangements for their marriage, including legal preliminaries, the booking of the wedding service, the arrangements for photographers, dress hire, caterers and so on. The proposed change to 12 months will remove the uncertainty for couples who wish to make these arrangements with confidence. Any of your Lordships who have daughters who have been recently married will understand the need for a lot of forward planning in this regard.
The proposal should also ensure that there is a consistency in the booking of civil wedding services in England and Wales. All couples will have the opportunity to give notice of marriage much further in advance of their wedding if they so wish. The Government are satisfied that the measure will not reduce the necessary protection. The Marriage Act affords the necessary protection for the solemnisation of

863
marriages and that protection, including the attestation of notices of marriage in the prescribed manner, will be continued if the draft order is approved.
The order has been fully examined since it was first laid before Parliament in draft form in July 1996. No changes have been proposed. As I have said, it has been reported to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee as being in a form satisfactory to be submitted to the House for affirmative resolution. Finally, the Committee reported that there was nothing in the draft order which the Statutory Instruments Joint Committee would have needed to draw to the special attention of the House. I commend the draft order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th January be approved [13th Report from the Deregulation Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
8.22 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 31.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): In calling Amendment No. 84, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 85.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 21, line 42, leave out from ("order") to end of line 43.
The noble Earl said: This amendment, my noble friend's Amendment No. 89 and my Amendment No. 96, are all aimed at removing the youth curfew order from the list of community alternatives available to the court when a fine remains unpaid. I believe that a curfew order may be appropriate for certain offenders as a first attempt at sentencing, but I find it unlikely to be appropriate in many cases where the problem is inability or unwillingness to pay a fine.
It will be the case that the offender was initially judged to be suitable for a fine and not for a curfew order, on the basis of both his circumstances and the nature of the offences. I persist in believing that a curfew order, where the only supervision will be by electronic monitoring, has limited application. That limited application is for willing and generally law-abiding offenders who will accept the monitoring and have a suitable lifestyle. If the curfew order was to be based on a human monitoring system with regular contact, I can see that having wider application.
At worst, electronically tagged offenders may be seen as being branded, and that is a punishment which we gave up a long time ago. That will do little to improve the circumstances and prospects of the offender. Inability or unwillingness to pay is a symptom of a chaotic lifestyle and a lack of self-esteem. These
864
features need to be worked on if there is to be a chance of any behavioural change. I hope that the Committee will see the merits of these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have been sceptical about electronic tagging on a number of occasions in this House, the first being after the 1989 experiment. We have not had much opportunity to debate the more recent experiment. It has always seemed to me that the pilot schemes have shown not so much that electronic tagging is a failure, but that it is—at least in the context of a pilot scheme—enormously expensive. Therefore, my initial reaction was to oppose the extension of curfew and tagging orders for fine defaulters, which is the subject of Amendment No. 84, and for low-level offenders, who are the subject of Amendment No. 96.
But I am not so sure. On reflection I believe that much of the problem with the pilot schemes was specifically that they were pilot schemes. There was difficulty in persuading magistrates to give those sentences; there were too few cases which were eligible for those sentences; and the whole of the on-cost of the development of the tagging systems, which must be a considerable amount of capital expenditure, was being loaded on to the pilot schemes that we have seen in action.
I do not want to see any alternative to custody abandoned too readily. It seems to me, therefore, that the effect of extending the range of offences, including fine default as well as low-level offences, which could be eligible for tagging might overcome some of the financial difficulties and could be justified.
I appreciate the arguments about the problem of a tagging device which is difficult to conceal. I do not see why such a device could not be devised which is easier to conceal. I do not believe that the equivalent of being put in the stocks is part of the objective of electronic tagging. I would rather continue with tagging experiments and extend their range in order that the capital costs can be amortised over a larger number of cases and then see whether at the end it is an acceptable alternative. Those of us who are keen on alternatives to custody cannot lightly turn down any of the alternatives that are offered to us.
Baroness Blatch: The curfew order provides an ideal way of restricting the liberty of an offender but without the need for him to be removed from the community by committal to prison. The potential benefit of curfews in the context of fine default is that they provide a way of restricting liberty comparable in many ways to imprisonment, and which can be strictly enforced. Imprisonment must remain available as the ultimate sanction against those who can pay the fines imposed upon them by the courts but who will not pay. However, we do not wish to see fine defaulters committed to prison unless there is absolutely no alternative. The provisions of this clause will give courts practical additional alternatives to imprisonment, which should ensure that fines are enforced effectively with the minimal use of imprisonment.
Turning to the amendment to Clause 33, the courts need to have suitable penalties available to them to deal with the cases that appear before them. Magistrates have

865
told us that they need alternative penalties to be made available to them to deal with persistent petty offenders, where a fine is the obvious penalty but the offender's means, because of outstanding fines, make it impractical to impose a further fine at a level which reflects the seriousness of the offence. It is our intention to provide the court with a range of penalties to enable the court to sentence in a way that may better reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender.
The flexibility of the curfew order makes it a useful alternative penalty for persistent petty offenders who are unable to pay a fine commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Such cases are extremely varied. The curfew order gives the court the flexibility to restrict the offender's liberty during periods that relate directly to offending patterns, for example, imposing an order to remain at home on Saturday afternoons on a football hooligan. Furthermore, it is possible to have a very short order: the minimum is two hours a day for one day. It is also possible to have longer and therefore more restrictive orders to deal with those who have been convicted of more serious offences.
This Bill provides the courts with a range of sentencing options to deal with the fine defaulter and the persistent petty offender. The curfew order is only one option within this range. It is a matter for the court to decide which penalty to impose in a particular case having considered all the circumstances of the offender and the offence. Because using the curfew order as an alternative to imprisonment for fine defaulters, and as a penalty for less serious offences is a new extension of its use, the Bill provides for it to be piloted. This will allow a full evaluation of the operation of these powers in practice to be made, and any refinements considered before they are introduced nationally.
I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said and the fact that he is prepared to keep an open mind on this. I have kept closely in touch with those involved in the early pilot schemes and this pilot scheme on curfew orders. I have met people who have been "curfewed" and those administering the scheme. The results so far are impressive. Despite the unforgiving and comprehensive nature of the supervision, only 18 per cent. have had their curfew orders revoked for breaches of their order, for re-offending during the currency of the order, for offences predating the order or for breaching bail conditions set separately. An impressive 82 per cent. have completed their curfew orders without termination by the courts for breach or for further offending. This compares favourably with other community sentences despite the inescapable and comprehensive nature of the supervision.
The equipment is working well and we believe that the early signs are encouraging. The monitoring staff in all areas are carrying out their jobs to a very high standard. The cost of an average curfew order with electronic monitoring is estimated at less than that of an average probation order although slightly more than a community service order. It is a good deal less than the cost of imprisonment.
866
It is important that we keep an open mind on this for some of the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who referred to the way in which magistrates have had to get used to this as a disposal. Magistrates are growing in confidence as they use the order.
Perhaps I may pick up the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on one point which, because of his experience, I suspect was a slip of the tongue. If it is established by the court that somebody is unable to pay—we are not talking about somebody who can pay but will not pay, but about somebody who is unable to pay—the court would remit the fine either in part or in whole. Nobody in this category is unable to pay. I repeat that if inability is established, the courts have the power to remit the fine in part or in whole.
I believe that curfew orders are an effective alternative to imprisonment. I hope that we shall all keep an open mind on this, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and allow the pilot schemes to go forward.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question about the pilot schemes that have already taken place. I believe that two types of monitoring were piloted: human contact by a curfew officer and the electronic variety. Can a curfew order take either form or is it restricted solely to electronic tagging?
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may make a distinction between what we are going to pilot for fine defaulters and the way in which the curfew order pilot schemes are running at the moment. The existing curfew orders are dispensed in three parts of the country—Berkshire, Norfolk and Manchester. The courts could combine any of the community service orders with a curfew order. Indeed, we should like the courts to make better and more imaginative use of that because we believe that they have not yet realised the breadth of the disposal. A curfew order can confine somebody to a particular place. Another part of the Probation Service, through probation orders or community service orders, could work with the person concerned at the same time.
As I understand it, for fine defaulters it will only be a case of imposing a curfew order. That is an alternative to imprisoning somebody for, say, seven days. On average, a male fine defaulter is sent to prison for seven days; the average for a female fine defaulter is only five days. A curfew order is a narrowly focused restriction of liberty and, for the purposes of the pilot, would not be combined with other community service orders. However, as I have said, this is a pilot study and lessons will no doubt be learned from it.
The Earl of Mar -and Kellie: I am grateful to the Minister but I am still concerned about "stand-alone" curfew orders. I have almost no problem with curfew orders being linked to some other form of supervision. However, I got the impression that this is restricted to electronic tagging and that it is not a case of curfew

867
officers visiting or telephoning the "curfewed person"—I am not quite certain of the correct word for someone who is subject to a curfew.
I am concerned about those who will have to wear the device, and particularly about women. Presumably, the device is attached to the arm or the ankle; male dress is appropriate for that. I wonder whether the noble Baroness can help me on that point.
Baroness Blatch: I know what the noble Earl is concerned about, but first I must say at once that we are talking about people who wilfully will not pay a fine. We are talking about cases where a court has established that somebody has the ability to pay but will not do so. We need to accept where we are coming from on this disposal.
I turn secondly to the case of females. It is far better that a young mother or somebody with family commitments should wear an electronic tag and be at home with the family, cooking and caring for the children than be sent to prison. The same applies to fathers. They may continue to go to work, and will be subject to the curfew only in periods outside their working hours. That is how electronic tagging curfew orders actually work. That is better than them being incarcerated in prison for short terms, dislocating the family and perhaps even causing the children to be taken into care.
There are benefits in this, but if somebody is wilfully not paying a fine and has been found culpable by a court, the consequence is that their freedom will be restricted and they will have to wear a tag. I have seen the tags and I suggest that the noble Earl might like to visit one of the companies, such as Geographics or Securicor, because some of his fears may then be allayed.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: For a moment I thought that the Minister was going to ask me to wear one!
Obviously, I shall seek to withdraw my amendment, but before doing so I should say that I share everybody's desire for a search for a number of community-based sentences. In some ways, the Minister's alternative was on a scale of awfulness, but I agree that going to gaol is worse than wearing a tag. I hope that the devices will be developed so as to be as discreet as possible. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 85 to 87 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 22, line 27, leave out from ("things") to end of line 28.
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 90. Were they to be accepted, their effect would be to provide that if there were a breach of a community service or curfew order imposed for fine default, in considering that breach the court would be obliged to take into account whether or not part of the order had been successfully completed. At present the provisions governing curfew and community service orders stipulate that on a breach
868
the court shall take into account whether part of the order has been successfully completed. That seems sensible and just since if an offender has been sentenced to 100 hours community service and has totally failed to comply or co-operate he should, in sense, reason and justice, suffer a more severe penalty for a breach than someone who perhaps has completed 90 hours but not the remaining 10.
The unfortunate consequence of Clause 31 is that that provision shall not apply in the case of a breach of an order imposed for default of fine payment. If the courts are not supposed to take into account the partial completion of orders it means that for a breach they must pass the same penalty on an offender who has completed most of his community service as that imposed on an offender who has carried out none of it. That seems inappropriate and unjust. At the moment there is perhaps a degree of inconsistency. Clause 31(13) enables an offender to "buy" himself out of part of an order by paying a pro-rata amount of the fine. Therefore, these amendments are intended to adjust the scheme, which by and large we support, to give the courts greater flexibility.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said in answer to the last amendment. She spoke of the curfew order being comparable with imprisonment and an effective alternative. I agree with both descriptions. But if both descriptions are right on a fine default in the context of a breach of community service or curfew order, surely it must be right for the court to take into account whether or not part of the order has been successfully completed.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I can provide the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with an explanation. The primary purpose of all methods of fine enforcement is to make the offender pay the fine or other financial penalty imposed upon him by the court. At present fine defaulters can reduce the period of imprisonment imposed on them by paying off the fine. Similarly, under the Bill as it stands a person who is sentenced to a community service or curfew order for default can reduce the term of that order by paying off the fine. We do not accept the premise that offenders should be able to elect to "work off' part of their fine by completing part of a community service or curfew order. If an offender fails to comply with a community penalty imposed as a punishment for defaulting on a fine the fine remains outstanding in full. That is a point of principle. An offender should not have the freedom to choose a package of measures acceptable to him from among a range of penalties available, which would be the practical effect of the amendments. The court decides the appropriate penalty. If the offender does not comply with an order of the court, then the court has a range of options open to it to punish that breach.
Periods of imprisonment for fine default relate to the amount of the unpaid fine. We believe that this should continue to be the case. If the length of imprisonment were reduced by partial compliance with a community service or curfew order it would reward the offender by reducing his prison term imposed for fine default despite

869
the fact that he had not paid off any of his fine. This would subvert the intention of the court in imposing the fine. Serving the community penalty in full will discharge the financial penalty in full. But, short of total compliance with the community penalty, the only way to reduce the term of imprisonment which may be imposed by the court is to pay part or all of the outstanding fine.
There are practical considerations to be taken into account as well as matters of principle. We do not wish to encourage partial compliance, particularly given that these orders will be relatively short term. Our proposal is clear and perfectly logical. If an offender is given a community order for fine default he must comply fully, pay off the fine or go to prison for the period appropriate to the amount of the unpaid fine. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I hear the explanation of the Minister but there is no intellectual consistency or internal coherence about it. The Minister contends for the principle that the offender shall not have the choice. But the offender will already have paid a penalty by serving out, in many cases in substantial part, the community service or curfew order which the Minister rightly described as comparable with imprisonment. Why is it that if the offender cannot choose, Clause 31(13) allows precisely that choice? As I indicated a moment or two ago, an offender can "buy" himself out of the rest of the order by paying the pro rata amount of the fine. There is no consistency here at all. It is mulish insistence—I do not direct my remark to the Minister but to a mulish government—on non-flexibility in part of the Bill whereas the rest of it aims to provide a flexible scheme of workable alternatives available to a court. I am not at all convinced by the Government's stubbornness. I stress that my remark is not directed at the Minister personally, because she always deals with my questions with the utmost courtesy and care. This is inflexibility in a scheme designed to be flexible and to provide a wider pallet of alternatives to the court. On this occasion I shall not test the opinion of the Committee, since all of my noble friends have gone into the night and I, almost alone, linger here. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 90A:
Page 23, line 36, leave out subsection (13).
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 90A and the associated amendment, Amendment No. 91, have the purpose of removing from the Bill the opportunity of a fine defaulter to buy his or her way out of a community service order or curfew order which has been imposed after a default. Subsection (13) suggests that the offender can hand money to the community service staff or curfew operating staff and be released from the scheme. I would have thought that it should at least be
870
specified that the money should be paid to the court house, as would the original fine, and notification subsequently sent to the community service organiser or the monitoring staff.
I am against this opportunity in principle. The community service scheme gives serious undertakings to do work for other agencies and bodies. The evaporation and sudden disappearance of the workforce would be quite inappropriate because the tasks undertaken would have to be real work that needed to be done. I suspect that Amendment No. 91 may contain a workable compromise. I am sure that that will be explained to the Committee.
The case against being able to buy oneself out of a curfew order is weaker. This type of order is focused wholly on the individual and his or her whereabouts and so early termination will not have the same effect as it would have with a community service order. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thank the noble Earl for referring to my amendment as a workable compromise. That is certainly what it is intended to be. I hope that the Government take the same view. This is always a difficult balance. The balance is between the kind of flexibility that the Government propose, which has the advantage that the paying off of a fine properly discharges the disposal that has been awarded because it has not already been paid off, and the costs of implementing community service orders and curfew orders. The fewer the number of people who have to do it for this reason the better for all concerned. But the problem that the noble Earl rightly recognises in his amendment is the administration of community service orders. Work has to be found for these people. It must be organised, supervised, booked and paid for. Administrative arrangements must be made. Indeed, the community service order contract has some sort of commercial benefit even if it is not expressed in that way. I can imagine that it could be extremely difficult if an unknown number of people turn up for a programme of community service which has been carefully worked out and hand over the sum and the supervisor, the work and all the materials and organisation go to waste.
We propose not to make any change on curfew orders but to make a change on community service orders, saying that, using the provisions of Clause 31, offenders can buy off a certain amount but they cannot buy off more than half the sentence unless they do so at the time when the obligations of the community service order are first spelt out. I hope that that justifies the phrase "workable compromise" and commends itself to the Government.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support Amendment No. 91 and at the same time ask the noble Baroness whether she would be kind enough to look at the drafting of the last four lines of page 23 of the Bill. One would think that they could be more elegantly expressed.
The Earl of Balfour: I wonder whether this particular clause covers the position where somebody

871
pays reparations for the damage done. May I use an example. Somebody is drunk and smashes the plate glass window of a shop. He agrees with the court to pay for the replacement of that window and at the same time is involved with a fine. As I understand it, he has to pay off the repair bill before his fine is cleared. I feel that does not quite come into the provisions of this clause if, say, he has paid for the repairs and then he is very dilatory over paying the fine.
Baroness Blatch: May I start by giving an absolute assurance to the noble Lord that I will always look at the wording and, if it is possible to make it more elegant without compromising the accuracy of it, I will persuade counsel to agree to do that. I have to tell him at the same time that counsel are not easily persuadable in these matters and I never find legalese elegant at all, but I will do what I can.
In answer to my noble friend Lord Balfour, in the particular example he gave of somebody getting drunk and smashing a shop window, even if that person does offer to pay for the damage, nevertheless he has committed another offence and I am not sure quite what the courts would think about that. I am assuming that he is already paying the fine one way or another. Therefore it is open to him to continue to go to court to present his circumstances to the court and for the court to determine whether easy payments can be considered or whether there should be some other way of paying the fine because at the end of the day—and that was going to be my starting point in responding to this amendment—the key principle is to get the person to pay the fine. That is why we find it difficult to accept the amendment.
If Amendment No. 90A were agreed, a fine defaulter would have no incentive to pay off the fine imposed upon him once a community service or curfew order had been imposed. The defaulter would still be required to complete the whole of the community service or curfew order imposed upon him regardless of how much of his fine he had paid. If the court decides that a fine is an appropriate way of punishing an offender, then the outcome we wish to see is that he pays that fine in full. It may be that the imposition of a community service order, a curfew order, or even a custodial sentence, is required to persuade him to do so but we do not want merely to replace the fine with a community penalty. We must therefore not remove incentives for payment.
Although different, Amendment No. 91 is also fraught for similar reasons. Under this amendment the fine defaulter would have an incentive to pay off up to half of his fine because his community service order would be reduced proportionately. However, if the amendment were accepted, not only would there be no incentive for him to pay off more than half of the fine, but he would not be allowed to do so because of the limit imposed by this amendment. That is inconsistent and indeed illogical, particularly as these restrictions would not apply to curfew orders imposed in the same circumstances. If a fine defaulter has the means to pay off the majority of his fine and is prepared to do so, we wish to continue to encourage him to pay the fine and not to prevent him from doing so.
872
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to the issue of to whom payment should be made. The Bill provides for the fine to be paid to an authorised person. In the light of the comments made by the noble Earl, we would want to explore in the pilots whether this should include anyone other than court staff.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am very grateful for that final comment because the precise wording "any person authorised to receive it" struck me as being very vague. Having been a community service supervisor, about the last thing of all the things one had to deal with was working out how many hours of community service someone could buy themselves out of which, in the midst of getting everything organised, was not easy.
I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, for raising the subject of what I am going to end up calling "compensation order defaulters". I have to ask the noble Baroness, first: do you have compensation orders in England?
Baroness Blatch: Yes, we do. Could I say to my noble friend that my understanding is that compensation orders must be paid before a fine. That is important.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Having established that we have compensation orders in England, does a fine defaulter include a compensation order defaulter?
Baroness Blatch: The provisions of the Bill will apply to the enforcement of financial penalties, which includes compensation orders.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Thank you very much. I think I have debated this one far enough. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 24, line 6, leave out from ("instrument") to ("House") in line 7 and insert ("; but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each").
The noble Baroness said: Clause 31(14) contains a power to amend, by order, the minimum and maximum hours of community service or days of curfew order which can be imposed on fine defaulters under the provision in that clause. Clause 31(15) provides for such an order to be subject to a negative resolution. The Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers recommended that the negative resolution procedure would be appropriate for orders where the default period is to be decreased, but that the affirmative resolution procedure would be appropriate if the default period were to be increased.
We are happy to accept the recommendation of the committee but, to avoid unnecessary complexity, we propose to make all orders made under this section subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, whether they increase or decrease the period. This is what is proposed in the amendments tabled by the noble Lords,

873
Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn. I am happy to agree with their amendments in principle.
However, as I have already indicated privately to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I am advised by lawyers that the drafting is not quite right. I take no credit whatever but I understand that counsel's version of these amendments is rather more elegant and accurate. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no objection to being told that the Government amendments are more elegant. That is par for the course. But I do object to the Minister sneaking in and getting her amendment higher up the Marshalled List than mine. That is supposed to be the province of the Opposition. If there is any more of this, I shall start to introduce paving amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 not moved.]
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Persistent petty offenders]:
[Amendments Nos. 95 to 97 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Mostyn Lord Williams of Mostyn moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 24, line 39, after ("apply") insert ("and instead the following paragraph shall apply—
"(a) the reference in section 14(1A)(a) of the 1973 Act to 40 hours shall have effect as if it were a reference to 20 hours and the reference to 240 hours shall have effect as if it were a reference to 40 hours;".").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 99. These amendments provide that CSOs and curfew orders imposed on low level offenders should be for shorter periods than when they are imposed for more serious offences. The present legislation provides that CSOs and curfew orders can be made only where an offence passes a certain level of seriousness. As I understand the Government's aim in Clause 33, it is to provide courts with alternative non-financial penalties, as the Minister indicated earlier, where the offence is a minor one which would not currently be considered serious enough for a community sentence but where the offender's circumstances make a fine inappropriate. That, I must confess, is a sensible aim which therefore deserves support.
We are concerned that there should be sufficient flexibility for the sentencing court for the lower level offender, which is why we propose, as is clear on the face of the amendments, that there should be a lower threshold to which the court may address its mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Our intention in making community penalties available to the court for use in place of a fine for persistent petty offenders is to provide magistrates with the flexibility to be able to deal
874
appropriately with the cases that appear before them, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender. To give such flexibility on the one hand while constraining the amount of community service which may be imposed to a narrow range of only 20 hours limits the power of the courts unnecessarily and unhelpfully. Magistrates may wish to impose a curfew order for a period of more than two months in certain cases. For example, if the offender is employed a curfew order limited to the weekend only may be the appropriate penalty.
The minimum of 20 and maximum of 240 hours and a curfew order of up to six months will provide sentencers with considerable flexibility. If the court is to take proper account of the wide variety of persistent petty offending and be able to pass a sentence that reflects this variety, then the penalties available need to have as much flexibility as the fine. It is a matter for the court to decide the appropriate penalty in individual cases. It is a matter for Parliament to provide the court with sufficient options to enable it to do so.
I return to two points. One is the importance to the courts of flexibility. The other is to enable them to reflect the lower end of the sentence, which I know is the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and also to recognise the seriousness and level of persistency. We believe that reducing the upper limit would tie the hands of the courts in this matter.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the Minister and I both desire the same objective. We both desire flexibility. As the Minister of State in another place said, courts need flexibility to be able to impose appropriate sentences. The amendments are designed to offer the courts precisely those opportunities, whether in terms of hours or months served. It is difficult to understand how an "appropriate sentence", to use the words of the Minister of State in another place, can include passing more severe sentences for lesser offences than some of those passed in cases which are more serious. This is again an attempt to improve the Bill, because the spirit in which the Minister approaches it is the same as the spirit in which we approach it. I hope that the Minister will be able at least to consider the points that we have sought to put forward briefly. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Abolition of certain consent etc. requirements]:
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I oppose the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 34. I can think of no useful reason for its inclusion. It seems to defy reality, although I accept that in its latter subsections it concedes that consent should be required for some additional conditions. Those are to do with consenting to forms

875
of medical treatment, for mental health matters, or the treatment of addiction. I suspect that medical law requires that in any case.
My objection to the concept of the clause is that I can see no occasion when it would be efficient to impose a community sentence on an offender who has withheld his consent. I believe that to do so is unjust, as that probably constitutes agent provocateur action. The person would be liable to punishment for a breach of the order and of course re-punishment for the original offence.
But more critically, community sentences have a purpose. The CSO is used when it is believed that doing work for others for free is an appropriate disposal for the offender. A probation order, with any number of conditions, is imposed when a clear behaviour modification task is identified. That will, of course, involve considerable intrusive work by the probation supervisor, and requires not just the consent but the co-operation and motivation of the offender if it is to be effective.
The few conversations that I have had with magistrates in this House suggest that the clause is unworkable, if not redundant. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister how the powers contained in the clause will have any practical or beneficial use. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am worried about the proposal to oppose Clause 34. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says because the noble Earl makes a grave charge. He says that the clause is unnecessary and damaging—a phrase which I have heard previously from the Government Front Bench.
I am worried that perhaps we are being led astray by words rather than reality. In these circumstances, consent does not mean very much. If the alternative to consent to a non-custodial sentence is being put away in prison, that is Hobson's choice; it is not a real choice that is being offered. In those circumstances, enforced consent does not mean consent. Would we not do better to require that the offender should acknowledge the award of a period of community service rather than consent to it? In that way, we would not get into the difficulty identified by Mr. David Maclean in Committee in another place—that it would amount to the offender dictating the sentence to the court. That is not at issue, but when in this context we say, "consent" we do not mean consent in any free way.
Viscount Tenby: As a magistrate, I associate myself with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I fully understand the arguments advanced by the noble Earl and those who support him. It can be psychologically advantageous to get an offender to agree to a course of action being proposed in the sentencing exercise—theoretically, at least. But my experience is that such a formula repeated time after time has become something of a mechanical exercise alongside—dare one say it?—the use of the oath in court proceedings, which to a largely non-practising Christian part of the population becomes something of a farce. The phrase, "Do you consent to such an order being
876
made?", used endlessly is, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, preposterous. It is Hobson's choice and I agree with the noble Lord.
Lord Monson: I believe that there are at least three valuable aspects to Clause 34. First, with regard to people under the age of 16, information about their family circumstances and the impact of the order on those, and vice versa. Secondly, treatment for a mental condition. Thirdly, treatment for dependency on drugs and alcohol. I should have thought that all Members of the Committee would be greatly concerned to maximise the amount of effective treatment that can be provided.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I support my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie. In my experience, the sentencing process is such that frequently one can he faced with a defendant who has been found guilty or has pleaded guilty to an offence but who appears to be in a complete daze as to what exactly is going on. The effect of asking for his consent frequently produces a reaction from him which otherwise does not exist. It is a useful provision to be able to speak directly to a young person in particular and to require from him some undertaking—his consent—that he will obey the order that is being imposed. It breaks the barriers which lie between the sentencer and the individual. I do not consider that it is helpful to have a defendant before the court who remains mute throughout the whole of the proceedings. It is a useful provision to have.
Baroness Blatch: The courts are not required to secure the consent of an offender before passing a custodial sentence or even a fine. Therefore, it is nonsense that they should be required to do so before passing a community sentence. It gives the impression that an offender or, in the case of a child, a parent or guardian can dictate to the court what kind of punishment he or she receives simply by withholding consent. That seems anomalous to many sentencers, and the Government agree. It is quite wrong for the court to have to seek an offender's consent before it can even pass the sentence which it believes the case merits. The measure will end that position. It will help to maintain public confidence in sentencing decisions and allow the courts to exercise their authority with more confidence. There is a psychology involved here whereby the sentencer is meant to be sentencing but rather goes cap in hand to the offender and says, "Do you mind if we impose upon you 100 hours of community service?"
In any event, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, have said, the consent which an offender gives to a community sentence is not consent in the usual sense of the word. If an offender does not consent, the court may impose a custodial sentence. Consent given in such circumstances cannot be regarded as an offender entering into any sort of sentencing contract with the court and it is no guarantee of an offender's likely compliance with the order. Besides, it is already the case that one of the community sentence options available to the courts—the attendance sentence order—does not require the offender's consent. Therefore, I see no reason why the imposition of any

877
community sentence should not be made consistent with general sentence procedures. The courts must be allowed to impose the sentence that they think appropriate.
However, we recognise that the inclusion of requirements in a supervision order for a young offender may have implications for his family. That is why in cases involving offenders under 16, Clause 34 includes a provision that the court must obtain and consider information about their family circumstances and the likely effect of the requirements on those circumstances before it imposes such a supervision order. Such requirements might include participating in specified activities, a night curfew order, or residing with a named individual. The need to take account of family circumstances is consistent with the provisions in Clause 40 concerning the imposition of curfew orders on young offenders, and should help to ensure that supervision orders are applied in appropriate cases.
The Government recognise that there are some circumstances where the court should continue to seek an offender's consent before imposing a probation order. We need to uphold the general principle that a person should not be compelled to undergo medical treatment. Clause 34 makes provision for that. Where the court is minded to impose a probation order which includes a mandatory requirement that the offender undergoes treatment for a mental condition, or for drug or alcohol dependency, it must first seek the offender's consent. This is not only desirable but practical—it is unlikely that a doctor would agree to provide treatment without consent having been given. Retaining consent will avoid the situation arising in which an order is made, cannot be carried out and then has to be brought back to the court to be varied. Those provisions strike a good balance. They will enable the courts to impose the sentence they think right while retaining the need for an offender's consent only where it is necessary to do so.
Courts will continue to have the option of calling for a pre-sentence report to inform their sentencing decision. In the light of last Thursday's debate, it is interesting that research findings recently published by the Home Office Research and Statistics Directorate has found that it is rare for the courts to impose a community sentence without seeing a pre-sentence report. Pre-sentence reports include an assessment of an offender's suitability for a particular community penalty. Where an offender is shown to be unsuitable for a community sentence, the courts will wish to consider other sentencing options.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised the issue of acknowledgement of sentence. There is a statutory duty on the court to explain in ordinary language the purpose and effect of the community service order. That is to be found in Section 14(5) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 so that the offender understands the sentence imposed upon him. In the Green Paper on sentencing, we emphasise the importance of more transparency in court. I have almost a personal fetish about sentences being dispensed in court in terms of hours, months, weeks or years. It seems to me that it is helpful not only to the offender to know what the sentence means but it
878
is also helpful for the public. Very often the offender does not know what the sentence actually means before he meets representatives of the probation service who explain it to him.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I spoke in favour of the retention of this clause in the Bill and against the proposition of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. But I am worried by some of the Minister's replies. She acknowledges that you cannot order somebody to undergo medical treatment without his consent because the doctor would not agree to treat anybody unless he had agreed to the treatment.
But surely to some extent, that applies also to a community service order. You could not administer a community service order with people who had totally denied that it was appropriate for them to have such an order or who have failed to acknowledge—I come back to that word—that that was the sentence of the court.
I appreciate that there is no one answer for any single disposal and that circumstances must suit cases. But I am worried about taking away consent and not replacing it by anything more formal than an explanation of what it means.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I must challenge the rhetoric of the offender dictating the sentence to the court. In my experience, that never happens. An offender is faced with a number of possible methods of disposal. One method of disposal would be a community-based sentence. If a court were minded to pass a community-based sentence, the reaction of the defendant and his family is not one of smug satisfaction but of gratitude that they have been allowed to escape a more serious future.
Whoever thought of the rhetorical phrase of the defendant dictating the sentence to the court cannot have been in a proper court and cannot begin to appreciate the dynamics of the situation. The sentencer who has the power to dispose of the individual before him, and the attitude of the defendant awaiting his fate, are completely opposite to the concept of dictating the sentence. I support my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I still wonder why the clause was put into the Bill. It creates nothing new. It changes a provision which has been operating. Whenever a probation officer, or in Scotland a criminal justice social worker, prepares a report for the court recommending probation with a condition such as community service, if he could not state that the subject of the report expresses his or her willingness to comply there would be no basis for making that recommendation.
I accept that the offender may not understand exactly what has been said to him or her in court when the community sentence was passed. But one of the first tasks at the beginning of a probation order is to serve the order and to go through what it says. It states that the court accepts that the offender committed the

879
offences and on being informed by the court that a probation order will be made the defendant gives his consent. I believe that the probation order document will have to be changed. I do not have such a form with me; nor do I expect the Minister to have one. Perhaps we can resolve the issue by letter afterwards. But not to have consent renders the offender liable to further punishment. I find that difficult.
However, I have listened to Members of the Committee. A number agreed with me. Some disagreed in varying degrees. However, I shall not press the issue.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Offenders]:
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 26, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where a court orders a person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence under this section, the degree of punishment inflicted by the order, or by the combination of the order and any other order or orders made in respect of the offence, shall he such as in the opinion of the court are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment deals with the proportionality of the sentence of disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence under the proposed section. I shall deal with the desirability of driving disqualifications in the course of discussion on the next amendment.
However, in sentences which involve custody, community sentences and fines, provisions in legislation require proportionality; that is, that the degree of punishment inflicted should be appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. For example, Section 1 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 provides that the main criterion for passing a custodial sentence is that,
"the offence … was so serious that only such a sentence can be justified".
It is the formula which judges will always pronounce at the beginning of sentencing a person to a term of imprisonment. Under Section 2 of the same Act, the length of the custodial sentence must normally be,
"commensurate with the seriousness of the offence".
Section 6 provides that the restrictions on liberty imposed by community sentences must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Section 18 of the same Act provides that the amount of the fine shall be such as in the opinion of the court reflects the seriousness of the offence.
If, in relation to each of those methods of disposal (punishment) the court is enjoined to consider before passing such sentences the proportionality of the sentence—what is appropriate to the seriousness of the offence—why should that not happen with driving disqualification in non-motoring cases?
Both the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks' Society have expressed concern that the use of driving disqualification in non-motoring cases could involve a degree of punishment that is disproportionate to the offence. The most obvious example is that of a person who relies on his motor vehicle in order to get to work or to carry out his particular livelihood. The result to him of a driving disqualification could be the
880
loss of many thousands of pounds—a financial penalty which, were it to be imposed as a fine, would he regarded as appropriate to an offence of extreme seriousness.
The Magistrates' Association has urged statutory guidance, stipulating that disqualification should be used only for offences which are serious enough to qualify for a community sentence. The purpose of this amendment is to introduce that standard approach to sentencing into the proposed new order on driving disqualification for non-motoring offences. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I support my noble friend's amendment. I am concerned about the indiscriminate use of this new community sentence. I am not against new community sentences as such, nor necessarily against this particular one. However, I hope that it will be piloted and evaluated properly.
The scheme allows for the use of a driving ban for non-motoring offences. Sentencers will need to he very clear about the effect that such a scheme will have. If, for example, it would lead to a loss of livelihood, it should be applied only in extreme circumstances—if indeed there are circumstances in which the punishment should be that the offender should lose his job. As that clearly does happen when someone is imprisoned, this driving ban would be appropriate for an imprisonable offence for someone who needs the car at work. However, in the case of the recreational driver, the driving ban would have substantially less effect and could be used for much less serious offences.
My main concern about the new sentences relates to the effects of non-compliance. The prospect of the driving ban being ignored and yet another uninsured driver being on the road suggests that a full social background report will be required prior to the passing of this type of sentence. This amendment would probably ensure that.
Baroness Blatch: I do not disagree in principle with the intention behind the amendment. However, I believe that the amendment itself is unnecessary. The general principles of sentencing that apply to all sentences will ensure that these aims are met without a specific statutory requirement.
The fundamental principle of sentencing is that the punishment should fit the crime. In determining what sentence to impose for an offence, the judge or magistrate must consider the nature of the offence, its seriousness or otherwise and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The sentence must also always be appropriate to the particular circumstances of the offender as well as the circumstances of the offence.
It follows therefore that, in deciding to impose disqualification from driving for an offence and in deciding how long the period of disqualification will be, a court will consider the degree of punishment involved and will decide on a sentence that it believes is appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. The new subsection which this amendment would insert is unnecessary.

881
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to the seriousness of the offence in relation to disqualification. It may be that some guidance for sentencers will be required in imposing disqualification for non-driving offences and it will be open to the Magistrates' Association and the senior judiciary to develop such guidance. That is not a matter for the Government but we certainly believe that, as this would be a new disposal for the courts in this context, guidance would indeed be appropriate.
Again there is nothing between us. I believe that what I said is commensurate with what is contained in the amendment. I shall read Hansard carefully following our deliberations today but, from where I stand and from what I have seen of the amendment, I believe that it is unnecessary.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: As this is a completely new type of penalty which in theory could be applied to a wide range of offences, it is important to have a provision such as that contained in the amendment on the face of the Bill so that those who have to apply this penalty can find all the information in one place.
Baroness Blatch: In order to make a disposal in court, a sentencer would need to have all the information in place before deciding what the sentence should be. We come back to the pre-sentence reports. The court would have all the information that was presented to it in the course of the hearing of the case and could call for whatever reports it felt appropriate, such as reports from medical people or probation officers. Only with all the information which it believed it needed in order to make a disposal could the court then apply a sentence.
We are adding this sentence for the court's disposal in a new context. As the noble Lord knows, until now it has been driving-related or car-related offences for which this disposal has been used. We are simply widening that base. The principle of courts making penalties fit the crime is not compromised at all by what is proposed.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: What a pleasure it is that for once there is nothing between the Minister and myself on the principles of this matter. I cannot accept that the proposals contained in the amendment are unnecessary. If they are unnecessary in this context, why is it necessary to have statutory requirements which govern the discretion of the court sentencing a person to custody, community service or a fine? Why is it necessary that in those instances sentencers should have the issue of what is appropriate and what is proportionate statutorily thrust upon their minds?
As the noble Lord said in his intervention, the fact that this is a new kind of sentence which will be imposed by magistrates all over the country, as well as by Crown Courts, is an important reason why a statutory provision such as that contained in my amendment should be included.
882
I should like to reflect on what has been said. This is not the time to seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In opposing the clause I am likely to part company with the Minister on the principle of disqualification from driving for non-motoring offences. What is so surprising about this provision is that it was introduced without any consultation. It is such an infliction upon people's freedom that one would have thought that the widest consultation would have taken place before it was introduced. The Magistrates' Association has expressed serious reservations about the wisdom of the measure and the Justices' Clerks' Society has opposed it. Those are people very much concerned with the nitty-gritty of the criminal justice system. They see it at grassroots level.
My first criticism of the proposal to take away a person's driving licence for something which is completely unrelated to driving is that it will inhibit the offender's rehabilitation. In the course of the discussions that have taken place on the Bill, time and again—no doubt ad nauseam—I have stressed the importance of rehabilitation of the offender, so that further offending is prevented. One of the most important features of rehabilitation is that a person gets a job. In today's society that very often requires the ability to get to work in the absence of public transport or the ability to get a job which is driver-related. That is my first objection; namely, that it will affect the rehabilitation of the offender.
Secondly, I have some sympathy for the police who are required to enforce disqualifications of this nature. Bearing in mind that disqualification of this kind has nothing whatsoever to do with the particular offender's manner of driving, the temptation upon that offender to continue driving will be very considerable. As things are at present, it is difficult enough for the police to enforce driving bans, but it is unlikely that anybody who is disqualified under these provisions will ever get caught unless he is involved in some accident or is stopped for some road traffic offence. The police will have very considerable problems with the large number of disqualifications which are likely to arise if this measure is introduced.
My third difficulty concerns the problems of the person driving without a licence who is thereby uninsured. It is extremely difficult for a person injured in a road traffic accident to obtain compensation from an uninsured driver. There are procedures through the Motor Insurers' Bureau but they are lengthy and outside the ordinary system. I am sure the Committee is well aware of the numerous injustices that occur because a person has been injured by someone who is uninsured by reason of being disqualified.
The Justices' Clerks' Society has said:
"Disqualification has been based on issues of road safety and there is therefore no merit whatsoever in extending its use to cases where no motor vehicle was used to commit or facilitate the offence.

883
Punishment must fit the crime. There are real dangers of this particular punishment being disproportionate to the offending, with the cost of resultant appeals. In addition, enforcement difficulties which will undermine the sentence cannot be underestimated".
A person who is found guilty of dangerous or careless driving or who has been breathalysed understands perfectly well why he or she is being disqualified as a result of the motoring offence that has been committed. It is related to that particular offence and, no doubt, if not acceptable is understandable by the defendant who is disqualified in that particular way. But the persons who appear before the court, generally speaking, for offences which have nothing to do with driving are bound to feel resentment and anger if a sentence which has no connection with their offending is imposed upon them.
Strong criticisms of the Bill were made by Sir Ivan Lawrence in another place. He highlighted a number of objections as he saw the matter. First of all, his view as a Conservative chairman of the Home Affairs Committee was that the measure offends the fundamental principle of sentencing that the punishment should fit the crime. Secondly, he said that the courts were unhappy about disqualification sentences for the simple reason that a car is necessary in many cases for getting to work, and disqualifying someone as a punishment puts a great deal more pressure on him to commit more crimes. If we are trying to rehabilitate the offender, the least that can be done is to get him to work. For all those reasons, I oppose the addition of this clause to the Bill.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, completes his speech—he may say that it is already complete—I invite him to expand on one comment that he made. He said that one of the most surprising things about this clause was that it had been introduced without any consultation with any of the parties involved in the Bill. Can he tell me which parts of the Bill did involve prior consultation? With whom did those consultations take place? Why is it surprising that this clause was not the basis of any consultation with anybody?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for his intervention. Since the noble Lord sits on the other side of the Chamber, it would be churlish of me to suggest that these proposals were rushed through with a view to securing the re-election of his party. But that seems to me to be the reason why there has been no consultation. These proposals throughout the Bill have been brought forward to gain publicity for electoral purposes. It is not the first time I have said that; I have repeatedly said it in relation to the provisions of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before I comment in more detail on the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, perhaps I can ask whether line 9, page 26 of the Bill should read,
"disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence",
rather than,
"disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence".
884
If I am right and there is a mistake, I immediately give the credit to my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn who pointed it out to me.
I find this issue to be genuinely difficult. On the one hand one wants to see the billiard shark, when caught, suffer by being made to dwell in a dungeon cell in a spot that is always barred and all the rest of it, including making him play with elliptical billiard balls. But, at the same time, driving a car or a vehicle is a more widespread activity.
There has been debate in the columns of the press as to whether driving is a privilege, a right or whatever, and whether it is proper to take that away. I tend to the view that the objections—for example, from the motoring organisations—do not have much validity. There are difficulties about a driving disqualification. The obvious one is that it is of differing importance to different people and the magistrates will not sensibly disqualify someone who needs a car to get to work, to take children to school or some other essential purpose. I cannot believe that magistrates would disqualify someone under such circumstances.
There are some people, like myself, to whom a car is only a thing with a wheel on each corner and one to hold on to. I have no interest whatever in driving and disqualification would not inflict on me any psychological damage. But some people are passionate about their cars and it makes a great deal of difference as to whether they are allowed to drive.
Then there is the question that is not raised in the clause on the relationship of such a disqualification to other driving offences. Will such a disqualification count on the tariff of driving offences? Does it mean that a subsequent disqualification for a driving offence will be that much worse? The Minister should tell us. I do not believe that has been thought out.
Having made those uncivil remarks, I am fundamentally in favour of searching for other forms of non-custodial sentence. I recognise that subsection (3) of the clause says that the sentence is on a trial basis and can be withdrawn at any time if it does not work. On that basis, if the specific questions can be answered, I would on balance be prepared to give it a fair wind.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to ask about the use of such penalties in rural areas. It strikes me that their use in such areas would impose an impossible burden. People who live in cities or large towns, where there is adequate public transport, could get by. Will one of the pilot projects be in a rural area?
Earl Attlee: I hesitate to speak on this matter because I have been somewhat overexposed recently, particularly with the noble Baroness the Minister. I support the principles of the Bill. I was sad that the Bill was comprehensively wrecked at an early stage of the Committee.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: It was not wrecked.
Earl Attlee: I feel that it was and I am sorry about the damage. However, this issue is of great concern to

885
me for the reasons that have already been so ably set out by other noble Lords. I shall be particularly interested to hear how the Minister intends to justify the provision.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I wish to raise a matter of detail in Clause 35(1). The court is given an extraordinarily wide power—ordering disqualification,
"for such period as it thinks fit".
That is entirely different from the regime that sentencers and defendants know at the moment with regard to totting up and the speeder; and for driving with excess alcohol there is a minimum disqualification of one year and for a second offence within 10 years a minimum disqualification of three years. There is some sense to that structure. By and large, it works well. It seems an extraordinarily wide power to be given to a court to be able to order disqualification,
"for such period as it thinks fit",
without any other qualification.
Earl Russell: We can agree at the moment that driving is a privilege and not a right. I do not think we have yet reached the American situation where they seem to think that a driving licence is handed out with a birth certificate. We all accept that if we are given charge of a potentially lethal weapon—which a car is—we must expect the privilege of driving that weapon to be taken away if we do it unsafely. But it is quite another thing to propose taking it away for an offence entirely unrelated to the conduct of the motor vehicle. It is a little like telling one's children that if they do not go to bed, they cannot have any sweets tomorrow. It is all right if one knows every circumstance of the daily life, as one does in that situation, and can make sure that there is a fit between the two things. However, we do not have that kind of knowledge about people whom we are sentencing.
Why, among all the things they could do, have the Government fixed on withdrawing the right to drive a car rather than something else? Why not, for example, the right to ride a horse or a bicycle? There are many other things they could have done. They might think about why they have not withdrawn from people the right to wear spectacles. If they think about that, they might begin to see why I have such grave misgivings about this clause.
The point has already been made that many people without a car cannot work. If this punishment were inflicted, for example, on a taxi driver, or on the man who came at nine o'clock this morning to repair our dryer, it would be a penalty of instant dismissal from a job. There is nothing in the clause which shows any recognition of whether the punishment is particularly severe in a particular occupation. There is no recognition of the basic principle of Magna Carta that no man shall be punished so as to take away his living. That is a good principle and an important one. I rise to back it up because I believe that there is a vitally important social security angle to this clause which no one has touched on.
886
There are a great many places, as my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie, has mentioned, where it is, regrettably, simply impossible to work without the aid of motor transport and, since the stagecoach is an unreliable method of transport at the best of times, one must expect these places to become more numerous. I hear of cases of this kind from places like South Moulton, the North Yorks Moors or Henley-in-Arden where, if the job is some distance away, people simply cannot work unless they can afford to run a car. So if one suffers that penalty in one of those places one is being deprived of the right to work.
During the debate on the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order during the dinner break, all three Front Benches were in agreement that what we should be looking for are ways of helping people to come off benefit and back into work and that we need that not only to give people genuine freedom of choice, but also for the vitally important task of reducing the biggest single item in government spending. But here we have the Home Office undoing all the good that all three Front Benches were agreed in trying to achieve. It does not seem to make very much sense. It is piling up a much bigger bill for a government—it does not matter which in this case—to pay. I do not see why.
I ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, to consult his noble friend, the noble Baroness Lady Hollis of Heigham, and ask what she has to say about the costs of this clause. He may find that it is very similar to what I have just said. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the need to think of other non-custodial sentences. I have thought that for many years. We are seeing why that has not been done before. It is something which is badly needed but extremely difficult. The Home Office might have stopped to think about some of the difficulties before tabling this clause.
Lord Hacking: Perhaps I may intervene for just a moment. I have been able to listen to the entirety of this debate although I confess I have not been in the Chamber. I was disappointed by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, because I felt that insufficient connection was being made between the offence and the punishment. Having heard the whole of the debate, and in particular the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I believe that this is an unfortunate clause. It has to be recorded—and I say this with great respect—that the fundamental opposition to this Bill in this Chamber has come from the noble Lords who sit on the Social Democrat Benches and that is most welcome.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Having made a very brief intervention in the course of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, perhaps I may try to make a more serious intervention on Clause 35 as a whole. What is it intended to achieve? Of course, one appreciates that removing a driving licence is a serious matter for many people and the threat of it is a major one. But what is this particular clause intended to achieve?
As I understand it, it relates to the power to disqualify from driving someone who, according to subsection (2), is convicted of an offence under Clauses 1(2), 2(2),

887
or 3(2) of the Bill. If I am right about that, what does that mean? Is it seriously to be said that if one is sentenced to life imprisonment, as Clause (1)(2) requires, say, for an offence of wounding with intent, that on top of being sentenced to life one should be then disqualified from driving for a certain period of years? And what is the purpose?
If you are sending someone to prison for a minimum of seven years for trading in drugs and we take the sort of case about which we were talking earlier—not the major trafficker, but the very small-time drug addict who buys and then feeds his own addiction by passing on some of his drugs to friends—what is the suggested additional threat? He probably does not drive. He has probably never driven. He is going to prison for seven years anyway. Are we to say to him, "Incidentally, when you come out, you cannot drive for 10 years?" What is the object of it? I question why the clause is in the Bill at all and whether it is anything more than merely gesture sentencing.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I believe that I am the only noble Lord present who at one time had ministerial responsibility for driving licences. That is my reason for speaking on the subject of those who want to take them away.
I very much take the view on the clause which has been expressed on all sides of the Committee. I take also the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, about the absence of consultation on the clause not being exceptional to the Bill as a whole. What I think is exceptional—although not exclusively exceptional, if I may put it that way—is that the clause was introduced as a new clause at the tenth sitting of the House of Commons Committee on the Bill. It would be of great advantage to the Committee if the Minister could explain where the clause comes from. If the clause was not included in the Bill as drafted—the Bill was in preparation for some time—why was it suddenly inserted into the Bill at a late stage? What were the motives, incentives or circumstances which made it urgent on 10th December but not when the Bill was being drafted?
Proper questions have been asked—not only on these Benches but on all sides of the Committee—about the consequences of taking away driving licences. I have a feeling that none of those points was considered due to the hasty way in which these provisions were prepared and introduced so late in the day.
As has been revealed by this debate on clause stand part, the more one thinks about it, the more one sees increasing objections which do not appear to have been foreseen. Someone who has a car has it in the expectation of being able to drive it. They may have newly acquired the car and the driving licence for that purpose. If that person loses his or her driving licence, the car serves no purpose for them. If their licence has been removed for a substantial period, not only is there no point in having a car licensed and on the road; there is no point in having a car at all. There are some who may lose their driving licence for whom the obvious next step is to sell a car lately acquired at a penalty which would approximate to a further fine.
888
Whatever the Minister's reply—and whether or not my noble friend finds it acceptable—I hope that the noble Baroness will consider carefully what purpose the clause really serves. It seems to me not only to involve a loss of liberty and a loss of mobility but to have much wider consequences for those who need a car for work, and for the family as a whole.
If the Bill, including this clause, proposes the removal of a driving licence, why not take away the television licence? The principle is exactly the same. If there is no link between the offence and the penalty of driving disqualification, there is no reason why we should not find that in some future Bill the removal of television licences is proposed as a further penalty. These questions need to be looked at with great care.
I do not know what the Minister will say in reply or what my noble friend may have in mind. I say in parenthesis, even at this late hour, that I am struck by one peculiar aspect of our procedures. We consider amendments to a clause and then decide whether or not we want the clause in the first place. It is almost as though one has conducted the Committee stage on a Bill before the Second Reading debate. Of course, this is not a matter for the Minister, who will forgive me for occupying the time of the Committee, but it is interesting that we had a short debate on the amendment—there was only one amendment to this clause—because we had not had the debate on stand part that has revealed aspects of the clause hitherto hidden from us. As we have no other way of proceeding with our business, I believe that if this remains part of the Bill at Report some noble Lords will want to consider seriously ways of amending it.
10 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may quickly respond to the noble Lord's intervention on our procedures. Surely we do it the right way round. We try to get the best clause that we can and then decide whether or not it is good enough.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had not said that, I would have opened with that very point. It is extraordinary that one should oppose a clause standing part before there has been any attempt whatever to modify it. The whole point of coming to the end of discussions on a clause, whether or not there have been attempts to modify it, is that your Lordships can then decide whether or not it should stand part of the Bill.
The clause allows for the introduction of the provision on a pilot basis in courts specified by the Secretary of State. It is a punishment and another disposal which is available to the court. It would be dispensed as a punishment. Taking away the freedom to drive is already an effective penalty for a range of road traffic offences and other offences where a vehicle is involved—for example, theft of a car. We believe that disqualification from driving can usefully be used more widely and that its extended use will give the courts greater flexibility to deal with offenders in the most effective way. Disqualification from driving is not just a means of keeping bad drivers off the road. Noble

889
Lords will know that it is not used only in this way. It can be an effective punishment because it denies the offender the freedom to drive. Thus, it restricts his liberty in the same way as a fine restricts his economic liberty and community sentences restrict his liberty to determine how to spend his time. Curfew orders and custodial sentences restrict liberty. This is just another way of restricting liberty.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle spoke about the effects of disqualification from driving. All of the effects that they have spoken about apply to those who lose their right to drive when this measure is used by the courts now. Lots of people come before the courts and are disqualified from driving. That will be a restriction on their liberty. Sometimes it will affect their livelihood and their families. It will almost certainly have an effect on their leisure activities—unlike the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
Very recently I spent a night with the police force in my own authority. I admit to my shame that I started off the evening, as many armchair critics do, by criticising the police for spending far too much time dealing with motoring offences and not enough time chasing criminals. Having spent the evening in a police car travelling along the roads of Cambridgeshire, my views made a complete U-turn, because I realised that criminals are out on the roads driving from one burglary to another. They commit an offence in one part of the country and then travel to another part to commit another offence. The police found that by gathering intelligence about people driving without number plates or without lights they could identify drug runners and so on.
Indeed in the course of that evening the police were able to apprehend a number of people because they were able to use all of the powers available to them under the Act. What impressed me more than anything else was that a lot of people up to no good were driving around in motor cars. If disqualification can be used as a punishment to keep some people off the road, then I believe that that would be a good thing.
While disqualification from driving would be particularly appropriate for offences in which a vehicle was used, it will be for the courts to decide whether or not to use the penalty in any particular case. In reaching this decision they will of course take into account the circumstances of the offence and of the offender. They will be able to use disqualification from driving, alone as a punishment for the offence or in combination with any other penalty as part of the punishment. Both the Crown Court and the magistrates' court already have a discretion to disqualify offenders from driving for quite a range of offences. They are experienced in weighing up the circumstances of each case where such discretion is available to them before deciding whether or not the penalty is appropriate.
The clause allows for the proposal to be introduced by way of pilots. We intend to pilot the provisions to ensure that they can be put to most effective use. The pilots will also help to identify whether any sentencing guidelines by the judiciary, such as those already
890
produced by the Magistrates' Association, would be helpful. Extending the power to deprive criminals of the ability to drive whatever the offence will be an additional and powerful tool for the courts.
I take on board the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, when he referred to pilot schemes running in rural areas. We have not made decisions as to where pilot schemes will take place but the point that the noble Earl made is certainly one I shall take back to my right honourable friend.
Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the phrase "such periods as he thinks fit." Again we go back to the fundamental principle of sentences in courts, and that is that courts will sentence as they think fit, which also includes and subsumes the appropriate sentence for the crime that is being considered by the court. I would also use that in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lord Carlisle. There is no question of gratuitously adding this to a sentence unless it is appropriate in the minds of the court to do so. My noble friend referred to life prisoners in Clause 35. It simply means that one cannot be disqualified from driving instead of receiving a mandatory or automatic life sentence. It can, however, be added for such a sentence if the court in its discretion thinks fit, and of course if it is appropriate, and that would be absolutely fundamental.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to Clause 35 being anomalous. The provision follows Section 44 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 in providing no limitation for the length of the disqualification period for offenders who have used a vehicle in committing an offence. There is nothing anomalous about it in this respect. I am almost afraid to give the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, this answer because I do not ever accept this as an explanation, but it is the explanation for using the word "for" rather than "from", which was discovered by his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. I am told it is not a mistake. It follows the language of another Act of Parliament, in this case the Road Traffic Act 1988. I would invite noble Lords to look up Section 103(1).
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the Minister introduce the amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988 or shall I, because it is clearly wrong?
Baroness Blatch: What I was going to say to the noble Lord is that I never think it is the best explanation to give. It happens to be the explanation that I am offering at this moment but I am not sure that any government would find time in their parliamentary programme to allow the word "for" to be changed to "from" in primary legislation. That indeed is the explanation and I do not believe that the sky will fall in if we change the word "for" to "from" in this Bill, but I have no doubt counsel will have something to say to me on that score.
I have given an assurance that we will pilot these powers for driving disqualification to see the practical implications of allowing the courts to make what they will of them and of the impact that they have.

891
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of important points. Since it will be for the courts to decide whether or not to disqualify from driving, taking account of the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, there is no reliable way of calculating the cost or indeed of identifying the implications of national roll-out in advance of the pilots. The noble Earl's amendment much later in the Bill—Amendment No. 109—impacts on the debate we have had this evening. It would prevent such pilots from being introduced. We should consequently be unable to calculate the resultant costs which he would like identified. In a sense, it is chicken and egg. We need the pilot schemes to identify costs. I should perhaps point out that a court will not impose disqualification from driving unless the court itself is satisfied that such a penalty is appropriate to the nature and the seriousness of the offence. Courts will consider the likely result of disqualification upon the offender, and will look at any implications for the offender. Employment, of course, would he one consideration put forward in mitigation.
The pilots will also identify any need to produce guidelines for the courts such as those produced in other circumstances by the Magistrates' Association. I was asked, why these provisions. I have to say that it is because it is another form of punishment. I suggest that for some people it will be an effective form of punishment, but it will be for the courts to make that decision. They will have to consider the impact on, perhaps, other members of the family—taking children to school, and the car is the only form of transport, especially in rural areas, and is essential for the family. Given that there will be pilot schemes, those are the type of things for which one would be looking in the course of the pilot schemes. I believe that Clause 35 should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I hope that I shall not be accused of being difficult, but I am concerned about what my noble friend the Minister has said about the clause. I share her view. I believe that disqualification for driving is a penalty. It is a penalty which has a considerable effect on many people. The power to prevent a person from using a car is not just a penalty, it discourages the person from doing anything that may lead him into that situation.
I hope that I am wrong, but quickly reading Clause 35, am I to understand that since subsection (1) starts:
"Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below",
and subsection (2) below states:
"Where the person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law or falls to be imposed under section 1(2), 2(2), or 3(2) above"
the whole of the clause applies only—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not right.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am glad to hear that I am wrong. I am not sure what is the purpose of the clause.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: To be helpful, the purpose of the clause—I shall be disqualified from this side—is that one needs to put one's eye to, "or instead of". I believe that that is the point of Clause 35(2).
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am sorry, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gets my point.
"Subject to subsection (2)(3) below"
implies that the clause relates only to those who are convicted of offences under Clause 1(2), 2(2) or 3(2) of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the Minister is about to say is that you can have disqualification as a free-standing sentence except in the circumstances described and prescribed in Clauses 1(2), 2(2) and 3(2).
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I happily withdraw. I have had too good a dinner. I have got it the other way round. I could not believe that it was as mad as it appeared to be, but I still repeat my original view that I should like to know—if my noble friend the Minister will tell us—with whom any parts of the Bill were discussed before they were announced.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We do not need to wait for the election. My noble friend has clearly changed sides.
Baroness Blatch: I am glad that my noble friend is satisfied with the answers. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It has been a long day, and I am grateful for any help whatsoever at this time of the evening.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may respond to some of the things that the Minister said. She paints an interesting picture of the roads around Cambridgeshire, filled with criminals driving in all directions. One cannot help but wonder what the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon is doing about that disgraceful situation on his patch.
Baroness Blatch: He is supporting this legislation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: He is supporting legislation which quite clearly requires limited police resources to be used for the Minister to pursue criminals around his patch. That is taking things a little far.
The Government ought to think about the clause from scratch and start again. As my noble friend Lord Rodgers said, it was introduced as an amendment at a late stage; it did not form part of the structure of the original Bill; it is ill-thought out; it is ill-considered; and, as we have heard from the Minister, it is uncosted. No attempt has been made to discover how much the provisions will cost.
I addressed the Committee on proportionality in relation to another amendment, but I wish to return to the topic in order to consider the differences that are likely to arise, for example, between an offender who lives in a rural area and an offender in an urban area who commits the same type of offence: perhaps they commit it together. In the one case, disqualification from driving is a huge penalty. In the other, within the urban environment and where public transport is available, it

893
is not such a great penalty. What will happen? Are people who live in rural areas to receive lesser sentences of disqualification than those who live in urban areas?
Let us compare someone who is holding down a job which requires a car either to carry out the job or to get to work with someone who works round the corner or who is unemployed. Let us suppose that together they commit the same offence. A disqualification on the one will be extremely hard, expensive and difficult to bear. The other may be able to shrug it off without any particular difficulties. All those disproportionate sentences between people who commit similar offences will undoubtedly cause considerable problems in the future.
The clause is opposed not by the motoring organisations—this is not a motoring matter—but by the Magistrates' Association and the Justices Clerks Society, which, I respectfully suggest, know better than the Home Office what it is like to try to deal with people who have been disqualified at the magistrates' court level where most of the offences are dealt with. In the face of their hostility and in the face of public hostility to the idea of disqualification for non-motoring offences, I urge the Government to think the matter through again before the Report stage.
The Earl of Balfour: I know that in cases of people living in rural areas the DSS gives them money to acquire a car. That must be borne in mind.
Baroness Blatch: When I addressed the amendment, I made the point that those are the kind of issues that the
894
courts must take into account when passing any kind of sentence. Whether the offence was driving or motor related, the courts must consider those particular factors. We believe that the measure is effective to punish criminals. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, once again came to the defence of magistrates and judges using their discretion. It would be a matter for magistrates and judges to use their discretion in court and for the court to consider all the circumstances which relate to the offence and the offender. The circumstances described by the noble Lord, in which the disqualification from driving would be a disproportionate punishment, would be out of kilter with the fundamental principles which are operated by the courts. Judges and magistrates would dispense the punishment appropriately, taking into account the circumstances relating to the offence and the offender. Of course, it is to be piloted, and the pilot schemes will tell us whether it is as effective as we believe it will be.
Lord Monkswell: I listened to the debate, although I am sorry that I came in late and may not have heard the particular response to my question. Surely if you have a law-abiding person, he will abide by the disqualification. But it will have no impact on a criminal who pays no regard to the law.
Baroness Blatch: Nobody will be disqualified from driving under these provisions unless he is a person who has already disobeyed the law.
Clause 35 agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.

  St. Helena: UK Aid
  St. Helena: UK Aid
  NATO: Nuclear Guarantees
  NATO: Nuclear Guarantees
  NATO Enlargement: Equipment Requirements
  NATO Enlargement: Equipment Requirements
  Iraq: "Atonement" Letter
  Iraq: "Atonement" Letter
  Overseas Aid: Arms Deals
  Overseas Aid: Arms Deals
  UN: International Criminal Tribunal
  UN: International Criminal Tribunal
  Great Lakes Region
  Great Lakes Region
  Legislation Against Terrorism: Report
  Legislation Against Terrorism: Report
  Basking Shark: Protection
  Basking Shark: Protection
  English Nature: Review
  English Nature: Review
  Sevso Hoard
  Sevso Hoard
  Gas Cookers: Unlawful Supply
  Gas Cookers: Unlawful Supply
  Agriculture Council, Brussels, 17 February
  Agriculture Council, Brussels, 17 February
  EU Structural Funds: Support Areas
  EU Structural Funds: Support Areas
  Operation Warden
  Operation Warden
  Armed Forces: Personnel Strategy
  Armed Forces: Personnel Strategy
  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Low-Flying Military Aircraft: Noise Study
  Low-Flying Military Aircraft: Noise Study
  The Army: Operational Changes
  The Army: Operational Changes