Sitting of 27 February 1997

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

    Action for Community Employment
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations have been received concerning proposed further reductions in the ACE schemes. [16359]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Representations have been made to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by the four Northern Ireland party leaders, and by a number of organisations and individuals directly to my noble Friend Baroness Denton and the Training and Employment Agency. In the 1995 and 1996 public expenditure surveys, resources allocated to ACE were reduced by 25 per cent. and 28 per cent. respectively, with the loss of 2,000 ACE posts each year.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: At a time of continuing high unemployment in some parts of Northern Ireland, which are crying out for better training, and at a time when training has been cut in other areas, is it not wrong to cut the ACE scheme, which has provided useful training and helped unemployed people to gain employment? Is the Minister aware that further cuts will bite into the core trainers while also damaging the disabled and elderly in the social community?
    Mr. Ancram: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he must be aware that unemployment has fallen considerably in Northern Ireland. We must consider priorities within available resources. Unemployment has fallen from 17.2 per cent. in 1986 to 9.2 per cent. now, and 53,000 people have come off the unemployment register in that time. There are 7,200 unfilled vacancies at the training and employment agency. Long-term unemployment, which is specifically important in this area, has dropped by 17.8 per cent. during the last year.
    Against that, we have the priority of the Government's responsibility to provide for the security of the people of Northern Ireland, as we are required to do. We have made it clear that, because of the changed circumstances, we are having to look across the board for £120 million over three years. I think that the people of Northern Ireland would expect the money to be spent on preserving their
    412
    security, and I feel that we should pay tribute to the security forces and the police for the success that they have achieved recently as a result of that expenditure.
    Rev. William McCrea: The ACE scheme has been very important and successful, dealing with long-term unemployment in all parts of Northern Ireland. It has been operating for 16 years and has consistently exceeded the targets set for it. In the light of that, and given that long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland is two to three times higher than it is in Great Britain, why have the Government used the hatchet on the ACE project, to the detriment of our long-term unemployed? Does he accept that the decision is resented throughout Northern Ireland and ought to be changed?
    Mr. Ancram: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the cost of preserving security in Northern Ireland in the face of terrorist activity is a priority. I do not think that he is alone in resenting the fact that the cost of doing that must be borne by other programmes in the Province. That is the message that we should be getting across—that the best way of achieving the results that we want for both the long-term and the short-term unemployed is to bring about peace in the Province, with a growing economy and the creation of more jobs.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister agree that penalising education, health and the long-term unemployed on the basis that the Government are discharging their primary function of protecting the lives and property of the citizens of Northern Ireland is entirely wrong and amounts to hostage taking? The Government are saying, "If you do not behave yourselves, or if a small section of you do not behave themselves, we shall punish the most vulnerable members of society as a whole."
    Mr. Ancram: I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman takes that attitude. When there was a ceasefire, security requirements were being reduced and money was available as a result, I did not hear him say that we should not spend that money on education, health and employment programmes. In fact, I suspect that he welcomed our actions. The corollary is that, when security requirements are reintroduced as a result of changes in the security situation, everyone must share the pain.
    Mr. Illsley: Do not the cuts to the ACE schemes amount to well over 50 per cent., with a loss of 2,000 jobs? Fifty per cent. of the core jobs have also been lost, which threatens some of the ACE schemes and some vitally needed services, despite the overwhelming success of the ACE schemes and the overwhelming opposition from all the parties in Northern Ireland to the cuts. The Training and Employment Agency's review of long-term unemployment, which was due last October, has still not yet been published. Will the Minister delay implementation of further cuts until we have had a chance to consider that document?
    Mr. Ancram: We hope that the report will be published fairly soon. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to make those criticisms from the Dispatch Box, but if he is saying—as he appeared to be—that we should not be making these cuts within the bloc, it behoves him to say where we should be making cuts instead. We have to

    413
    decide on the priorities in the light of falling unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment. There are other priorities and we have to take hard decisions at this time because of the security situation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as an Opposition spokesman, will bear his share of the responsibility for making the same message as I am.

    Peace Process
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has held with his counterparts in the Irish Government and with the representatives of Northern Ireland's political parties on the peace process; and what progress has been made. [16360]
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the development of the peace process. [16364]
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): There has been intensive contact with the participants in the talks, including the Irish Government. On 7 February I met the Irish Foreign Minister and we discussed several issues, including the development of the process. The talks process continues to offer the best opportunity of securing a political settlement underpinning a true and lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Alton: Although I welcome the continued efforts of both Governments to find a peaceful solution to the problems of Northern Ireland, does the Secretary of State agree that the major impediment to making progress is the continued and sustained use of violence in Northern Ireland, not least through punishment beatings and intimidation on estates and in neighbourhoods, where people—and especially young people—are being systematically abused? Is the Secretary of State aware that only last night a 19-year-old girl was abducted from a taxi rank in Armagh, held at a lamp post, covered in paint, beaten up and left with a placard around her neck? Earlier this week a 19-year-old was set about with a club with nails attached and a 12-year-old child was set about with a baseball bat by a gang of thugs. At a rate of 15 to 20 attacks per week, is not such intimidation and terror holding up the whole possibility of peaceful progress being made?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. Unfortunately that is only part of the things that are holding up the development of this process. The Chief Constable has calculated that attacks on the security forces have been taking place at an average rate of about one every 30 hours since the beginning of this year. There can be no place in a democracy for violence perpetrated for political reasons. Only if and when those who seek to participate in the talks which are continuing make it credibly clear that they have set aside violence for ever will they cease to exclude themselves.
    Mr. Canavan: As this may be the Secretary of State's last ever Question Time, will he take this opportunity to make an announcement today which might help to further the peace process, especially as the marching season is due to begin again next month?
    414
    Will he announce the Government's intention to implement in full the recommendation of Dr. North's review, including the establishment of a parades commission with powers to make determinations, if necessary, to avoid the kind of ugly confrontations that took place at Drumcree last year and the year before? At that time, the so-called rule of law was replaced by mob rule, with the support of certain hon. Members of the House who put their own selfish interests and those of their party before the interests of the broader community.
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hesitate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am looking forward to having another Question Time before I hang up these boots. I know the interest that the hon. Gentleman takes and the sincere concern that he has for the development of democracy in Northern Ireland. I made the Government's response clear two or three weeks ago in the House, when the North report was published. We accepted at once part of the recommendations. We thought it prudent—and we have been supported in this very widely thereafter—to consult up to the end of March on the remaining parts, and that is what we are doing. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be concerned that there should not be a repetition in this marching season of the terrible events of last year, and I share his concern.
    Mr. Trimble: Will the Secretary of State make it clear in his contacts with the Irish Government that one of the reasons why so little progress has been made in the inter-party talks is the attitude that they have adopted? I am thinking particularly of statements from those close to the Irish Foreign Minister to the effect that talking to us is not worth a penny candle. The Irish Foreign Ministry's representatives constantly attempt to change the terms of the talks to enable Sinn Fein-IRA to enter them fully armed and with the capacity to continue using their weapons. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the Irish Government that if they are to make a positive contribution to the process a significant change in their policies will be required?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not recognise any distinction between the Irish Government's policy vis-à-vis the entry of Sinn Fein into the talks and our own. Both Governments believe and insist that there should be an unequivocal restoration of a ceasefire that is credible—that is shown to be credible. In doing that, we are merely implementing the ground rules agreed between the two Governments for the conduct of the talks. That is perfectly clear.
    I have always found it rather unprofitable to comment on individual statements made from any point in the spectrum and resurrected weeks, months, years or even decades later, and I do not propose to depart from my practice today. I see Irish Ministers frequently, I find their attitude and approach to these extremely difficult matters constructive, and I am grateful for that.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: How can the Secretary of State think that by pursuing the conflicting views of members of the Government he can establish confidence? When Stephen Restorick was brutally murdered, the Prime Minister issued a strong statement that the person or persons who

    415
    did it would be hunted and would be brought to justice. In the other place, Baroness Denton informed us that people would no doubt have strange feelings that the House
    "should be contemplating the decommissioning of the weapon which was used to murder Stephen Restorick."
    She also referred to the
    "necessary loss of evidence".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 1997; Vol. 578, c. 1041.]
    On the one hand, we say that we will follow these people and bring them to justice while on the other hand we carry out a policy that will give them a veritable amnesty. How can the law-abiding citizens of Northern Ireland, who have suffered so much on both sides of the divide, have any confidence?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The hon. Gentleman ought to be a bit more careful, if he will allow me to say so. There is no question of an amnesty for any offence committed using any weapon. He knows that to be the case as it was explained fully when the House dealt with the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, which was passed with substantial support. Of course it is right that everyone who perpetrates a foul crime, such as the murder of Lance Bombardier Restorick, is pursued with every lawful means. I give that assurance now.

    It is also important for weapons to be taken out of circulation. Both Houses of Parliament have recognised the principle that a scheme for the decommissioning, the handing over, the putting out of harm's way of lethal weapons must have a limited immunity from prosecution for the offence, which will be brought to light, of holding that weapon while it is being handed over. That tight limitation is imposed on the amnesty.
    Dr. Hendron: The Secretary of State is aware of the unexploded bomb in my constituency of West Belfast last night. He is also aware of the young lady in Armagh whose hair was shaved off and who had paint poured over her head. We also had the horrific murder of Stephen Restorick. Bearing it in mind that the talks process in Castle Buildings will almost certainly be adjourned very shortly because of the impending parliamentary election, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that, whatever Government are in place after the election, those talks will be renewed immediately afterwards and providing that there is an unequivocal and genuine ceasefire—I emphasise the word "genuine"—Sinn Fein will be admitted to the talks?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have already this afternoon set out the shared position of both Governments in regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As to the first part, it was again due to the extreme professionalism of the security forces that a murderous attack was forestalled last night in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and also in another part of Belfast. That is wholly incompatible with any credibility being attached to professions of seeking peace. As to the future of the talks, that will of course depend on the participants in the talks, but I take great heart from the fact that those participating in the talks have almost universally expressed the desire that, after a period in cold storage, they will resume. It is the intention of everyone that they resume in as positive an environment as possible.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for clarifying, at least indirectly, in answer to earlier questions the fact that the close relationship between the Irish Government and the United Kingdom Government is one of the important keys to the future success of the longer-term peace process. Does he not agree, however, that despite the massive collective grief that we still feel over the murder of Lance Bombardier Restorick, out of that very sad occasion in Peterborough, which was attended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and others, came inspiration in the extraordinarily wise words of the family of the murdered soldier and in the invitations to the lady who had been in the car when the soldier was murdered and to the rest of her family from Ireland? Is that not on a level with the late Senator Wilson in providing the inspiration of millions of people wanting peace in the Province and in the Republic of Ireland when a small number of extremists on all sides still wish to perpetuate extremism and the exclusive use of continuing vetoes?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I repeat expressions of appreciation that I have already publicly made for the extraordinary dignity of the response of Lance Bombardier Restorick's parents and couple them with my appreciation of what was said by Mrs. Lorraine McElroy, the passenger in the car. Incidentally, Lance Bombardier Restorick was very concerned that those helping him should know that she had been injured. That is a measure of the type of young man that he was. I very much hope that the contrast between the fineness of the behaviour of that young man, the dignity of what has been said by people, which has already been mentioned today, and the squalor and disgusting character of the crime will have its own effect.
    Ms Mowlam: May I identify myself with the comments that the Secretary of State has just made? Does he agree that the job of the parties who have tried to make progress in the talks has been made much harder by the on-going IRA violence and that it must stop immediately? Will he join me in saying that, whatever the outcome of the general election, the talks about a just and peaceful settlement for Northern Ireland will be pursued with every determination? Does he agree that, if Sinn Fein wants to be part of that process, the IRA violence must stop and their warm words about peace must be backed up by actions that prove that they mean it? Will he join me in saying that a new British Government, of whichever party, will be unbending in their opposition to violence but will continue his current willingness to respond positively to a genuine desire for peace?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I think that many people will take reassurance from what the hon. Lady has said in the latter part of that question. What these people have got to know and learn is that they cannot look forward to being able to turn violence off and then turn violence on again. That is what is meant by the need for a credible, unequivocal ceasefire, a setting aside for good—not just for a tactical period—of the use of violence for political purposes. I agree with what she says about the importance of the talks process.

    Education Expenditure
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the per capita expenditure on education in the current year; what was the equivalent figure in May 1979; and if he will make a statement. [16362]
    Mr. Ancram: Expenditure on education per head of population is £846 in 1996–97. In 1979–80, the equivalent figure was £254, or £665 at 1996–97 prices.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures are a matter for congratulation? Does he further agree that the continuing excellence of education in Northern Ireland owes a great deal to the fact that schools there never gave up proper selection, as the Labour party has sought to do? Labour has constantly opposed selection and Labour Members cannot be trusted when they say that they are eschewing their permanent opposition to it. Whatever they say on education, they cannot be believed in Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales or anywhere else.
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I agree with him. Given the education system in Northern Ireland, the results reflect favourably in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland, 52 per cent. of pupils gain five or more GCSEs at grade C and above, while the figure for Great Britain is some 45 per cent. The same pattern emerges in respect of A-levels. In Northern Ireland, 87 per cent. of pupils achieve at least two A-levels compared with 77 per cent. in England. The figures reflect very well on Northern Ireland's education system. Although a selective system produces good results at the top end of the scale, we must make sure that the low achievers are also well served. The number of pupils leaving school without qualifications in Northern Ireland has dropped considerably and is now below the level for Great Britain.
    Mr. Beggs: The figures quoted by the Minister to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) sound well and probably read well to those who do not understand the extreme financial pressure on principals and school governors in medium-sized primary schools and secondary schools which do not receive additional funds through the raising school standards initiatives or which have their funding distorted by the targeting social need fund. May I put it to the Minister that there is something seriously wrong when large sums are flowing to grammar schools under targeting social need? We are annoyed by that. While we condemn the 60 attacks on our schools last year, we are concerned that our pupils are being penalised and punished because of the wanton vandalism and terrorism that the Government have failed to control by improving security measures. When will we have a system of fair and equal distribution of funding to all our children in all our schools in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Ancram: We try as far as possible to reflect the needs within Northern Ireland's education in the formulas by which allocations are made. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not disagree that in the raising school standards initiative we are identifying particular schools where there have been low rates of achievement and specifically addressing funds to those schools.
    418
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the formulas and I know where he is coming from on that. The actual allocation to individual schools under TSN has been to a large extent on the basis of the number of free school meal take-ups. I have now asked the boards to look at the assessments that were recently put in place as another equally valid measure of deprivation and need within a particular school in educational terms. The assessments have only just been put in place and we shall have to see how they work in order to use them effectively.
    My purpose is to use the scarce funds that are available because of the security situation in the fairest way in an attempt to achieve the best education in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would wish to pay tribute to the excellent work of everyone involved in education in Northern Ireland for keeping normality in the schools and excellence throughout the system. Getting away from security matters for once, will he tell the House what is being done about information technology in schools in Northern Ireland? Are pupils being introduced to the Internet? Are schools getting the computers that they need and are they building the experience that they will need for future employment?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving us away from the security situation. I pay tribute to all those who work in education in Northern Ireland for the way in which they have managed to maintain a high quality of education and provided stability for the children in the recent difficult years. Within available resources, we are anxious for information technology to be introduced to as many schools as possible. The current pattern is varied: some schools are very advanced in their IT provision and some are not. It is encouraging that the universities are beginning to explore the use of new technology in education in a way that will benefit schools and further education colleges in the longer term.
    Mr. Worthington: When the Minister allocated money to schools this year, what calculation did he make of the number of teachers who would lose their jobs and the impact of that on the pupil-teacher ratio? Is it true that he still does not know how many teachers lost their jobs last year as a consequence of his budget decisions? Why does he not know the consequences of his actions?
    Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland is better than in Great Britain. We take some pride in that. The boards have to decide their financial plans. Until those plans are before us, we cannot make an exact assessment. In my guidance to the boards, I have always tried to ensure that classroom provision is maintained, even if that has meant some difficult cuts in other areas such as youth provision, libraries and, as I announced on Tuesday, a smaller than usual capital programme. I have skewed the priorities to ensure that provision in the classroom remains at the top of the list, because that is the key to education.

    Northern Ireland Forum
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which of the groups that were successful

    419
    in the election to the Northern Ireland Forum have expressed support for a ceasefire and a peaceful solution to problems in the Province; and which have not. [16363]
    Mr. Ancram: Of the 10 political parties elected to the negotiations in the election of 30 May last year, nine have expressed their commitment to the six Mitchell principles of democracy and non-violence, as they are required to do on entry to the talks process. The remaining party, Sinn Fein, remains outside the talks process and will continue to do so until an unequivocal restoration of the IRA ceasefire is in place.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the loyalist community—as well as some nationalists—have shown a real desire to resist the recent violent provocations? Does he also agree that the credibility of Sinn Fein-IRA is as low as it can be and we do not yet see any opportunity for them to condemn violence? Should they not be condemned for taking that position?
    Mr. Ancram: I make no bones about condemning the recent activities, which can be described only as murderous, vicious and cowardly. That includes the shooting of Lance Bombardier Restorick for which, I understand, the IRA has finally claimed responsibility. It is clear to everyone in Northern Ireland that, far from moving towards the commitment to exclusively peaceful methods and the adherence to democratic principles required of Sinn Fein if it wants to become part of the talks process, the activities of the IRA are making the credibility gap ever wider.
    Mr. Livingstone: Given the Government's clear determination to exclude Sinn Fein until the IRA campaign stops, and given the frequent statements from the republican leadership that it has no intention of restoring the ceasefire, does the Minister have any proposals for increased security measures to defeat the IRA campaign—or are the people of Northern Ireland doomed to live with the situation for ever?
    Mr. Ancram: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's concern about security. We have noted carefully—in the light of some of the companionship that he enjoys—his injunctions on the Government to increase security measures. The British Government are not alone: the Irish Government have also made it clear that an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire is necessary for Sinn Fein to participate in the negotiations. The reason for that is simple: the negotiations can proceed only on the basis of confidence. When there is direct or indirect duress or threat of resumed violence from one party if it does not get its way, the negotiations cannot proceed.
    If that party signs up to democratic principles and exclusively peaceful methods, that confidence can be created, and it can become part of the negotiations.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best contribution that the United Kingdom Government can make to a peaceful solution in Northern Ireland is consistently to promote, advocate and support the status and integrity of Northern Ireland within the UK and consistently to praise and express appreciation for all
    420
    the political parties in Northern Ireland—not least the Official Unionist party—for their very positive contribution to a peaceful solution?
    Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, which I am sure will have been heard by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. In the democracy that is the United Kingdom, the Government are totally committed to ensuring that the democratic wishes of the people of Northern Ireland in relation to the status of Northern Ireland are supported and promoted.
    Mr. Barnes: Has the Minister noticed that the Northern Ireland Forum is quite an interesting body? It has been boycotted by Sinn Fein from the start, and is now boycotted by the SDLP. It is therefore virtually a Unionist organisation, yet it has passed some quite radical motions: on water privatisation, on the establishment of a disability rights commission, and, against the Government's position, on BSE. Is it not therefore rather strange that the Unionists adopt a rather different position in this House from the unanimous one adopted in the Northern Ireland Forum, which acts rather like a Labour party conference—or should I say, an old Labour party conference?
    Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the Northern Ireland Forum was set up with the purpose of promoting dialogue and understanding. I have to say that I am not sure whether some of the things it discusses would necessarily fit easily into that definition, but it has produced some very interesting comments on certain issues, and, as he knows, I have taken account of some of them.

    Security Situation
    Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the implications for the political peace process in Northern Ireland of the current security situation. [16365]
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The IRA continues its murderous attacks, indifferent to whom it may kill or maim. In the absence of the IRA declaring and implementing an unequivocal ceasefire that is credible, Sinn Fein continues to exclude itself from the process of talks. With or without its participation, we shall continue to further the process of inclusive and comprehensive talks.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is it not time to pay tribute to the steadfastness of my right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial team in their insistence that the governance of Northern Ireland shall always be democratically decided, and will never change in response to intimidation, fear, any atrocity or any political pressure that is imposed by the apologists of violence such as Sinn Fein?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: We are certainly steadfast in that policy and in that cause. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. It is slightly unnerving to have a tribute paid to one in this post.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most significant impact on all the

    421
    proceedings is the emerging fact that Sinn Fein-IRA totally abhors the principle of consent, and has thereby lost all sympathy and support throughout the world? Does he agree that this is the time for progress on the restoration of practical measures to restore effective administration to the people of Northern Ireland?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that Sinn Fein and the IRA have steadfastly refused to endorse the principle of consent, thereby, of course, refusing to endorse the foundation of democracy. I very much wish that greater responsibility was able to be exercised by people elected for that purpose in Northern Ireland. It is the purpose of the talks process to find a means by which, based on consent and comprehensive agreement, that can be achieved.
    As I approach the end of my tenure, I am no more enamoured of direct rule than I was at the very beginning. About the first thing that I said in public was that I needed to enhance democratic responsibility in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that currently one of the most distasteful sights in Northern Ireland is the unauthorised IRA signs in South Armagh proclaiming "Sniper at Work"? Does he agree that they are an insult not only to the family of the lance-bombardier but to all those residents who expressed their dismay over his murder? Whose responsibility are those signs, and when will they be taken down?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I very much agree with my hon. Friend's comments on the signs. I think that they are an insult, and that they are provocative and revolting. I understand that they are occasionally taken down. I will write to my hon. Friend, if he will allow me to do so, about the implications of his question.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not of interest that, following the cowardly murder last week of the British soldier, the Taoiseach made it perfectly clear that those responsible—the IRA—were the dedicated enemies of the Republic of Ireland, as indeed they are of Northern Ireland and of the entire United Kingdom? No doubt the Taoiseach will make his views quite clear when he speaks at Monday's meeting in Dublin of the British-Irish parliamentary body. Is it not important for the IRA to realise that murdering British soldiers will not in any way bring a united Ireland one step nearer, that such murders are totally unjustified, and that those who commit them are committing crimes against humanity?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: I warmly endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments, and pay tribute to his holding consistently to those views and to his expression of them. I noticed that Mr. Bruton, the Taoiseach, said recently:
    "The IRA campaign is anti-Irish and contrary to the interests of all in Ireland."
    I pay tribute to that comment, and endorse it. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that no amount of violence or of criminal murderous activity will deflect the Government or those in the security forces who steadfastly serve all the people of Northern Ireland from their duty—which is to uphold democracy and to protect the rule of law.
    Ms Mowlam: Does the Secretary of State agree that progress on this summer's parades have implications also
    422
    for political progress? With that in mind, we welcome the measures he announced yesterday in response to recommendations in the North report. Will he now tell the House when he expects to announce the membership of the Parades Commission? As he is halfway through his further consultation, will he also tell us what additional information he has gained from the submissions made to him on the nature of the powers that the commission should have?
    Sir Patrick Mayhew: It is premature to say anything about the nature of the submissions or about the results of the consultation when the consultation is incomplete. It will be completed at the end of March, and we have a genuinely open mind until then. I hope to be able to announce the composition of the commission fairly shortly. We attach great importance to its establishment and to its early assumption of those powers that we have accepted straight away as being proper.

    Youth Unemployment
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on youth unemployment in Northern Ireland. [16366]
    Mr. Ancram: At 9 January 1997, there were 17,130 unemployed young people, aged under 25, in Northern Ireland. That is a decrease of 3,594, or 17.3 per cent., in the past year. The decreases in unemployment are evident in all parts of the Province.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures are very good news for young people in Northern Ireland, and a tribute to the economic policies that have been pursued by the Government? Has not inward investment also played an important part in the decrease in unemployment?
    Mr. Ancram: Indeed it has, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is also interesting to note that, in September 1996, employment was at the highest September figure ever. That also bodes well for the Province. The decrease reflects the fact that there has been much inward investment. The Government's economic policies have been good. Particularly by not signing up for the social chapter, we have managed to attract industry to Northern Ireland which otherwise would not have come.
    Mr. William Ross: On the basis that the devil will always find work for idle hands to do, will the Minister examine very carefully the strange imbalance between male and female unemployment rates in Northern Ireland, and confirm that those rates are mirrored in youth unemployment? What does he intend to do this summer to give work to young people to take them off the streets?
    Mr. Ancram: I will look into that, but I do not have an answer at the moment. I will ask my noble Friend Baroness Denton, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman. We are concerned about the marginalisation of young people in Northern Ireland, precisely because of the activities that the young unemployed can get up to. Unemployment is a priority in the Department of

    423
    Education, and an interdepartmental working group is addressing the issue. I hope that it will report later this year.
    Dr. Godman: Does the Minister agree that many unemployed youngsters are badly handicapped in the labour market by their appalling lack of educational qualifications? Is it not time for a radical reappraisal of the policy for targeting social needs funds? Those funds should be wholly directed to schools in deprived areas.
    Mr. Ancram: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are directing money, through targeting social needs funds, to specific schools, and the results are shown in the substantial reduction in the number leaving schools without qualifications. The greatest improvement for the unemployed, young or old, in Northern Ireland would be for peace to be restored, so that the economy could grow and jobs be created.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16389]
    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. Gerrard: While the victims of Gulf war syndrome continue to suffer illness and are denied compensation, is it not a disgrace that no one in the Government is prepared to accept any personal responsibility for what has happened? As there is no doubt that service personnel and their families were seriously misled by the Ministry of Defence, does not that denial of responsibility prove that the assessment by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) of the Secretary of State for Defence as "not honourable" was spot on?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the question of compensation, he will know that service personnel in this country can claim compensation for loss or injury caused by negligent action. There is a satisfactory way to do that. In order to consider compensation claims fairly, we need to establish what caused the ailments. There have been a series of inquiries, which are continuing, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has reported to the House.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the procedure whereby the minutes of the meetings between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England are published is healthy, because it leads to open government? Does he further agree that any Chancellor who abandoned that procedure might leave himself open to the suspicion that he was trying to fudge things on the economy?
    The Prime Minister: Such a suspicion might be there. I think many people might be suspicious about why the
    424
    shadow Chancellor is talking about a Budget this summer, were he to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hardly believe that it would be a Budget that reduced taxation. If the right hon. Gentleman has a Budget of a different type in mind, perhaps—like one of his predecessors as shadow Chancellor—he might care to publish it before the election.
    Mr. Blair: May I refer the Prime Minister back to the subject of the Ministry of Defence, and ask him about the Defence Select Committee report this morning into defence medical services? Does he agree with the report's central conclusion that so badly has the Ministry of Defence managed change that either we would send our troops into a crisis without proper medical back-up, or we would have to limit the number of troops we sent? That is a shocking conclusion. Do the Government accept it?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will examine the report of the Defence Select Committee. [Interruption.] I think the House would expect me to examine a report by hon. Members before I responded to a long and detailed report that I have not yet had the opportunity to read. If I were to respond in any other way, the House would ask how I could have known. I can say to the right hon. Gentleman that, although I have not yet read the report myself—but I most certainly will—I have been advised that the defence medical services can provide the medical support necessary to assist British troops on operational deployments, as they have done in the Gulf and in Bosnia. I have received that advice from the Ministry of Defence. But I reiterate the point that, of course, if a Select Committee reports, I shall examine that report carefully, and we shall respond in the usual fashion when the examination is completed.
    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for that, but he should be aware that precisely the same assurances were given two years ago, and the Defence Select Committee examined them and found them ultimately to be worthless. The language used in the report is fairly strong, saying that the situation is so serious that the service cannot recover, and that
    "No amount of self-justification can disguise"
    the state of the service. The Prime Minister said that he wanted to examine the report. That is fair enough, but if, having examined it, he finds that its findings are accurate, which Minister will take responsibility?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we had better wait for the examination and see what the outcome is. The right hon. Gentleman is keen to determine blame before there is any certainty that there is any blame to be determined. I suggest that he wait until we have examined the report, as of course we shall. There has been some restructuring of the defence medical services, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. I welcome the Committee's endorsement, which he did not mention, of the new secondary care structures. That is very welcome.
    Mr. Rooker: So you have read it.
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the report-but I have received preliminary advice on it, and I shall read it. When I have read it, I shall report upon it in full. Let me return from the side issue raised by the hon. Member

    425
    for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). I think that Select Committee reports require more attention than just a summary and one morning, and that is what the report will get from the Government. That may be how the Opposition would respond to reports from the House, but it is not how I respond to them.
    Of course there have been teething problems. The Ministry of Defence has recognised that, and we are determined to overcome them.
    Mr. Blair: May I point out to the Prime Minister that yesterday we had a highly critical report on Ministers' handling of the use of pesticides in the Gulf war, today the Defence Select Committee says that there is serious doubt about front-line defence capability, as a result of changes that the Government have made, and that next week, apparently, a further report is to be made? I simply ask him: does anyone in this Government ever take responsibility for anything?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at the history of Gulf war syndrome, he will see the action that has been taken. He will also, I hope, acknowledge that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces came voluntarily and immediately to the House the moment that it was drawn to his attention that he had not been advised accurately by his officials. My hon. Friend did as he should have done, and came immediately to the House.
    The right hon. Gentleman talks about responsibility, but he is not in a position to criticise on that front—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh yes, he is."] I am surprised to hear that, because, despite his call for openness in government, when it was found that his office was being funded in an odd way, the right hon. Gentleman would not accept responsibility; and when somebody tried to rig a poll on Radio 4, he said that that was nothing to do with him. No responsibility was accepted for that. When it turns out that the worst 20 education authorities in the country, including Islington, are Labour-run, that, too, is apparently nothing to do with the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the publication of examination results has led to a significant improvement in standards in secondary schools? In the light of that, may I welcome the fact that the results of the tests for 11-year-olds in primary schools will be published school by school? Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will do all they can to resist the attempts by the unions and the Labour party to undermine those tests?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly offer that assurance. The Labour party has objected to tests from the outset. It is not keen on children being tested, and it is less keen on the test results being made available to parents. Many people who are now used to receiving those test results would resent very much any suggestion from any quarter that that information should no longer be available to parents.
    Mr. Ashdown: In his answer to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), the Prime Minister referred to those suffering from Gulf war syndrome as suffering from "ailments". May I remind him that these are not
    426
    ailments, but serious illnesses that threaten the quality of people's lives? Is not the question on organophosphates very simple? Which Minister—either personally or through incompetence in his Department—allowed our service men to be exposed to the risk of organophosphates when other Ministers were making it clear that organophosphates were extremely dangerous? Will the Prime Minister comment?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman did not set out the position accurately before he asked his question.
    Mr. Ashdown: Yes, I did.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that he did—he seems to know more than all the people who have examined the matter for some time. Yet I fear he does not. As usual, he is in the business of scapegoating without knowing the facts.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the trade union Unison has been making direct threats against private firms which have had the temerity to put in for contracts with Birmingham city council, to the effect that, should those contracts be granted, strikes, disruptions and go-slows will follow? Is he aware that at least one such firm has been so frightened that it has pulled out of a contract? Will he take steps to get rid of those typical Labour bully-boy tactics, and ensure that there is free and fair competition for the small businesses of Birmingham?
    The Prime Minister rose—
    Mr. Prescott: Wait until Wirral.
    The Prime Minister: Is not that interesting? The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) says, "Wait until Wirral." He does not address the issue, and he is not concerned about Unison. The Labour party is opposed to privatisation, but the right hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—which has benefited from privatisation. There is a word for that, and I believe that it is hypocrisy. It seeps out of the deputy leader of the Labour party, who sits there shouting.
    On the subject of responsibility, Labour controls Birmingham—it is a Labour council. Let us have some action and responsibility from the leader of the Labour party about the council's activities. Perhaps he can stop talking to his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, and listen to what is being said in this House.
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16391]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Salmond: Does the Prime Minister understand why, after six years, many people will find his reply on compensation for the victims of Gulf war syndrome

    427
    totally inadequate? How were people meant to process claims when the Department would not admit to using organophosphates? Does he know that recent estimates of those afflicted by the condition have reached 1,100–10 times those killed and maimed in the original conflict? Therefore, is not the case for compensation overwhelming? Should not someone in his ministerial team have the simple integrity to accept responsibility for six years of departmental dissembling?
    The Prime Minister: As far back as 1993, the Ministry of Defence established a medical assessment programme to try to diagnose why Gulf war veterans were ill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, having just issued his charge, should listen to what has happened. The methodology of the programme was audited by the Royal College of Physicians and subsequently endorsed in 1995. That programme, which commenced in 1993, did not produce any evidence of a new pattern of illness. None the less, the Government decided that more work needed to be done.
    From the outset, we have been determined to find out what caused the illness of troops, so that action could be taken to put it right. In such circumstances, the question of compensation could be dealt with; but we need the facts before that can be done, and the medical committees are still determining what the facts may be. However the hon. Gentleman and the leader of the Labour party may try to bend reality, it is necessary to establish those facts, so that we can provide the compensation and medical treatment that may be necessary.
    Mr. Rathbone: Whatever difficulties our forces may have faced in the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's support for the Reserve Army, and especially the territorials?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to do that.
    Mr. Welsh: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16392]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Welsh: Will the Prime Minister admit that the Government's failure to resolve the BSE crisis has cost taxpayers billions of pounds and the beef industry
    428
    hundreds of millions, and that still there is no end in sight? Given that the latest scheme merely scratches the surface of the problem, when will Scottish farmers be able to escape the ban? Let us have a date; and a real date this time.
    The Prime Minister: There was no reason for the imposition of the ban to begin with, but its lifting, alas, is not within the control of the Government or the House. I said that we had negotiated conditions that we had to meet, so that those who imposed the ban could lift it; we have met the conditions, but the lifting of the ban lies with those who imposed it. I should have thought that even the hon. Gentleman could understand that.
    Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16390]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to an issue of which I gave him notice? There is a problem in my constituency of stowaways who have been arriving dead, unfortunately, in the holds of small ships arriving at New Holland and Immingham. It appears that the ships originate; Nigeria and Sierra Leone, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend might ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to get in touch with the ambassadors or high commissioners of those countries. The people travel in dreadful conditions, and, although they are illegal immigrants, they arrive dead, and something needs to be done about it.
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to consider that matter. My hon. Friend may also want to discuss the matter with my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping. As he may know, the United Kingdom played a leading role in developing guidelines to ensure that stowaways are dealt with promptly and humanely.
    The people to whom my hon. Friend refers are patently stowaways, who, despite the usual checks and searches, are not discovered when the ships leave their original ports. We need to examine, with both the host countries and the shipping lines, better arrangements to ensure that people are not hidden away on their ships, as that is clearly the source of the tragedies to which my hon. Friend refers.

Criminal Justice
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker—
Madam Speaker: Will the Minister wait a moment until hon. Members have left quietly, so that we can hear his statement? Will hon. Members please leave quietly and quickly? [Interruption.] I do not want to hear the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks); I want to hear the Secretary of State.
Mr. Howard: Thank you, Madam Speaker. With permission, I want to make a statement about improving the speed of justice in England and Wales.
Confidence in any criminal justice system relies on its ability to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent and to do so quickly. Over the past three years, the Government have taken action to even up the scales of justice. At the same time, we have taken action to speed up our criminal justice process.
Progress has been made: in the Crown court, waiting lists fell by a fifth last year, and the number of cases outstanding has been reduced by a quarter. At magistrates courts, the proportion of summary only cases completed at first appearance reached 76 per cent. last year—10 per cent. more than in 1995.
However, more needs to be done. Although the number of indictable cases coming before the magistrates courts fell by 11 per cent. between 1985 and 1995, the average number of days taken to complete a case from the date of the offence increased by 36 per cent., from 98 to 132 days, and the number of adjournments increased by 44 per cent. Entirely proper safeguards for defendants, such as advance information and the reforms introduced in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, have made the process more complex; but on top of that, an adjournment culture has developed. That is why, last autumn, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I decided to set up a fundamental review of the speed of justice. The review has now been concluded and today I am publishing its report and placing copies in the Library.
The Government see merit in the report and propose to invite interested parties to express their views. We shall reach decisions in due course, having considered those views. The report makes 33 recommendations. One of them, recommendation 23, is now largely superfluous as the Lord Chancellor and the four senior designated judges yesterday approved—subject to certain restrictions—the Law Society's application for rights of audience for employed solicitors in the higher courts. That meets the review's proposal that employed solicitors in the Crown Prosecution Service should be granted rights of audience for plea and directions hearings at the Crown court.
The report's remaining recommendations fall into five main areas. The first deals with bringing alleged offenders to court. Considerable improvements have been made in recent years in the relationship between the police and the CPS. Abbreviated files for guilty pleas dramatically reduce police paperwork. Joint performance management and CPS lawyer surgeries in police stations are delivering improvements. However, the business of getting cases
430
ready for court still falls into two distinct halves: police preparation of the file, and the review of the file by the CPS. The report recommends that the two halves should be brought together. Some CPS staff should be brought into police stations on a permanent basis, to work with the police in what would visibly be a joint effort in bringing offenders to justice. The independence of the CPS would still be preserved, but independence does not require isolation.
The decision to prosecute would still be subject to two tests: whether the evidence was sufficient, and whether prosecution was in the public interest. However, the report recommends a change to the CPS public interest test, which currently allows a case to be discontinued if the alleged offence is minor, or the likely penalty trivial. That change would assist chief constables to target particular crimes, often of an anti-social nature, which in themselves would not necessarily be regarded as serious, but which can make life a misery for innocent people, creating conditions in which more serious crime can flourish.
One significant cause of delay at present is that the time taken by defendants to obtain legal aid means that cases cannot be brought to court immediately after charge. The report recommends that all defendants who intend to plead guilty should obtain legal advice and representation from the duty solicitor at court. That would be free of charge. It would also be extremely prompt, being given on the morning of the day on which the court appearance took place. That would mean that defendants who pleaded guilty would be dealt with the day after they were charged. The effect would be dramatic: for more than half of all defendants charged, the proceedings could be completed the next day—compared with under 3 per cent. now.
When a defendant pleaded not guilty, an application for legal aid would be made in the normal way, but it would have to be made promptly. The report recommends that courts should insist that defendants who fail to take adequate steps to secure representation or legal aid have to use the duty solicitor in court that day unless they decide not to be represented.
Next, the report recommends that those pleading not guilty should also appear in court the day after charge at an early administrative hearing, to be conducted by the clerk to the justices. At that hearing, the defendant would be told what the court needed in order to consider eligibility for legal aid, and also about the nature of the forthcoming proceedings. Those hearings have been shown substantially to reduce adjournments.
The report also recommends that clerks to the justices should hold pre-trial reviews and be given additional administrative powers very similar to those that they already have in family proceedings. Pre-trial reviews will focus issues of dispute between the parties, so that cases are fully prepared for trial before they are put to magistrates. The principle should be that a case should not go before magistrates until it is ready to proceed and should then proceed without unnecessary adjournment. No one reading the report could fail to be impressed by the evidence from one pre-trial review, completed in one morning and observed by the reviewer, which obviated the need for no fewer than 15 police officers to attend future hearings.
I want to stress, however, that the intention behind extending clerks' powers would be to reinforce the lay magistracy, which has been described, quite rightly, as a

431
cornerstone of our system of justice. There has been some speculation in the press about stripping magistrates of some of their current powers. The reviewer makes no such recommendation and, had he done so, I would have rejected it.
The next area concerns the youth court. The proposals that I have already described for joint working between the police and the CPS and for legal aid reform would, in themselves, bring offenders to justice at the youth court much more quickly. In addition, the report makes recommendations specific to the youth court. The most important is that 17-year-olds should be returned to the jurisdiction of the adult court, leaving the youth court to deal more promptly with offenders of school-leaving age and below. It was the near-unanimous verdict of all those interviewed by the reviewer that 17-year-old offenders are too sophisticated for the youth court, where they account for about a third of all cases. They tend to be more experienced offenders and are often disruptive and unco-operative.
The second recommendation is that the police should make the decision whether to caution or to charge an offender immediately, rather than—as frequently happens now—refer the case for advice to a multi-agency panel. If there is any doubt, the case should go to the youth court. If the court decides that a caution might be appropriate, it should be able to give one and, when it sees fit, attach conditions to the caution, such as compensation or reparation to the victim. Young offenders would then be in court within days of being caught, rather than, as is frequently the case now, many weeks later.
Finally, the review makes recommendations about cases that go to the Crown court. About 20 per cent. of all those tried in the Crown court—about 24,000 defendants each year—insist on being tried there, despite magistrates having previously decided that the case was more suitable for them to deal with. About two thirds of those defendants then plead guilty at the Crown court. About three quarters are found guilty.
The reviewer recommends that it should be for magistrates to take the decision as to which cases triable either in magistrates courts or the Crown court, such as theft, handling stolen goods or burglary, need to be committed to the higher court. Those seeking Crown court trial without good reason, perhaps simply to delay proceedings, would no longer be able to overrule the magistrates' view that they should try the case. On the other hand, defendants with a good reason for jury trial—perhaps because of the complexity of the case, because they are defending an unblemished reputation or because of the potential effect of a conviction on the individual—would be able to present those reasons to magistrates, who would be free to commit the case.
That is not a new idea. It builds on a very similar recommendation made in 1993 by the royal commission on criminal justice. It recognised the need for a more rational basis for distributing cases between the courts and it noted that, in Scotland, the decision on whether a defendant should be entitled to jury trial is made by the prosecutor.
I recognise that this recommendation is extremely sensitive, as any proposal to restrict the availability of jury trial is bound to arouse strong feelings. Jury trial is a central feature of our system of justice and one to which the Government are entirely committed. We would not
432
wish to restrict it without very careful thought. On the other hand, the report's recommendation offers substantial advantages. It would divert from the Crown court cases—often of a petty nature—which do not need to be there. It might also make it easier to pursue another of the report's recommendations, also favoured by the royal commission, under which the most serious offences, those triable only at the Crown court, could be handled more effectively and more speedily by starting there from the outset, rather than spending about half their life in magistrates courts awaiting committal.
We shall want to consider both those recommendations particularly carefully in the light of views expressed. If other avenues of approach are suggested, we shall of course consider them. There may also need to be a right of appeal against the magistrates' decision not to allow a case to go to the Crown court and, of course, anyone convicted by magistrates would, as now, have a right of appeal against conviction or sentence to a judge—but not a jury—at the Crown court.
Those are important proposals. More work needs to be done on the extent of the financial implications, and the Government want to listen to the views of those who work in the criminal justice system, on both the principles and the practicality of the recommendations, before making decisions. However, I am confident that, taken together, they could dramatically speed up the prosecution process, bringing the guilty to justice and acquitting the innocent more quickly and at lower cost.
Madam Speaker, let me remind you what the proposals would achieve if implemented. First, all defendants would appear in court the day after they were charged. Fewer than one in five do so now. Secondly, a pilot study has indicated that at least 50 per cent. of those defendants—those who indicate that they would plead guilty—would be convicted the day after they were charged. That happens in only 3 per cent. of cases now. Thirdly, the time taken to bring a young offender to court from the date of his offence—which is currently 10 weeks—would be no more than a few days. That would save the valuable time of all those engaged in the criminal justice process, including witnesses and victims. It would help to ensure that the energies of police officers could be spent protecting the public, rather than going backwards and forwards to magistrates courts.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The proposals have the potential, by drastically reducing delay and restoring the direct and speedy link between detection and conviction, to afford justice more speedily and in much greater measure to victims, to witnesses and to the general public alike.
Mr. Jack Straw: May I first thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see this document in time for me to study it with care? We shall, of course, review it carefully, because it deserves detailed consideration.
Very late though they are, many of the specific proposals contained in today's statement are ones for which we have called, and they have our support. They include the proposal to reduce to 17 the maximum age at which defendants can go to juvenile courts—although I might add that that amounts to a complete reversal of a policy that the Government introduced only six years ago-and the change in the public interest test, to ensure

433
that more minor offences can be prosecuted where local need requires that. It is doubtful, however, that issuing a consultative document such as this eight weeks before the general election will enable the Secretary of State to regain the initiative on law and order, which the Conservative party has so comprehensively lost.
Is not the real significance of the review published today that, to those who read it, it amounts to a catalogue of neglect and complacency on the part of the Government in their running of the criminal justice system? At long last, the Government have been forced to recognise crucial failings in the system on which the Opposition have demanded action for years, but in many respects, today's announcement is too little, too late. Is it not the case that when in May 1995 I called for major reform of the Crown Prosecution Service, Ministers said that none was needed? Now, the paper is as damning as we have been: it talks of "dislocation" between the police and the CPS and of the CPS "papering over the cracks". However, the proposals for reform—welcome though they are—do not go nearly far enough.
Is it not also the case that when nine months ago we published proposals for a root-and-branch reform of the shambles of the youth justice system, Ministers said that they were doing everything that was needed? Now, the paper confirms exactly what we have said—that it is the near-unanimous opinion of everyone connected with the youth courts that the system is unsatisfactory. The review quotes with approval the view of the distinguished youth justice stipendiary magistrate, Mr. Geoffrey Wicks, that the
"largest contribution to youth crime reduction would be the abolition of the youth courts"
in their present form. That is exactly what we have proposed.
Given the daily scandal of our youth justice system, in which half those found guilty are let off and in which persistent offenders wait for months and months for trial and offend time and again on bail, why is all that is proposed in this review just another review? Does the Secretary of State not recognise the urgency of establishing a fast-track system for persistent offenders, to halve the time taken between offence and proper punishment, as we have proposed?
Let me now refer to the proposal to end the right of many defendants to elect for trial by jury, even though they may face charges of dishonesty, and their reputation and their whole future may be at stake. I note that in his statement the Secretary of State has been altogether more tentative than those from his office who briefed the Daily Mail this morning. Surely, cutting down the right to jury trial, making the system less fair, is not only wrong but short-sighted, and likely to prove ineffective. I therefore urge the Secretary of State not to accept the proposal.
Is it not the case that that not only is the view of the Opposition and many practitioners and jurists, but was the view of the Secretary of State, at least until today? I wonder whether the Secretary of State has forgotten that in July 1995, in a consultation paper on the mode of trial, he said:
"Since currently two thirds of committals to the Crown Court are the result of magistrates' refusing jurisdiction, this has the potential to retain a larger amount of business than by limiting the defendants' right to elect for jury trial."
434
Has the Secretary of State forgotten that the Government rejected restricting the right to jury trial in favour of that proposal, which is now in section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, passed only last year?
Is the Secretary of State aware that just nine months ago, in his final response to the royal commission, he made the following telling point:
"The Government … considers that such a fundamental change to the right to jury trial … should not be undertaken unless it is clear that would be the only possible way of achieving the objective"?
He went on to say that the effects of section 49
"will be monitored and the Royal Commission's recommendations reconsidered in the light of the result of that monitoring exercise."
Is the Secretary of State aware that section 49 has not yet even been implemented? Yet he now appears ready to rush ahead to restrict the right of jury trial, breaking the clear undertakings about monitoring the effect of section 49, which he gave only nine months ago.
If a police officer, a Member of Parliament or even a Secretary of State were charged with an offence of dishonesty, would they not insist on being tried by a jury? If that is the case, why should others be denied that right of election?
I also press the Secretary of State on whether the proposal will work as intended. Is he not aware that, despite a reduced case load, during the past 10 years delays in the magistrates court have increased by 50 per cent.—more than in the Crown court? Will not the proposal, forcing mini-trials on magistrates about which court should hear a case, the delays that might occur when there was an interlocutory appeal against a decision, and more contested trials in the magistrates court simply worsen those delays?
Does not the author of the review, Mr. Narey, undermine his whole case by admitting that the
"proportion of cases committed to the Crown Court … which are the result of defendant elections has dropped in recent years"—
and that the problem, which can be dealt with in other ways, is that two thirds of referrals to the Crown Court are made, not by the election of the defendant, but by the magistrates alone declining to hear the case in their courts?
As any defendant convicted in a magistrates court has an absolute right to a complete rehearing of his case in the Crown court, might not there be a significant increase in such appeals to the Crown court, thus increasing the Crown court work load, too? That aspect was wholly ignored by the author and the royal commission.
Overall, does not the Home Secretary's statement represent a profound failure of the Government to honour their promises to maintain law and order in our society? Will not the voters of Wirral, South and elsewhere recognise the indelible facts of that failure, given that, after 18 years and 34 separate criminal justice Acts, crime has doubled, while the number of people convicted of those crimes has fallen by a third? There have been 2.5 million more recorded crimes since 1979, but 150,000 fewer people convicted by the courts for those crimes—much more crime, and many more criminals, especially young ones, getting off scot free.

435
Against that background, was not the former Home Office Minister and Cabinet Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), entirely correct when he said that the Conservative party had "lost the plot" on law and order?
Mr. Howard: I begin by acknowledging the good sense of the first few words of the hon. Gentleman's response to my statement, when he said that the report that I am publishing today deserves detailed consideration; that is indeed what it deserves. Unfortunately, having begun his response in that way, the hon. Gentleman proceeded to dismiss out of hand one of the report's central recommendations.
The hon. Gentleman seems to have entirely overlooked the way in which I dealt with that recommendation in my statement. I said that we would want to consider both that recommendation and the recommendation relating to indictable only offences starting in the Crown court particularly carefully in the light of views expressed, and expressly said that if other avenues of approach were suggested, we would of course consider them. Taken as a whole, however, the report represents a coherent package of measures, which together could have a dramatic impact on delays in our courts. Those of our fellow citizens who come into contact with such delays day after day, in all sorts of capacities—as witnesses, as victims and as jurors—want action to be taken to deal with those delays, and, taken as a whole, the package represents a significant way forward.
The hon. Gentleman referred to his party's proposals to reform the Crown Prosecution Service, and to my initial response to those proposals. It is perfectly true that I opposed Labour's proposals for reform when the hon. Gentleman announced them—because they were the wrong proposals for reform. They would have led to widespread dislocation, and would have been entirely counter-productive.
Mr. Straw: The fast track.
Mr. Howard: "The fast track," says the hon. Gentleman from a sedentary position. I noted that he did not go into any details of his fast-track proposals. That is not surprising. Those who examine his fast-track proposals will find them very illuminating. As with everything else, the figures do not add up. Labour proposes to stop legal aid in cases in which it is hardly ever granted at present, and claims to be able, with those non-existent savings, to deliver a completely non-deliverable pledge. It proposes that stipendiary magistrates should try juveniles, and that lay magistrates should then come along to the same case and sentence them. Those proposals are half-baked, and would not be given house room by any decent think tank.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend is right to stress that two thirds of defendants in the either-way cases that go to jury trial end up pleading guilty. That must impose enormous costs on the courts, but more worrying is the delay that it causes for more serious cases that are properly tried by a jury. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to speculate
436
on how much of a saving could be made in terms of the current delays in serious trials, which worry so many of us?
Mr. Howard: The reviewer in the report reaches what he regards as the reasonably conservative conclusion that the savings that would result from his proposals overall might amount to something in the region of £110 million a year, of which £70 million would come from the specific proposal relating to the Crown courts. Let me emphasise, however, that those savings—welcome though they would be—are not the prime motive behind the proposals. We want to deal with the delays, with the dreadful inconvenience caused to those who have to go to court and with the extremely damaging effect on justice that is a consequence of those delays. That is the motivation behind the proposals.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I, too, am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for allowing me to see the review earlier today. It contains a number of worthwhile proposals, which we shall certainly consider, and which will speed up the criminal justice system.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise, however, that one part of the review is extremely badly flawed? I refer to the Soviet-style rewriting of history in the section that deals with the right to elect jury trial. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, ever since defendants were first given the right to give evidence on their own behalf in trials, they have had the right to elect trial by jury? Does he not recognise that that is a fundamental freedom, which is not to be done away with in the cause of saving money?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman further recognise that, if the proposals on the abolition of the right to elect jury trial were brought into effect, there would be a considerable increase in delays in magistrates courts, unless the Government were to take the view that a large additional number of stipendiary magistrates were to be appointed? Further, does he not recall that when the Crown Prosecution Service was established by the right hon. and learned Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew), the independence of the CPS was the benchmark behind its establishment? Does he not agree that the arm's length independence of the CPS remains very important; that while it is, of course, appropriate for police forces to have lawyers in police stations, those lawyers should not be part of the independent CPS, but should be employed by police forces—as is the case in many forces now—and advise those police forces?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for the qualified welcome that he gave to some of the proposals in the report. I do not think that his strictures on the perfectly accurate way in which the report deals with the history of jury trial were at all justified. I believe, as I said at the outset, that the proposal merits very careful consideration, and it has merit in it. I made it plain, immediately before he got to his feet, that we were not putting forward that or any other proposal in the package on financial grounds. I do not say that the savings will not be welcome, but that is not the reason why the proposals were made. They were put forward to speed up the system of justice that we have in this country, and to do away with the delays that disfigure it at the moment. That is extremely important.

437
As to the hon. and learned Gentleman's last point, I cannot see any justification whatever for erecting a whole new battery of lawyers in the system—lawyers employed by the police. I entirely agree with him and yield to no one in my recognition of the importance of the independence of the CPS. I believe that it has been a valuable addition to our system since it was set up in the early 1980s, but I do not believe, as I said in my statement, that independence need mean isolation. I do not think that that independence will be at all imperilled by the collocation of the CPS and the police in some police stations.
Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. and learned Friend will, perhaps, be aware that I do not agree with him that the right to trial by one's fellow men should be taken away in cases where dishonesty is involved. It is an ancient and well-tried right. One cannot be satisfied by the fact that we are told that two thirds plead guilty. What about the one third who plead not guilty? The whole concept of justice goes with that.
I am very worried that if we go down the road that the report advocates, many trials will have to be heard in the magistrates courts, and one of the problems with magistrates courts is that trials are often disrupted. Magistrates will hear one part one day, another part in a fortnight's time, and another a month after that. That cannot be justice in any sense of the word, but that is what happens. Is there anything in my right hon. and learned Friend's proposals to rectify that problem?
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's criticism of the way in which some trials are conducted in magistrates courts and the delays that result from that. I believe that the proposals will go a considerable way towards improving that. The combination of early administrative hearings and pre-trial reviews will enable the justices' clerk to form a view before the case ever reaches the magistrates, for example, that it is a case that is likely to take three or four days to try. The clerk will then be in a position to make available justices for that period, so that the case will be heard in one go, as it should be, and not in the way that my hon. Friend identified, which happens far too frequently at present.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's criticism on that, and hope that some of the proposals will go a long way towards meeting it.
Mr. John Fraser: As someone who acts as a duty solicitor, may I give the Home Secretary two pieces of advice? First, we should be selective, because having a pre-trial review in every case adds to expense, cost and time. Secondly, although it sounds attractive for people to appear in court the day after charge, it presents the police with considerable logistical problems. For example, the policeman may have been on duty all night. If the defendant is not in custody, it is not necessary for him to appear the next day. There should be a close link between the criminal act and its consequences, which is Labour party policy. Many measures are introduced for headlines rather than for effect.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his first point, which we shall take on board. It is an
438
important matter on which we may want to reflect. As to his second point, I think that there would be considerable advantages in defendants appearing in court the day after they have been charged and, when they intend to plead guilty, being convicted the day after they have been charged. That would be a dramatic improvement in the system. I have every reason to believe that the police will welcome the proposals, not least because they would have that consequence. Shortening the time between the offence and the conviction and sentence may be Labour party policy, but Labour has produced no proposals that would give effect to it.
Mr. John Greenway: In the 10 years I have been in the House, I have seldom heard such good sense from a Minister in a statement. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) said, I believe that we should never have abolished the practice of dealing with people in a magistrates court the day after they are charged, and that it should be reintroduced. It is not a problem for the police service: it certainly was not in my day. I believe that the police will welcome the proposal.
On either-way trials, if we can trust magistrates to decide guilt or innocence, why cannot we trust magistrates to decide whether cases are sufficiently serious to be tried by a jury in a Crown court?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: there is much in his second point. At the moment, a number of serious offences that would undoubtedly have a considerable effect on someone's reputation are triable only summarily. Assault on a police officer is not an offence that gives rise to a right to trial by jury. The consequences of such an assault could be extremely serious, yet it is a summary only offence. Many serious offences with serious consequences for defendants do not have an automatic right to jury trial. We should weigh that in the balance when we make a final decision on the proposal.
Mr. David Winnick: Given the delays in the criminal justice system, would the proposals be of any assistance to Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence, who, for four years, have done their utmost to see to it that those who murdered their son Stephen are brought to justice? Is that not a glaring example of where the criminal justice system is not working? In those circumstances, is it not right for a newspaper to do what it can to ensure that those whom it believes are guilty of that terrible murder four years ago are brought to justice?
Mr. Howard: I have previously placed my views on that matter on the record. The hon. Gentleman is right to imply that the proposals, which do not pretend to cure every defect in our criminal justice system, would not have had any bearing on that case.
Mr. Winnick indicated assent.
Mr. Howard: I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman nodding vigorously in assent to that proposition. I hope that he will nod equally vigorously in assent to my second proposition. What might have made a difference in the Lawrence case was the change that we made to the right to silence, which was not in force when that killing was committed. The police take the view that, had that change

439
been in force, it might have made a difference to the outcome of that investigation and that case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has not entirely forgotten that that change was opposed root and branch by the Opposition parties and that they spoke and voted against it consistently.
Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the criminal fraternity does not like him very much, but that the police to whom I have talked in west Yorkshire think that he has done a superb job in giving them the tools to fight those criminals, and that the result has been that in recent years crime has been falling? Is he aware, however, that the one concern that the police have is the amount of time that it can take for cases to come to court, so the police will no doubt welcome his announcement, which will, I hope, help to speed up the process of justice?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I understand that the police organisations have welcomed the proposals. They will no doubt wish to consider them carefully, but I hope that they will achieve precisely the result that my hon. Friend identified—cutting police paperwork and form filling and enabling the police to spend more time on our streets, helping to protect the public, which is, I hope, what we all want.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Can the Secretary of State remind the House where we are up to on the provision of more secure places for serious persistent young offenders? My recollection is that extra places have been announced about three times, but none has yet materialised. The provision of more secure places is the thing that would make most difference in my constituency, where a handful of persistent young offenders cause mayhem. There is no point speeding up the system, welcome though that is, if it just puts them back on the street to cause mayhem more quickly.
Mr. Howard: The places are coming on stream all the time and we have been financing many of them. Unfortunately, in some regions, local authority social services departments are reluctant to use the secure places that are available, just as, some time ago, Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities, including that in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, were reluctant to construct secure accommodation.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: Is not the gravest impediment to justice delays to justice itself? Does not a most gross disfigurement to justice occur when young people are held on remand in prison, sometimes for many months—with old lags and people who try to corrupt them—and ultimately are found innocent? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his proposals will prevent such impediments to justice from taking place?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am reluctant to claim that any particular proposal or set of proposals will constitute a panacea, but taken as a whole, this package of proposals offers the prospect of substantial advance, of a substantial reduction in delay and of a
440
substantial improvement in the system, but we shall listen carefully to everything that is said, particularly by those who work in the system, before we reach final decisions.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Very important new discretionary powers are proposed for lay magistrates, and those powers affect the liberty of the subject. In what form will guidance be given to justices on the exercise of that discretion? Will it be possible, for example, to hear applications in camera, in closed courts, in particular circumstances if sensitive matters are involved? Is the Home Secretary really convinced that the lay magistracy as composed now can take on the extra case load that will be generated by the proposals?
Mr. Howard: I believe so, if the other proposals in the package are implemented, as they will relieve many of the burdens that local magistrates suffer. I would envisage that if we proceeded to legislation, the legislation itself would identify the criteria that magistrates would take into account in deciding whether a case should be sent for trial by jury. The hon. Gentleman's proposal about the possibility of their sitting in camera when considering applications for trial by jury is a valuable one, to which we should certainly have regard when we examine the matters in detail.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement, which should help to accelerate criminal justice cases? Can he shed any light on the injustice of innocent people being held on bail? Will the proposals help to reduce the number of people being held on bail and if so, how much would that save the criminal justice system?
Mr. Howard: That is a very difficult estimate to make. I think that there will be such savings. The proposals mean that fewer innocent people will be likely to be held on remand. That is an outcome devoutly to be desired, and, although my hon. Friend did not mean to suggest it, not simply because of the financial savings that would accrue, but because it is important from the point of view of the liberty of the subject. If we succeed in reducing delays, that will have the consequential effects that my hon. Friend identified.
Mr. John Gunnell: At a time when the country is focused on miscarriages of justice, is the Home Secretary convinced that removing from defendants the right to choose a trial by jury will assist in preventing miscarriages of justice? Will it increase them or will it have very little effect?
Mr. Howard: If anything, it will prevent miscarriages of justice or reduce them. The report contains a reference by an extremely experienced magistrate, who says that she has never heard an application or representation made for trial on the ground of a blot on someone's reputation. She says that those who opt for trial by jury are experienced criminals who are playing the system, often in the hope that, for a variety of reasons, one of the witnesses in the case might not turn up and that might enable them to get an acquittal, which would be unjust. Although we must strain to ensure that no innocent people

441
are convicted, it is also an injustice if those who are guilty are acquitted. The changes may well have the overall effect of reducing injustice in our system.
Dr. Robert Spink: In considering the report and bringing forward proposals, will my right hon. and learned Friend avoid any policy that might lead to the separation of the consideration of juvenile cases from their sentencing? That would be complete nonsense and would lead to tremendous frustration for the victims of crime, who are not mentioned enough in this place. The police would also find it unacceptable.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That proposal, emanating from the Labour party through the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), is so eccentric that I find it difficult to believe that the Opposition are seriously putting it forward.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Home Secretary convinced us that there is a need to bring into our constitution the only demand of the Chartist movement 150 years ago that is not part of our law—the demand for annual Parliaments? Is it not extraordinary that today Opposition Members are in the unique and unnerving position of agreeing with the Home Secretary's statement? Is not that entirely because it is a last gasp statement by a death-bed Government?
Will the Home Secretary return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin)? I get precisely the same complaints from police and magistrates in my constituency, who say that there is a tiny group of young people, some of them adults, who are serious offenders, but no action can be taken to stop them committing offences. One such individual was guilty of 50 offences, but cannot be
442
detained. According to the police and the magistrates, that is not because of problems locally, but because of difficulties emanating from Government action.
Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. I recommend that he' takes the matter up with his local social services department, which should be able to make use of secure accommodation if the youngsters to whom he refers come before the courts. Sometimes they are not dealt with because of the practice of magistrates of not dealing with a defendant who has committed a number of other offences after first coming before the court. The Magistrates Association has recently issued guidance that that practice should no longer be followed. If the proposals substantially reduce delays, fewer offences will be committed between the first offence and the defendant being dealt with, which will have substantial beneficial effects.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the miscarriages of justice that most concern most of our constituents are those that involve guilty parties going free because of eccentricities, technicalities and delays in the criminal justice system? I congratulate him on applying the energy that he has so far—extremely successfully—focused mostly on serious crime to the equally worrying problems of juvenile and petty crime. I also congratulate him on his carefully thought through package—the legal aid provision, the pre-trial hearings and other measures—which will provide faster justice instead of pious generalisations.
Mr. Howard: Of course, we are all concerned about all miscarriages of justice—the guilty going free from court or the innocent being convicted. We all have to recognise that no human system of justice is likely to be infallible. I believe that the proposals will help to improve the effectiveness of our system of justice, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support.

Business of the House
4.21 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 3 MARCH—Motion on the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations.
Motions on the Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) Order and the Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the Company Accounts (Disclosure of Directors' Emoluments) Regulations.
TUESDAY 4 MARCH—Until 7 o'clock, motions on the Scottish revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.
Remaining stages of the Welsh Development Agency Bill.
WEDNESDAY 5 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 o'clock, motion on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
THURSDAY 6 MARCH—Debate on public expenditure on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 7 MARCH—The House will not be sitting.
For the following week I can, once again, give only limited information.
MONDAY 10 MARCH—Opposition Day (7th Allotted Day) (First part).
Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion in the names of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. Subject to be announced.
That will be followed by Government business.
The House will also wish to know 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—European Community Documents: (a) OJ C340, Court of Auditors' Report for 1995; (b) OJ C395, Court of Auditors' Statement of Assurance for 1995; (c) OJ C395, 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)
Tuesday 4 March:
The Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order 1997; The Revenue Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1997; The Special Grant Report (Scotland) on Supplementary Mismatch Scheme Grant for 1997–98. The Special Grant Report (Scotland) on grant in aid of building works at
444
Dunblane primary school and grant in aid of local authority revenue costs resulting from the Dunblane tragedy.]
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. I note that we are to have what I might call yet another Government Supply day next Thursday.
Before asking the Leader of the House about one or two issues that I think should be included in next week's business, I should like to ask him about the business scheduled for Monday. Hon. Members will have seen below the line on the Order Paper several orders relating to the Representation of the People Acts and amendments thereto. Only two of those are scheduled for approval by the House next Monday. Do the Government intend to bring forward the other orders? I am particularly interested in the amendment—an agreed amendment, to the best of my knowledge—to close some of the loopholes and abuses in the absent voting procedures. That important issue is relevant to the democracy of our country. Why is the package not being taken together? My second question on that is: will it be dealt with before the election? It is important, and it requires the approval of the House.
Will the Leader of the House seek to make time in what is clearly a slack period for a debate on the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment—before it is privatised?
Another point, which has been raised repeatedly in the past few months, relates to the mystical building societies Bill. Where is it? Are we going to see it? The Leader of the House is well aware that the Opposition are prepared to facilitate the agreed legislation, for which the industry is desperate. There is clearly a hole in the Government's programme and we would like to know whether that Bill will be put into it.
I should also like to ask the Leader of the House about the non-publication of the report of the inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster, which occurred well over a year ago. Is it to be assumed that the report will not be available before the election? We know that the salvage operation was bungled, leaving 72,000 tonnes of oil in the waters; that, as every television viewer saw for days on end, Ministers showed no interest in intervening even though they had the power to do so; and that the third heavy tug on the western approaches recommended in the Donaldson report was not in place due to the Government's penny pinching.
Answers in the other place in the past few days have indicated that the report was on target for publication in February—yet, in two days' time, it will be March. The implication of the delay is that the Government intend not to let the report see the light of day before the election. Frankly, that is not good enough. It looks as though we can claim legitimately that there has been a cover-up. Will the Leader of the House comment on that and look into the matter?
May I raise the need for a debate and/or statement by the Secretary of State for Defence following the proceedings in the Select Committee on Defence yesterday? He appears not to have shown the slightest interest in the issue of chemicals used in the Gulf war and the effect on our troops. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces is an honourable man, and, contrary to

445
what has been implied in some of the press reports today, he is not a liar. He has, however, proved himself less than an alert Minister. As everybody knows, and contrary to what the Prime Minister said today, it is a matter of public record that, in October 1995—
Sir Roger Moate: Is this something to do with next week's business?
Mr. Rooker: Yes, next week's business. We need a debate and a statement on the issue. In October 1995, local purchase of organophosphates was referred to in Ministers' civil service briefings in preparation for questions in the House—yet that was never disclosed. How can a Minister dismiss briefings in October 1995 and then claim that Ministers were given clear written advice from the civil service on the issue only in September 1996? The issue is important and there is time for it to be raised on the Floor of the House before Parliament is dissolved.
The Leader of the House will recall that, on 10 December last year, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that, due to his previous role as a Minister responsible for farming,
"I am extraordinarily aware of the question of OPs".—[Official Report, 10 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 132.]
None the less, he ignored his own civil service brief. What was the Secretary of State doing? Was he being briefed? If not, was he asking the advisers in the Ministry any questions? If there is a contradiction between a brief and a draft answer, surely Ministers should be asking questions about it. Should not a Minister keep his officials on their toes and be critical at all times? It appears that that has not been so. Although it is clear that we have a sloppy, lazy Minister, who is falling short of his duties, the Secretary of State should carry the can and make a statement to the House on the issue next week.
Mr. Newton: To take the last point first, for a moment I thought that the hon. Gentleman was virtually alone and unaided in initiating a debate on the matter. I am grateful for him at least acknowledging that my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) is an honourable Member and Minister. At the same time, I should make it clear that I do not for one moment accept the rest of his rather abusive remarks about my hon. Friend, and indeed my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I think that my hon. Friend has behaved absolutely properly in making a statement to the House last December—as soon as he reasonably could once new information became available—and in giving extensive evidence yesterday on those matters, quite openly and straightforwardly, to the Defence Select Committee. Beyond that, I will not attempt to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on those points during Prime Minister's Question Time. However, I certainly know of no plans for a statement of the type requested by the hon. Gentleman.
As for the Sea Empress, I must again reject any suggestion that some type of cover-up—to use the hon. Gentleman's rather overheated language—is occurring. I will of course bring the points that he has made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
446
for Transport, who has always made it absolutely clear that he wants the matters to be pursued as vigorously, but also as thoroughly, as the incident requires.
I am not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman will be aware—although I imagine that he has been told—that a good deal of discussion has taken place in the usual channels on the building societies Bill. I can tell him that we do intend to introduce the Bill—on the basis that the Opposition will deliver on the assurance which he has now publicly given on the Floor of the House that they will fully co-operate in passing it speedily, which clearly is the only way in which it can be passed at this time in the Session. I am grateful to him for giving that assurance, and I hope that he will make every endeavour to ensure that they—I was about to say "deliver", but the implication of that word would be offensive, and I certainly do not mean to be offensive in any way. I am grateful for his comments.
On privatisation of the Building Research Establishment, I will draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my hon. and right hon. Friends. However, I cannot now promise a debate of the type that he suggested.
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on his point on the various orders.
Mr. James Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous confusion among the public about the future of grammar schools? Will he therefore make early arrangements for a debate centred on the future of those schools, particularly because of the contradictory remarks made by Opposition Members? He will be aware that, 16 months ago, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said that grammar schools would be abolished. Matters have apparently changed since then—but we should like to test that. Will he provide us with an opportunity to discuss the issue, either in Government time or—preferably, as it is their fault—in Opposition time, so that we can clear it up?
Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed any further, I remind hon. Members that this is not speech time. I do not want to hear speeches, I want to hear direct questions on what will happen next week. I know that the Leader of the House will be good enough to speed up, because I want to move on to other business.
Mr. Newton: One thing that is not within my power is to make commitments on the use of Opposition time. Perhaps the best thing for me to tell my hon. Friend is that those matters are closely related to a piece of legislation currently under discussion in another place. When that legislation returns to the House, there should be opportunities of the type that he seeks.
Mr. David Alton: Has the Leader of the House had a chance to study early-day motion 584?
[That this House records the remarks of the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Professor Joseph Rotblat, that developments in cloning and genetics 'may result in mass destruction'; welcomes the decision of the White House to urgently reassess the ethical and legal implications of the cloning of a sheep at the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to suspend

447
further experiments involving cloning and transgenic animals, to initiate a wide-ranging public debate and to appoint additional representatives to the Genetics Commission who reflect traditional concerns about the sanctity of human life, who are opposed to the development of eugenics, and who disagree with the Nuffield Council's view that 'species boundaries, in any case, are not inviolable.'.]
The motion—which I tabled, and which is supported by representatives of five of the political parties in the House—calls for a ban on the cloning experiments that have been conducted in Scotland. Will he arrange for a debate next week on that important subject, and for a review of the make-up of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission, so that it is more broadly based and contains dissenting views?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that today my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology spoke on both the scientific implications and the effective ethical safeguards that are already in place. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend, and my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health, will carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend consider granting a debate combining the subjects of cloning and grammar schools? Some extravagant claims have been made that the Government's policy on grammar schools has been cloned by the Opposition parties, but that is completely untrue, and the experiments have been fraudulent.
Mr. Newton: From what I hear, the clones appear only in parts of the country where a by-election is taking place.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport about the assets of London Transport? Yesterday, we were told that the value of those major assets was unknown and that no reserve price had been suggested for their sale. Perhaps the Leader of the House could draw the attention of the Department of Transport to the list of assets of the London regional transport system, which gave a value of £13 billion for infrastructure, property, rolling stock, equipment and conservation, plus a sum of £29 million per annum for property letting. I would like to know what the Government are playing at.
Mr. Newton: Unless I am to make a speech—which I do not intend to do, in response to your strictures, Madam Speaker—in reply to what sounded suspiciously close to being a speech, my proper course is to draw the hon. Lady's attention to the Secretary of State for Transport's presence in the House to answer questions on Monday 10 March.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have accepted the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee on the working of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. The Committee suggested that although people thought the Act had been implemented too hastily, it was successful and worked, but the time had come to introduce some flexibility. I understand that the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the
448
Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), which has come from the House of Lords, is to be debated in the Chamber and that, with the agreement of both sides, it would reach the Statute Book before the rising of Parliament. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when the dangerous dogs issue will be debated and the legislation implemented?
Mr. Newton: I cannot give an immediate undertaking about when the issue will be debated. The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill is listed for discussion tomorrow, but it is well down a long list and, in all honesty, it is unlikely to be debated. I hope, however, that the House will agree that the Bill should proceed, so that it can be amended in a way that would reflect the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Forgive my curiosity, but, in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), the Leader of the House used the phrase "new information" about organophosphates. What new information? Next week, may we have a statement on the increasing practice—which being old-fashioned, I find distasteful—of Ministers blaming civil servants, despite the doctrine of ministerial responsibility? May we have a statement on that doctrine, which seems to have vanished out of the window?
Mr. Newton: I do not for a moment accept the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. As it happens and as he will know, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in discussion with Opposition Front Benchers about issues arising from ministerial accountability to the House. I do not recall making any reference to new information—
Mr. Rooker: You did.
Mr. Newton: In that case, I shall read what I said and if I feel that I should correct something or come back to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I shall.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Will my right hon. Friend provide some time next week to discuss the process of adoption in the United Kingdom? The social services inspectorate report, published in December, highlighted the long wait of up to three years that children in care sometimes have. I know that my right hon. Friend may refer me to a Wednesday morning debate, but he will know how difficult it is to obtain one.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the occupant of the Chair will have heard my hon. Friend's comments about Wednesday morning debates. She is right to think that I would refer her in that direction, because I could not promise Government time for such a debate in the near future.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Royal British Legion is currently seeking judicial review of the proposed cuts affecting war veterans with hearing loss? Will he ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to drop those dreadful cuts and to come to the House and apologise to war veterans? They should have our gratitude, not cuts in their benefits.
Mr. Newton: A meeting was arranged a considerable time before the Royal British Legion's recent

449
announcement, so perhaps I could simply make the point that the Minister of State, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish, is due to meet the Legion and its advisers on 12 March to discuss those matters.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend initiate a debate early next week on the role of local authorities in the planning process, so that the Minister replying to it can explain how the codes of practice on development plans can be adhered to? That is an issue of the greatest importance not only nationally but to my constituents, who face the problems associated with a socialist borough council that seeks to build social housing on recreation grounds and other green-chain areas.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have noticed that my ever-assiduous hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency has manifestly been here to note his remarks—and all Environment Ministers will be here to answer questions next Tuesday.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 563, on the new electoral registers?
[That this House is amazed that, although new electoral registers came into operation on 16th February and that this is an age of fax machines, computers and other forms of modern technology, the Office of National Statistics is unable to publish, until April, even in a provisional form, the total number of people who are on the new electoral registers in England and Wales; and further contrasts this with the touch-button technology used by the National Lottery.]
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that for some time I have been trying to discover the number of people on the electoral registers that have been in force since 16 February. The Northern Ireland figures have been provided, but the wrong figures, a year out of date, have been given for Scotland, and as for the figures for England and Wales, all that has happened is that the date initially offered for providing them—April—has been moved forward by the Prime Minister to late March. Can we not have those figures now? Is there not a great contrast between that arrangement and the national lottery, for which one can discover within two hours how much money has been lodged and how many winners there are? Why can we not know how many people are registered in each constituency? It would be an easy matter to give the House that information, so that it could be used in the future.
Mr. Newton: I am not sure that I see an easy analogy between the electoral register and the national lottery. Clearly the Office for National Statistics has before it a substantial task, which takes time. As the hon. Gentleman has already said, every effort is being made to provide the information that he wants as soon as possible.
Mr. Richard Tracey: May I again try to persuade my right hon. Friend to give time for a debate on standards in education, in which the Government's firm principles on standards in schools could be restated? I imagine that he is aware that this morning the Labour party spokesman on education made some sort of
450
statement on standards in, of all places, Islington. He will surely recognise that such a debate would allow the Government to state again their principles on standards, as well as allowing the Opposition to explain why they consistently fail to deliver standards in education, despite the fact that the Labour party controls so many education authorities. That is where education is failing in this country, and it is not through any efforts of the Government.
Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that I think that my hon. Friend has made a good point, with which I have great sympathy. However, I am afraid that that does not enable me to promise such a debate, although there will be opportunities to discuss such matters when the Education Bill returns here from another place.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an early-day motion—I believe the number is 329—which has now been signed by 224 members? In fact, the number is 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.]
Is there a possibility that the Foreign Secretary will come to the House next week to respond to that early-day motion?
I realise that a fair bit of Northern Ireland business has been arranged for next week, but will the right hon. Gentleman be tabling a motion extending the powers of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?
Mr. Newton: If I heard right, the hon. Gentleman referred to early-day motion 329, which appears to be about digital television set-top boxes. I would not immediately have seen those as a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether my communication system is up to moving from one early-day motion to another so quickly. However, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, and the relevant early-day motion, as soon as I can.
As for the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will write to the Northern Ireland party leaders this afternoon saying that, following consultation, the Government intend to bring before the House a motion amending the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee.
Mr. Tony Banks: When can we have a debate on London? The right hon. Gentleman has been asked before about policing in London, but we could have a debate on London as a whole. We could discuss the absurd proposal to flog off, or rather give away, London Underground, and also the real differences between the two parties over the plans for London. We could discuss a strategic authority for London, as well as an elected mayor. We need that debate. May we have it before the general election, whenever that will be?
Mr. Newton: That all sounds most interesting, but I cannot add to what I have said in previous weeks.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: May we have an early debate on the problems facing small businesses, especially

451
small bookshops? Is the Leader of the House aware that when I popped into Books Etc at lunchtime to try to buy a copy of "Sleaze—the corruption of Parliament", I was told that all copies had been removed from the bookshelves because solicitors acting for the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) had threatened the proprietors of the shop? Does that not raise wider questions? In the run-up to the general election such a book, detailing the hon. Gentleman's activities, should be widely available. Freedom of information in this crucial period is most important.
Mr. Newton: May I make two points? First, as I have said on several comparable occasions recently, I am Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, and various things before that Committee are not unrelated to what the hon. Gentleman has said. My second point, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider, is that he was again raising on the Floor of the House a matter already under consideration in the proper way. Frankly, I do not think that he should do that.
Mr. Hugh Bayley: Has the Leader of the House seen the news reports this morning telling us that MTL, the company that has been offered the Regional Railways North East franchise, is planning to get rid of 1,200 of its staff—40 per cent. of the work force—many of whom live in my constituency? That is a matter of intense public interest, because MTL's Regional Railways operation does not make a profit; it is a loss-making business, subsidised by the taxpayer to the tune of £1,200 million under the franchising agreement.
The House needs reassurance that after the cuts the public will still get the railway services for which the taxpayer is paying. Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to meet the company as a matter of urgency, and then to make a statement to the House before the franchise agreement is finally signed, so that we know whether taxpayers' money will be used for the purposes for which it was voted?
Mr. Newton: I shall of course convey that request to my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Gentleman might also mention the facts that the firm has guaranteed existing train mileage and promised service improvement, will introduce new rolling stock and is committed to deliver a better quality service.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: The Leader of the House may recall that I have raised on an earlier occasion my concern, expressed in early-day motion 404, about the inquest procedures relating to the death of my constituent, Kenneth Severin.
[That this House believes that it is in the interests of justice for all parties to go into an inquest hearing with the same amount of information; notes that there is no formal procedure for disclosure in inquest cases; draws attention to the Annual Report of the Police Complaints Authority 1995–96 which expressed concern that at some inquests those representing the police may have material not available to the representatives of other interested parties, particularly the family of the deceased, thus giving a strong impression of injustice; notes that the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim has made similar comments expressing the view that it is in the interests of justice for all parties to go into an inquest
452
hearing with the same amount of information; draws attention to the difficulties faced by the family and representatives of Kenneth Severin who died in suspicious circumstances in HM Prison Belmarsh; and calls upon the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to review the rights of the deceased person's family in such cases and to institute rights of disclosure as recommended by the Police Complaints Authority.]
I have now had the opportunity to read the coroner's recommendations in that case, and to see other papers concerning Kenneth Severin's treatment. In view of those recommendations, would it be possible to have an early debate not only on the circumstances of Kenneth Severin's death but on the situation of all persons in need of psychiatric care who, through failures in the system, find themselves in prison and meet a brutal end? That would not only be to the benefit of Kenneth Severin's family, but might help to prevent more such tragedies.
Mr. Newton: I immediately acknowledge the importance of the general issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised in connection with that case, although I am not in a position to comment on the particular case. I am sure that his request will be carefully weighed by the Ministers concerned. I shall keep it in mind, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot immediately promise a debate.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: Can the Leader of the House tell us when the report on the Sea Empress disaster will be published? It is now more than a year since the disaster. The Government refused to set up a public inquiry, and instead set up an internal Department of Transport inquiry. It seems that they are now delaying the publication of the report. Is that not a shabby way to treat the people of Pembrokeshire and Wales and the well-being of the environment?
Mr. Newton: I know of no basis for the kind of language used by the hon. Gentleman, which matches the phrase "cover-up" used by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker). I cannot add to what I said earlier. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's comments, as it is the wish of us all that this matter is properly investigated and that the facts are established at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. John Gunnell: Has the Leader of the House anything to add to his statement of some months ago about the Easter recess? I hear many rumours—most, I think, emanating from Conservative Members—which suggest that he is likely to alter the date so that Members will have the week before Easter for electioneering purposes in their constituencies and that we will be brought back to dissolve Parliament in the time that he had originally announced for the Easter recess. Is he able to make a further comment on the recess? If not, when will he be able to do so?
Mr. Newton: First, I do not see how I can be accused of making an alteration to a date that I have never announced. I have said nothing about the Easter recess. All that I can say is that it will be in the vicinity of Easter.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate the extraordinary behaviour of this dying Government and

453
their announcement of the privatisation of London Underground: a scheme for which they do not know the cost, as they do not know the value of London Underground; a scheme for which they have three separate ideas for privatisation on which they have not yet decided; and a scheme that is sensible in investment terms only if there is an absolute guarantee that the Conservatives will win the general election?
We should compare the Government's reaction on that matter—on which they have moved with the speed of a cobra—with the way in which they have behaved with the report on the Sea Empress. The report is ready, it has been printed and—we know—it is available. The Leader of the House says that he has not been properly informed, but if he wishes to absolve himself from the accusation of taking part in a cover-up will he guarantee that, next week, he will tell us when the report is to be published?
Mr. Newton: What I can tell the hon. Gentleman, and what I have told one or two others, is that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—to whom I have referred several times—will be here to answer questions on 10 March. I shall be a little unfriendly and say that I am tempted to observe that I wish the hon. Gentleman would give me the name of his scriptwriter so that I can make sure that I never use him.

Building Research Establishment
4.52 pm
Mr. Nick Raynsford: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Government's handling of the privatisation of the Building Research Establishment.
I have written to you about this matter, Madam Speaker.

Over the past few weeks, it has become clear from a number of sources—including replies to parliamentary questions—that the two short-listed bidders to acquire the BRE were not competing fairly on a level playing field. This has clearly prejudiced the prospects of the external bidder and calls into question the validity of the Government's decision to offer the BRE for sale to the in-house bid team.
Even more serious in my view is the evidence that the House has been misled on this issue. In a reply on 18 February, the Minister stated that his Department had received no representations about the failure to maintain a level playing field between the two short-listed bidders. This is simply not correct. On 15 January this year, I wrote to the permanent secretary in the Department to express serious reservations about the way in which the BRE's privatisation was being handled and to highlight concerns that the level playing field between the different bidders had been undermined. The claim that the Department had received no representations on the issue is simply not believable.
Secondly, the Minister claimed in a reply on 13 February that no documentation relating to the future BRE group was made available to any bidder. The future BRE group was an internal review group set up by the BRE at the end of 1995 to examine a range of issues relating to the organisation's income, efficiency and expenditure, and its findings clearly would be of considerable interest and relevance to potential bidders. In a subsequent parliamentary answer on 24 February, the Minister revealed that five members of the future BRE group were also members of the in-house bid team, and so would have had access to this documentation. This once again indicates the absence of a proper level playing field between the two short-listed bidders. There is also a clear contradiction between the answers given by the Minister on 13 and 24 February.
I believe that this involves a serious failure to give full and straightforward answers to parliamentary questions. Accordingly, I wrote to the Minister on 25 February asking for an explanation and an early response. I also asked for an undertaking that, in the meantime, no action would be taken to progress the sale. This letter was faxed to the Minister's office early on Tuesday morning. To date, I have received no reply. I now learn that the Government are hoping to complete the sale of the BRE to the in-house bid team by the end of the month. That means that it is essential for this issue to be debated immediately if these matters are to be considered by the House before contracts are signed—hence my request for an early debate.

455
Madam Speaker, I believe that these issues fall four-square within the provisions of Standing Order No. 20. This is a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, and I hope that you will give my request sympathetic consideration.
Madam Speaker: I have listened most carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I have to give my decision without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20, and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.

Point of Order
4.55 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Normally I recognise that a slip of the tongue is a relatively trivial matter, and I would certainly not raise it on a point of order. But when, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), the Leader of the House used the words "new information" it was crucial not only to the then argument, but to something else. Since 1993, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and a number of the rest of us have endlessly asked parliamentary questions of a precise detailed nature on what has now come to be known as Gulf war syndrome. It is not as if this subject was neglected by the House of Commons—it was not. There was a cascade of questions on the matter. In these circumstances, simply to say that there is "new information" that justifies the behaviour of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is not satisfactory. I would ask that you give the Leader of the House the opportunity either to correct himself or to say what he meant.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. With your permission, I would like to respond briefly in case there was any misunderstanding—although I am not sure that there should have been. As I understand it, Ministry of Defence Ministers were only told on 25 September last year that OP pesticides had been more widely used than previously stated. I believe that they then made that clear as soon as they could.

Welsh Affairs
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]
4.57 pm
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): The 12 months since we last debated Welsh affairs in the House have been 12 months of success for Wales—12 months of challenges accepted and met, and 12 months of increasing prosperity and opportunity for the people of Wales. In the past year, we have seen our policies and reforms continue to bear fruit and bring benefits. I want to mention some of our achievements and to set out how we intend to maintain the momentum to take a successful and prosperous Wales into the next century.
I have concentrated over the past two years on three themes above all—the economy, education and the environment. The three must be linked in people's minds and actions if we are to make sustained progress in a modern society. Taken together, they represent opportunity—the opportunity of learning, of gaining qualifications, of mastering a skill, of gaining a job, of continuity for communities, of a future for young people, and the opportunity to live in a healthy environment and to enjoy the variety of spectacular scenery that Wales has to offer.
Unemployment in Wales has fallen by more than 9,000 in the past three months alone, and last year we won inward investment promising 15,000 jobs: that is 15,000 opportunities for individuals, and more opportunities again for entrepreneurs and companies to capitalise on that success. Standards have risen in our schools, so that young people in Wales can be properly equipped to take those opportunities, and we are training more apprentices and technicians to take their places in this new industrial revolution.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: That is excellent news about the 15,000 new jobs, which possibly makes this a record year, but does the Secretary of State accept that most of those posts will not be filled until after the general election, and that most of the employers are well aware of Labour's 20-point lead in the opinion polls? That makes it absolutely clear that all those employers, both existing and new, have no fears about anything that an incoming Labour Government might do.
Mr. Hague: Most employers are far too wise to presume on the outcome of an election being determined by opinion polls, as the hon. Gentleman seems to do. If many of those employers were aware—as some of them are—of the many regulations imposed on businesses on the continent of Europe, they would have a different view on where to expand their activities.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The LG investment, as the Secretary of State knows, will generate the need for substantial additional housing, and there is a major question whether that will be clustered in one area, Coedkernew, or spread wider afield. The Secretary of State for the Environment has published a think piece on where people will live in England, because of the growing
458
number of households and other factors. Can the right hon. Gentleman see a case, given that our problems are similar, for a similar think piece in respect of Wales?
Mr. Hague: I do not necessarily accept what the hon. Gentleman said about there being a great need for new housing because of the LG development. In the main, I should like the benefits of the project to go to people living where they live today. I cannot prejudge any decision that I would make on alterations to structure plans, but that is my general approach, and I believe that it will command the support of hon. Members of all parties.
Mr. Paul Flynn: I am puzzled by one thing: the United Kingdom has won 78 Nobel prizes for science this century, and Korea has won none, so why are we spending large sums of money to buy scientific jobs from Korea?
Mr. Hague: The hon. Gentleman knows that the project will bring vast benefits to his constituency. The vast majority of the money that brings the jobs is coming from LG, from Korea, not from the United Kingdom. I think that it is right in some areas to give assistance to companies, wherever they come from—Korea or Wales, home-grown or overseas—to encourage jobs to go to those areas. The hon. Gentleman's constituency has been one of the principal beneficiaries of that policy, and he should not be in the business of criticising that.
Mr. Rod Richards: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hague: Yes, but this will be a very long speech if I give way all the time.
Mr. Richards: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he understand the Labour party's proposals on employment? On the one hand, the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) says that a Labour Government would spend about £3 billion subsidising employers to employ approximately 250,000 people, on the basis that reducing employment costs increases the numbers employed; on the other, he wants to introduce a minimum wage, which would increase costs and, surely, reduce the number employed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is totally illogical?
Mr. Hague: Yes. My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. There is no question but that Labour's policies would reduce employment, and they would certainly reduce employment opportunities for the future in Wales. The minimum wage would damage those opportunities, as the deputy leader of the Labour party has acknowledged in the past, as would the adoption of the social chapter.
I briefly mentioned education and industry. We are working, in addition, to sustain rural communities and to maintain a living, working countryside, bringing together agriculture, industry and tourism in a way that preserves a way of life, a culture, and the countryside itself.
We have succeeded in all that, not by looking inward and believing that our economy or our environment begins and ends at the Welsh border, but because we are part of one of the strongest and most flexible economies

459
in Europe; because we look outward for investment and ideas; and because we are prepared to compete at an international level.
There is still the challenge of spreading opportunity and prosperity throughout Wales, and I shall outline in a moment some measures to achieve that; but before I go into detail on those and other matters, let me refer to one more piece of recent good news, one more opportunity for Wales.
When the European Council meets in Cardiff next year, we intend to make sure that it meets in an even more prosperous and dynamic Wales, a Wales that is fully part of a prosperous and dynamic United Kingdom with a strong, self-confident message about itself for the rest of Europe and a strong, clear voice in the decision-making processes of the United Kingdom, not a Wales distracted and weakened by a prolonged and bitter debate about yet another tier of government. I want not the devolution of despair but the devolution and extension of opportunity for more and more people in Wales.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if there is a referendum after the general election, with a real choice for the people of Wales, the Conservative party will not oppose it? If he opposes such a referendum, is it because he believes that the general election gives a mandate to an incoming Government to set up an assembly?
Mr. Hague: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have said clearly that we would respect the outcome of a referendum and that people would be landed with the consequences of such a referendum for the foreseeable future. However, I have grave misgivings about the idea of a pre-legislative referendum. That is a misuse of referendums and creates a situation in which the Government of the day either say that they want the electorate to give approval before seeing the details or say subsequently to Parliament that a draft Bill has been approved in a referendum and Parliament must pass it whether it likes it or not. That is not easily combined with the parliamentary democracy that we cherish.
We are threatened with the misuse of a referendum by a Government with an overmighty attitude. If the disaster of a Labour Government were to happen, we would no doubt have to return to the subject. I intend that the Government of the United Kingdom after the general election will be one who will not go down that road of the ludicrous distraction of constitutional change but will continue to bring jobs and prosperity to Wales.
That prosperity is the subject to which I now want to return. Our overriding objective for the UK economy is to promote sustained economic growth and rising prosperity. The two cornerstones of our policies are permanently low inflation and sound public finances.
We have the fundamentals well in hand: inflation is well under control and stable—the best performance for nearly 50 years—interest rates remain low; public finance is under tight control; and the public sector borrowing requirement is forecast to fall further in the years to come. Independent observers, such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, say that the UK economy is now more flexible, competitive and resistant to inflation.
Wales has benefited enormously from those policies. We have more than 300 overseas-owned companies operating out of almost 380 plants and employing more
460
than 75,000 people. Wales is undergoing a new industrial revolution, transformed from a country heavily dependent on traditional industries to a modern and diverse growing economy.
Let us consider some of the facts. Since 1982, manufacturing productivity in Wales has been above the UK average—9 per cent. above in 1994. Provisional figures for 1995 show that Wales has a sturdy 14.6 per cent. advantage over the rest of the UK.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Given those figures, is it not all the more dismaying that Bluebird Toys decided to close its Merthyr plant? It had been part of the diversification process and had received fantastic assistance from the Welsh Office, local authorities and the Welsh Development Agency. Even at this twelfth hour, I wonder whether collectively we could persuade the company to continue to locate some of its production there, so that it does not become an import-only toy company.
Mr. Hague: I share the hon. Gentleman's disappointment about that recent news, which, I think, involves 88 jobs. I recently wrote to him about the matter. Both the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), and I have written to the company in the past to make it clear that we stand ready to offer any assistance that we can give. That offer stands, and if there is any other way in which we can pursue the matter, I am ready to do so. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that, although we regret that news, there has been much other good news for employment in his constituency in recent months.
Since 1979, the number of manufacturing businesses in Wales has increased by about 46 per cent. Indigenous companies work alongside inward investors. Welsh steel making has improved beyond recognition to become the most efficient in Europe. The number of people in employment in Wales has risen over the past decade by 95,000. Manufacturing industry has for a long time been a particular success story in Wales. We are the only region of Great Britain—
Mr. Wigley: Country.
Mr. Hague: We are the only part, the only country, of Great Britain whose manufacturing employment has increased over the past decade. Unemployment in Wales continues to fall: it fell by 9,200 over the past three months. Long-term unemployment dropped by 8 per cent. in the year to January 1997.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the Vale of Glamorgan since I was elected in 1992, there has been approximately £1.6 billion of inward investment and several hundred new jobs have been created? Would he care to comment on the implications for my constituents of the social chapter, a minimum wage and the other job-destroying measures proposed by the Opposition?
Mr. Hague: My hon. Friend rightly mentions his constituency, which has been one of the principal beneficiaries of the growth and success of home-grown companies, as well as of inward investors. It is an outstanding example of the growing success of Wales.

461
He is right: the adoption of a minimum wage and the social chapter would gravely inhibit employment opportunities in Wales. There is no question about that. Jacques Delors himself thought that our opt-out from the social chapter would make the United Kingdom a paradise for investment. That is exactly what it has done. Adoption of the social chapter would destroy that paradise.
Mr. Flynn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: No, I shall make some progress. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
Business surveys published today show that firms in Wales remain optimistic for the coming year. Domestic orders and output are strong, with firms expecting growth to continue. Prospects for employment are good, and strong growth in investment in plant and machinery is expected. Professional forecasters are bullish about the prospects for Wales. Cambridge Econometrics expects the Welsh economy to grow faster this year than that of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Yesterday's newspaper headline, that south-east Wales is the "Best place in the UK to get a job", would have been unimaginable a few years ago. It is a measure of the achievement of the Government and of countless businesses in transforming the prospects for Wales. If south-east Wales is the best place in Britain to get a job, it follows that it must be one of the best places in Europe to get a job. Now our ambition is that, in the next few years, the whole of Wales will be the best place in Europe to get a job. We know that there is more to do. We will continue to help to create jobs across a broad range of businesses. We want stronger services to complement manufacturing with even more financial services and research and technology-based businesses in Wales.
The Welsh Development Agency has made a significant contribution to the Welsh success story. It has met, and exceeded, its targets. Its activities assist economic growth and job creation throughout Wales. In the past year alone, it has played its part in attracting £2.5 billion of investment through 150 projects. I want the agency to build on its successes and to consolidate its achievements by ensuring that the benefits are spread throughout Wales.
In response to the challenge of attracting more investment to areas outside the more traditionally favoured south-east and north-east of Wales, for the coming financial year I shall require at least 50 per cent. of the jobs safeguarded or created by the agency to be outside the eastern M4 and A55 corridors. That is a major increase from the current 20 per cent. target, which relates solely to capital and inward investment programmes. The 50 per cent. target would relate to all the agency's programmes.
The Development Board for Rural Wales will similarly concentrate at least 50 per cent. of its programme expenditure on its western areas, demonstrating the commitment to job creation in those areas, where unemployment is, on average, higher than in south-east or north-east Wales. Of the 12,500 jobs, 8,000 should come from inward investment, of which at least 3,000 should be from new, overseas projects. With the inward investment jobs target, I shall be looking for the agency to secure at least £400 million in associated planned investment.
462
The land reclamation programme of the agency will continue. It is working on several large schemes; the reclamation of some 1,400 ha—nearly 3,500 acres—will be physically progressing on site. Over the next two years, the agency has given a commitment that it will complete the reclamation of schemes totalling 750 million ha, or 1,850 acres. The target of completing the reclamation of 200 ha during the coming financial year is the first phase of that two-year commitment.
The success of Wales in attracting inward investment and consistently achieving 10 to 20 per cent. of all inward investment brought to our shores is envied by many of our competitors. The competition is fierce and sophisticated; it comes from elsewhere in the United Kingdom, from the United States and from the Asia-Pacific region. To remain successful, we must stay sharp and react to the needs of today's multinationals, as we have with LG, Sony, Ford, Newport Wafer-Fab and a host of others.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: I shall be very generous and give way to the hon. Gentleman a second time.
Mr. Anderson: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his belated recognition of the growing imbalance between the more-favoured and less-favoured areas of Wales. If we are to build on his wish, we need resources. He knows of the WDA's complaint that, because of existing commitments, there is no headroom left to carry out the policies that he now favours. How will he deal with that?
Mr. Hague: We debated this matter in the House a couple of weeks ago. The WDA has many commitments, but that does not mean that its entire budget is committed. The hon. Gentleman knows that I increased this year, will increase again next year and plan to increase again the year after that, the amount of Government grant in aid that goes to the WDA. Some hon. Members have said that they would like to provide more resources for the WDA, but given that they have also said that they are committed to the total spending plans of the Welsh Office, they need to say where they would find the money and what reductions would be made to finance it—a subject to which I shall return.
Only this week, Ford announced another investment in Wales: £25 million will be spent at Swansea to make parts for the next generation of Escort cars. That is a demonstration of faith in the Welsh work force and secures the plant there for the immediate future. Today, there was an announcement by another long-standing investor in Wales: Hoya will spend more than £10 million at its Wrexham lens plant and more than double its work force of 100. I met the company president on a recent investment mission to Japan. The quality of the work force, and the company's positive experience in Wales, led to that expansion.
As Hoya and Ford have discovered, we offer a dedicated, reliable and flexible work force; good industrial relations; competitive overhead costs, made possible by low non-wage costs; good transportation links to markets in the United Kingdom and further afield; continued investment in quality infrastructure, such as the

463
new A465 link and our private finance initiative schemes including the A55 across Anglesey, which is now the highest priority in our roads programme; a positive approach by those of us involved in economic development; and a stable economy with low interest and inflation rates and good prospects for growth.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Secretary of State mentions an important issue in my constituency. He will know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones), attended a meeting in Anglesey a few days ago to discuss the matter, and it was put to him that, under the programme, even under the private finance initiative scheme, there should be a much earlier start than autumn 1998. Will the right hon. Gentleman announce today that he is looking seriously at that proposal?
Mr. Hague: I shall certainly consider any means of bringing forward the project, although the process of ensuring that the PFI scheme can go ahead and that the right bidder has been selected will take some time. I fully intend, however, that that road will remain the highest priority in our roads programme and I certainly intend—and continue to believe strongly—that we shall meet the target date for completing the road that was set even before PFI was considered for it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reassure his constituents on that.
Wales is now in an enviable position and we have a golden opportunity. We must now rise to the challenge of making sure that as many as possible of the spin-off jobs from major investments go to Welsh people working in Welsh companies spread throughout Wales. That is the task ahead.
Mr. Wigley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hague: I should make a little progress, or other hon. Members will not have time to speak in the debate.
To rise to the challenge and take that opportunity, our young people must be better educated and more highly skilled than ever before.
In Wales, we have created an internationally renowned work force, responsive to change and with the initiative and skills to meet the demands of leading-edge and high-technology businesses. That is why we recently updated our framework for post-school training and education. A few weeks ago, I published a document entitled "People and Prosperity: Building on Success", which reports on what we have done to develop a competitive skills base and outlines the steps that we now need to take to build on that success. Those steps include opportunities for young people through high-quality national traineeships; increased funding for modern apprenticeships to allow another 4,300 young people to take part; doubling support for the adult technicians scheme; and getting demotivated young people back into education and training and on into jobs.
Earlier this week, the training and enterprise councils in Wales launched their own manufacturing skills plan for training to support the manufacturing industry that we have created. It is a vision for the next century and I commend them on their efforts and foresight.
The "Bright Future: Beating our Previous Best" programme is also at the heart of our efforts to promote improved school performance in Wales and it is working.
464
It aims for continuing improvement. Everyone concerned with education knows that schools that rest on their laurels or are content with low expectations and poor results are selling pupils short. Schools throughout Wales are beginning to set themselves targets for improving performance. I have set more targets for education in the new "Bright Future" document. The targets that I am setting are ambitious and testing. I want everyone with an interest in education in Wales to take the opportunity to comment on them, and help shape them.
We are not only improving standards but increasing parental choice, two aims that come together in the popular schools initiative, which is providing £26 million to expand successful, high-achieving schools that are attracting more pupils than they can physically accommodate. In total, 24 schools and the work that we have funded will create an extra 2,000 pupil places. Two thousand more families will be able to send their children to their first-choice school as a result.
Our policy of extending choice also applies to the education of four-year-olds though the nursery vouchers scheme. Some 30,000 out of 35,000 have now registered. The scheme is giving parents a real choice in the education that they want for their four-year-olds. Opposition Members have frequently told us that nursery provision in Wales was so good that the scheme was not needed. Why, then, are we seeing such a sudden, marked improvement in provision? Flintshire, Wrexham and Denbighshire are all moving from quarter-time provision to at least half-time provision for all four-year-olds from April. Anglesey and Conwy also propose statutory notices, which will allow admission of four-year-olds earlier and will therefore offer all four-year-olds a full three-terms provision. Gwynedd has also announced its intention to expand nursery provision for four-year-olds from April, and for three-year-olds from September. If nursery provision was so good before, how come all those improvements are taking place now that the nursery vouchers scheme has been introduced? They are not the results of a failing, unwanted, unneeded scheme, as it has been described. They are the results of another measure to increase choice and opportunity, to which Opposition Members have been blindly opposed.
Our educational reforms are important for their own sake, but they are also part of our strategy for creating a modern and prosperous economy in Wales. Sometimes, people fear that our economic success will be bought only at a high cost to our environment. I take the opposite view. The countries with the worst environmental records in Europe were those bankrupt economies of the eastern bloc. Only healthy, prosperous economies can protect their environment, and we in Wales are demonstrating that economic progress and respect for nature can go hand in hand.
We have been able to fund the largest land reclamation programme in Europe, and I recently presented certificates recognising respect for the environment to companies ranging from National Power at Aberthaw to Kyushu Matsushita at Newport, and many others are working toward or achieving those high standards.
We have launched a business and environment campaign, making companies more aware of the impact of their operations on the environment. We have increased the funding of the Countryside Council for Wales for the

465
second successive year, established a Wales biodiversity group, and launched the Environmental Education Council for Wales.
Those measures add up to a coherent and wide-ranging package to protect and enhance the Welsh environment. We already have a good record on improving the quality of our air and water. Some 98 per cent. of rivers in Wales are of good or fair quality. Bathing waters around Wales have never been cleaner, with results for 1996 showing a 93 per cent. compliance with European standards, compared with less than 50 per cent. in 1986 when testing first began.
Last year, I was involved in the launch of the green sea initiative. That is unique to Wales and involves Dwr Cymru—Welsh Water—the Wales tourist board and many others working together toward the ambitious aim of achieving 50 blue flags on the Welsh coastline by 2000. That will give Wales the edge in terms of both its coastal environment and its ability to attract tourists. Next week, I shall launch the Welsh Coastal Forum, to bring together all those involved in caring for the coastline and our coastal waters.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Secretary of State will remember that it is almost exactly 12 months since the Sea Empress disaster, when 70,000 tonnes of oil spilled mainly on to the Pembrokeshire coast, but also affected other parts of the south Wales coast. The Government refused to hold a public inquiry, but allowed the Department of Transport to hold its own internal inquiry. As the Secretary of State knows, that has not yet reported. Will he have a word with his colleagues in the Department of Transport? The people of Pembrokeshire and of Wales should see that report before the general election and before the Government run away from the problem.
Mr. Hague: That inquiry is being conducted by the marine accidents investigation branch, not by the Department of Transport as an internal inquiry. I understand that the report will be published shortly, and then the House can look at it.
As the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) said, this month marked the first anniversary of the Sea Empress incident. One year on from the incident, we can look back on a successful clean-up operation, which, at its peak, involved more than 1,000 people from different organisations. That effort enabled all the main tourist beaches to be cleaned within eight weeks, culminating in Tenby north beach winning a blue flag award during the summer.
We also set up the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee, to investigate the environmental impact of the oil spill, including consideration of clean-up techniques. Nearly £2 million of Government funds—half of it from the Welsh Office—has been made available for the costs of the programme of works identified in the committee's initial report. Its final report is due in the autumn. We shall learn a lot about how to help nature fight back from such blows and we shall spread the results of our research and monitoring as widely as possible.
It is almost a year since I published "A Working Countryside for Wales". It represented the most comprehensive review ever undertaken of the
466
Government policies affecting rural Wales. In setting out a detailed vision and a framework for sustainable development, the White Paper has pointed the way for the future by balancing sound economic development against the protection of Wales' rich environment. It represents another opportunity—the opportunity of living in a healthy, working countryside, with jobs for young people who can sustain and develop their own communities.
I shall publish a review of the White Paper next month, but I can tell the House now that 63 of the 94 commitments have already been met, including the development of a food strategy for Wales; the launch of the DBRW's market towns initiative; the review of the various agri-environmental schemes, including Tir Cymen; support for communities; the creation of new employment opportunities; and measures to protect the environment. More are in the pipeline.
Farming plays an important role in the Welsh rural economy. In the past year, all three main sectors—dairy, sheep and beef—have been affected in some way by the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis. The Government have responded to the crisis by committing support to maintain the structure of the industry in the UK. In addition, more than 150,000 Welsh animals have been slaughtered under the over-30-months scheme and nearly 90,000 Welsh calves have gone through the calf processing scheme.
There should be no doubt about the Government's commitment to the livestock industry in Wales. We recognised the need to bolster confidence in hill cattle farming in the less-favoured areas by announcing last year that the Budget would ensure that an extra £60 million was paid to UK hill livestock compensatory allowance cattle claimants in 1997. In addition, sheep farmers' incomes receive a considerable boost from annual payments of sheep annual premium amounting to £138 million. Those measures have supported the industry in Wales through a very difficult period. Consumer confidence is now returning; we all know that British beef—including Welsh beef—is safe to eat.
A major part of the Welsh Office budget is devoted to health, and here too we are working hard to improve services and standards throughout Wales. We are committed to increasing health spending in Wales each year over and above inflation for the life of the next Parliament. The Labour party has been extremely shy of stating its intentions in that respect. We want to know whether Labour Front Benchers will match my commitment today.
In the coming year, spending on capital schemes for the national health service in Wales will take the level of capital investment to more than £2 billion since 1979. This year, Wales' second cardiac centre will open, providing patients in west Wales with access to a local facility of high quality. At Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, after so many years, work will begin on the cancer treatment centre that will be the centrepiece of a comprehensive cancer service in north Wales. Only last week, I announced a further £1 million in support of recommendations from an expert group to improve cancer services throughout Wales. A number of capital schemes for Cardiff are also going ahead. Spending per head has increased by 89 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
All health authorities in Wales have had increases in spending this year. It falls to them to determine their priorities within their budget. However, I am aware that

467
the consultation document circulated by Dyfed Powys health authority has caused widespread concern and controversy, especially in relation to community hospitals. Any significant change in health services in Dyfed Powys, as elsewhere, that could not be agreed locally would have to come to me for decision. In considering any proposal, I would have strong regard to local views and local health needs. I want to make it clear that I am convinced of the important role played by community hospitals—especially between the primary and secondary care sectors—and would wish to see such hospitals retain their role in delivering NHS care.
Mr. Alex Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear rebuke of the outrageous conduct of the chairman of Dyfed Powys health authority, who announced on 23 December that eight community hospitals in Dyfed and Powys would close, without it being her responsibility to close them and without even knowing which hospitals she was talking about. Will he now confirm that rebuke by sacking the chairman of the Dyfed Powys health authority at once?
Mr. Hague: I am not delivering a rebuke of any individual. Health authorities are entitled to consult on future actions and I am making clear the approach that I will take on the matter.
Local views are important in the health service, as they are in local government. I see a strong and continuing role for local government in Wales and have transferred additional powers to local authorities in the past year. I have provided for the coming year an increase of £64 million in central Government support for local government—an increase that is in line with inflation. Local authorities should be able to manage their resources within that increase, which is the limit of what is affordable.
Opposition Members have complained about the settlement—in fact, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) is muttering about it at the moment—but they invariably refuse to say from where they would obtain extra money. They describe the local government settlement as "inadequate", but they have also made it clear that a two-year commitment to stick to our spending plans in total applies across the board, and therefore to Wales. They have yet to say how they would finance higher spending by councils within a fixed total, unless it is by sharp rises in council tax or reductions in spending elsewhere.
The Opposition have also said in the House that the budget of the Welsh Development Agency will not be sufficient, but how is a higher WDA budget to be financed out of a fixed total? In addition, there would be their Welsh Assembly to pay for—many millions of pounds to be spent on the most expensive roomful of hot air in the history of Wales. How would that be financed out of a fixed total, let alone a fixed total that already assumes continuing major reductions in the running costs of the Welsh Office and its non-departmental public bodies?
The fact is that the Opposition are trying to get away with a great illusion—a con trick. The problem facing them is that the form of words that they have adopted to please the City cannot be reconciled with the words they use to please every pressure group or authority that knocks on their door. It is time they answered the
468
questions of how and from where they would finance the additional expenditure for which they continually call. I am sure that they will try their level best to answer those questions in the debate.
Wales is doing well: it is experiencing rising prosperity, growing employment, improved infrastructure and higher standards of education. Our priority for the future is to continue that record; the Opposition's priority for the future is to blunder into constitutional chaos. I have no doubts about which approach will bring the greatest benefits to the people of Wales.
5.35 pm
Mr. Win Griffiths: This afternoon, we have witnessed an amusing presentation that faltered between the comic and the rose-tinted spectacles. I should apologise on behalf of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who is on his way to the Labour party Wales conference in Llandudno, which opens tomorrow and is the prelude to Labour Government in Wales. I also apologise for the absence of all the other Labour Members of Parliament who wished to be present at the moment of victory—of which we shall hear later today—in Wirral, South, which is conveniently placed for a short trip across to Llandudno for the conference the following day. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly is not in Wirral, but on his way to Llandudno.
Sir Wyn Roberts: I wish to point out that it does not take three days to get to Llandudno—it takes three hours.
Mr. Griffiths: The roads of this country are so clogged up with traffic and in such a state of disrepair that one would be lucky to get from London to Llandudno in five hours, let alone three. If the right hon. Gentleman can get there in three hours, he must be breaking the speed limit most of the way.
Before speaking about the broader issues relating to Wales at the end of the 20th century, I want to say a few words specifically about the Sea Empress disaster. That event is no longer fresh in our minds, but we should remind ourselves of the scale of the pollution—the thousands of sea birds that were killed along with the damage caused to other marine life; the continuing ban on some sea food harvest; the damage to about 200 km of coastline; the increase in physical and psychological illness among people living in the affected coastal area; and the trauma caused to the pilots and to all those involved in the rescue operation.
Having reminded the House of the disaster, I want to ask the Secretary of State, who also referred to it, several questions. What involvement has he had in developments relating to the clean-up and investigation of the disaster? What guarantees can he give that a similar disaster will not happen in the future? Has he discussed with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Environment Agency the possibility of prosecuting the polluters? Is he now satisfied that the appropriate back-up services—suitably powered tugs and so on—are in place to cope with and ensure a more satisfactory outcome from a similar disaster, if we were so unfortunate as to suffer another?
Lastly, I repeat a question that the Secretary of State has been asked several times: why are the Government delaying the publication of the final report on the Sea

469
Empress disaster? Surely the Secretary of State must be aware that, whatever criticisms it may contain of the conduct of the Government and their agencies, it is hardly worth keeping them from the public to protect the prospects of Conservative candidates in Pembrokeshire in the general election, as the latter are doomed to failure anyway.
Will the Secretary of State commit himself now to ensuring that the Secretary of State for Transport publishes the report before the end of March? Obviously the Secretary of State does not wish to intervene now; he may want to consider the matter and give some direction to the Minister for the wind-up speech.
Like the Secretary of State, I welcome all the good news that we have had this year—the LG investment, the continuing expansion of Sony, the additional investment in Ford, and today's announcement that £203 million of European regional aid is coming to Wales.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) said, surely the most significant aspect of that news is that those companies are coming to Wales knowing that in all likelihood there will be a Labour Government, and they are well prepared to support that Labour Government by investing in Wales. I draw a contrast between the attitude of those companies and the statements by the leaders of Unilever, British Aerospace and many other British companies, who are already implementing the social chapter and find no problem with it but are disturbed about the way in which the Euro-sceptics are running amok in the Conservative party and threatening to pull the United Kingdom out of Europe—or at least to make it Tory party policy to do so.
We want to welcome those good news announcements, but how do they fit into the pattern of Welsh economic performance under Tory tutelage? They are oases, places of beauty and hope, in a landscape that is still too hostile for the green shoots of growth and prosperity to flourish.
The recently published "Regional Trends" report reveals that Wales has the lowest income per household of any region in the United Kingdom. The Welsh Office publication of June 1996, "Meeting the Challenge—the Competitiveness of Wales," said:
"Welsh GDP per head has consistently been the lowest of any region in Great Britain."
The most recent "Economic Trends" shows that in 1995, Welsh gross domestic product decreased in relation to the UK average. In 1994, it was 84 per cent. of the UK average. In 1995 it dropped to 83.3 per cent. Those are hardly the signs of a growing and flourishing economy.
A Welsh Office publication said:
"A smaller proportion of the working population (both males and females) in Wales is economically active than in other Great British regions."
We are told that
"In Wales in 1993 and 1994 business Research and Development was roughly 0.5% of GDP compared to I.4%"—
nearly three times as much—
"for the UK as a whole."
Wales is an economic region of high unemployment. Of a total of 96,400 unemployed, 31,000 are long-term unemployed, 28,000 are young unemployed and of those 5,500 are long-term young unemployed. There are 61,000
470
fewer jobs in Wales than there were in June 1979 and 133,000 fewer men are in full-time jobs than in June 1979. Unemployment in Wales is costing the taxpayer more than £800 million a year. That is the true picture: high unemployment, low pay on average, and a GDP at best stagnant, at worst declining. Those are the characteristics of the Welsh economy.
Average earnings for Welsh men working full time are £331.40 a week—the second lowest figure in the United Kingdom. Only Northern Ireland's figure, at 50p a week less, is lower. Greater London is £170 a week ahead.
In 1979, we were near the top of the regional pay league; we are now firmly at the bottom. In 1979, men's average earnings in Wales were 96.2 per cent. of the Great Britain average; in 1995, they had dropped to 88.4 per cent. In 1979, women's weekly earnings in Wales were 97.4 per cent. of the British average; in 1995 they had dropped, like the Welsh men's earnings, to 88.4 per cent.
During that period, men's average weekly earnings in Wales have increased by 29 per cent. in real terms, but the Great Britain increase is 41 per cent. Women's average earnings have increased by 48 per cent., but in Great Britain as a whole the figure is 63 per cent. We are lagging behind; we have not been sharing the growth in income.
The Welsh Development Agency corporate plan records that Welsh living standards are now 76 per cent. of the UK average. Despite all the recent welcome announcements, investment is growing more slowly in the current recovery than in any other this century, and we invest less as a proportion of our national income than any European country.
Our investment record is feeble. Germany invests 60 per cent. more than the UK as a share of national income, Hong Kong 92 per cent. more, Singapore 128 per cent. more. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that manufacturing productivity is 77 per cent. higher in the United States, 44 per cent. higher in the Netherlands, 37 per cent. higher in Germany and 26 per cent. higher in France than in the UK. The list of countries that are out-performing us is almost endless.
Given the continuing under-performance of the Welsh economy, why is the Secretary of State seeking to cut the WDA budget in 1998–99 by about £8 million? Why is he directing it, as I understand it, to move out of urban, rural, environmental and business services for home-grown companies—the very companies that feel that they do not receive the same attention and support as major inward investors? Who will take over that crucial support for indigenous companies if it is moved from the WDA, as I understand the Secretary of State intends?
What consultation has the Secretary of State undertaken with the WDA and businesses in Wales before introducing that surreptitious shift of policy? Is he intent on turning the WDA into an inward investment agency only? Home-grown companies deserve an answer, as it would appear that the Secretary of State is turning them into the second-class citizens of the Welsh economy.
Mr. Hague: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about and I am not sure whether anyone else in the building knows what he is talking about. There are no plans for the WDA to do as he has described. It is very important to support indigenous home-grown companies

471
as well as inward investors. I have issued no instruction or request to the Welsh Development Agency that it change its approach to that in any way.
Mr. Griffiths: So the Secretary of State is confirming that the WDA will not move out of urban, rural, environmental and business services to companies in Wales? I understand that some strategic directions are being given to the WDA—perhaps they are circulating internally—but I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that that will not happen.
The rural economy is not in good shape, either. It has been blighted by the continuing saga of the Government's incompetence on a grand scale in the handling of bovine spongiform encephalopathy. Ever since repudiating, about 10 years ago, the warnings of my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and for Caerphilly about BSE, the Government have always appeared determined to act when it is too late. That indecision has cost the Welsh taxpayer about £140 million, and Welsh beef and dairy farmers have lost millions of pounds in lost cattle sales, even taking into account the various amounts of compensation paid by the Government.
It has been estimated that, if the export ban continues, up to 3,000 jobs could be lost in the rural economy. On top of that, fears remain about the availability of licensed abattoirs and animal carcase incinerators to deal with the slaughtered cattle. What tests have been done to establish the ability of incinerators to destroy BSE prions, and what checks are made to ensure that the planning consents for those incinerators are not being breached?
Whether in rural or industrial areas, the Tory housing record leaves much to be desired. Over the past three years, local government housing renovation grants and housing capital provision have been cut by 24 per cent. in real terms. The Secretary of State may remember that, when he announced his Welsh Office budget for 1996–97, he allocated £85.1 million to Tai Cymru, from which he said that he expected Tai Cymru to finance about 3,000 housing starts in that year. Miraculously, last December, when the right hon. Gentleman allocated £25 million less to Tai Cymru than he had in the previous year, he said that he still expected it to make around 3,000 housing starts.
How does the Secretary of State expect to maintain housing starts when he has cut Tai Cymru's budget by nearly 30 per cent.? No wonder homelessness in Wales has increased by 68 per cent. in the last decade, with over 9,000 families accepted as homeless in 1995. No wonder the number of public housing starts has constantly fallen below Tai Cymru's preferred target of 4,000 a year. Indeed, in some areas the number has been 25 per cent. below that target.
The Government are ignoring the crisis in our education service. Despite recent improvements, far too many of their policies have resulted in the maintenance of a stubbornly long tail of under-achievement in our schools, and in low expectations among our pupils. The Government are ignoring the imminent shortage of engineers in south-east Wales—a problem that is already acute but which, when LG comes on line, will be brutal, with a knock-on effect throughout Wales. At present Britain is 42nd in the world skills league, and Wales, within Britain, is near the bottom of the table.
Only 58 per cent. of our 17-year-olds remain in full-time education, whereas the figure is 77 per cent. in the United States, 87 per cent. in France, 90 per
472
cent. in Japan and 93 per cent. in Germany. We are nowhere near reaching the national targets on training, set—at least in part—with business. The target of two A-levels or their vocational equivalent, advanced GNVQ or NVQ level 3, is 60 per cent; in Wales we manage 44 per cent., less than the British average and miles behind France and Germany, which manage 58 per cent. and 63 per cent. respectively.
In 1996, 32 per cent. of students in Wales achieved grades A, B or C in maths, science and English or Welsh. The Welsh Office target of 50 per cent. will be very difficult to meet when the Government are cutting, in real terms, the resources available to schools through the local government settlement. Although the settlement was roughly in line with inflation, once the additional amount for the police and care in the community was taken out, the amount that local government could spend on its other services was about 1 per cent. below the level of inflation, and we are now seeing cuts across the board in virtually every local education authority.
At all stages of education and training, the Government are cutting resources because of their poor management of the economy. The 1990s in particular have been characterised by inadequate and unfair funding, which has led to cuts in teaching and support staff, class size and pupil-teacher ratio increases, the overstretching of special education support services to the point of breakdown and a deterioration in the condition of school buildings to the point at which some are health and safety hazards. The Minister shakes his head, but his chief inspector's own report comments on the bad state of many buildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether, on the basis of his researches, he is at least prepared to accept that all the information from the inspectorate suggests that the gap between the performance of Welsh students and that of English students has narrowed considerably during the life of the present Government. Perhaps he will also confirm that, when his party was last in office, the gap widened.
Mr. Griffiths: It is certainly true that the chief inspector has been very effective in ensuring that schools in Wales are given the advice, guidance and support they need in order to improve, but all that has been achieved very much despite, rather than because of, what the Government are doing. We need only speak to a cross-section of teachers in Wales to discover that that is their view.
Is it not strange that the enterprise centre of Europe—that, we are told, is what Britain is—seems to have been so badly managed by Conservative Members that the national debt has doubled since 1990?
Mr. Richards: A moment ago, the hon. Gentleman said that the local government settlement in Wales was too low, and that services had been cut. Will he tell us how much higher the settlement should be in the next fiscal year—1997–98—to become fairer?
Mr. Griffiths: When we have the opportunity to open the books in the Welsh Office, the right hon. Gentleman will be able to study, from his armchair—I do not know whether he still has his public house in Ystradgynlais—

473
exactly how we are going to improve the position for local government and other sectors in Wales, because of our determination to use the money that is available much more effectively.
What is the Government's record? In primary schools in the 1990s, there have been unrelenting increases in the number of children taught in classes of over 30. At the last count, at least 74,000 children—25 per cent. of primary school pupils in Wales—were being taught in such classes. That is an increase of at least 16,000 since the last election.
In further and higher education, the good news of expanding numbers has been soured by reductions in spending per student. In 1997–98, the Further Education Funding Council for Wales and the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales will have their budgets cut by £1 million and £6 million respectively. Perhaps it is no surprise that nine of the 26 FE colleges are in deficit this year, and that it is predicted that 15 will be in deficit the year after next. Welsh higher education is also reporting cuts in critical areas. In Swansea, Cardiff, Newport and the university of Glamorgan, engineering and science courses are being dropped, at the very time when efforts should be made to encourage more participation to meet the need for skilled engineers and technicians when the LG investment in Newport comes on stream.
Again, the good news about the expansion of modern apprenticeships and the increase in the numbers of technicians is tempered by reductions that have been made in the Welsh Office's employment and training budget during the lifetime of the present Government, from £152 million in 1992 to £136 million in April this year. The sad fact is that, despite some progress in the past four years, Wales has a smaller share of 17 and 18-year-olds in full-time education than any other OEDC country except Turkey.
It is, perhaps, even sadder that, according to recent studies commissioned by the South and Mid Glamorgan training and enterprise councils, between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent. of school leavers within two years of leaving school have spent much of their time out of education, training or work of any kind—the so-called status zero. The Prime Minister himself said that our education system was failing 80 per cent. of our pupils; yet, after 18 years of Tory rule, the historic long tail of failure has hardly begun to be tackled.
By recognising the realities of Tory failure, we are not selling Wales short but facing the challenge of being prepared to tackle the unresolved problems of the Government's rule. The decline must be halted, and the key will be the extent to which the prospective Labour Government can forge new partnerships in Wales. We will place immense importance on the transition from the Welsh Office to the Welsh Assembly, where we can have a rational, national debate about the making of policy, which does not happen under the Government, where priorities chop and change at the behest of the Secretary of State with little or no debate.
One Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), was committed to partnership with Europe. Another, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), wanted to avoid it like the plague. The present Secretary of State just follows the
474
twists and turns of the Prime Minister. The current Secretary of State placed great importance on the role of the Countryside Council for Wales, while his predecessor sought to diminish it. There is no debate about these issues. They depend on the whim of the Secretary of State of the day.
All the historically strong European economies have strong regional institutions. Amazingly, the Secretary of State extols the virtue of Wales's links with Baden-Wurttemburg, Catalonia, Lombardy and Rhone-Alpes without seeing the strength of their regional government as an essential part of their economic success.
Mr. Wigley: I have been listening with interest to the way in which the hon. Gentleman is developing the argument with regard to the role that the Assembly will play, particularly in education. If there is an incoming Conservative Government in five years' time, and if they want to pass legislation to extend nursery vouchers to affect primary or even secondary education, how will the Assembly proposed by Labour deal with that? The Scottish Parliament will have law-making powers, whereas the Assembly that Labour proposes for Wales will not, and it will have to live with legislation passed by right-wing Tory Governments.
Mr. Griffiths: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman takes such a dismal view of the future. We feel that there is no need to be troubled by those issues. We look forward to a future in which a Welsh Assembly can act as a democratic dynamo, inspiring participants from all the social partners and all parts of Wales to develop with Assembly Members and the Welsh civil service national strategies for jobs and wealth.
The Secretary of State is also developing the social partner concept—
Mr. Hague: Gibberish.
Mr. Griffiths: The Secretary of State calls it gibberish, but I note that on the Welsh Development Agency board are people who represent local government, trade unions and business in Wales. Perhaps he does not understand what the term "social partners" means.
We look to the sub-regional committees of the Assembly to focus on their parts of Wales and bring together the development agencies, higher and further education institutions, TECs, local authorities and representatives of local trade and industry to pursue commonly agreed objectives for sustainable economic development.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Griffiths: No. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and I want to complete my speech to allow others to speak.
An essential part of the process will be the regional education and training forum, bringing together Welsh Office and Welsh Assembly Members and officials, LEAs, higher and further education institutions, TECs, development agencies and employers to raise educational and skill standards, which are so necessary in any successful, advanced, modern economy.

475
We need a highly trained and adaptable work force to get the right inward investment and to develop our home-grown companies to broaden the base of our economy. Our emphasis on the need for a learning society in Wales in which the knowledge and skills of all people are extended in a process of lifelong education cannot be overstated. We must offer education opportunities for all people. Ours is a commitment to a universal high-quality education. We believe that every child deserves to go to a successful school.
As we approach he new millennium, we want a Wales in which well educated citizens contribute to a healthy and wealthy economy that offers continuing opportunities for self-fulfilment to all, not just the privileged few. Educational excellence is Labour's aspiration for the people of Wales in the 21st century. I look forward next year to Labour's aspirations being implemented by a Government headed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), whose declared priority is "education, education, education".

ROYAL ASSENT
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Horserace Totaliser Board Act 1997

Land Registration Act 1997

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Act 1997

Telecommunications (Fraud) Act 1997

Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997

Local Government (Gaelic Names) (Scotland) Act 1997

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997

Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act 1997

Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1997

Civil Procedure Act 1997

United Nations Personnel Act 1997

National Heritage Act 1997

Welsh Affairs
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
6.5 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: I realise that some hon. Members may greet my announcement that this will be positively my last appearance in the annual debate on Welsh affairs with a polite sigh of relief. After 27 years' participation one way or another, even my feelings are mixed. I prefer beginnings to endings.
This has traditionally been a day for state-of-the-nation speeches from the Front Benches and state-of-the-constituency speeches from the Back Benches. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is not with us. I mean no disrespect, of course, to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who took his place. I am consoled by the fact that the hon. Member for Caerphilly is in Llandudno, in my constituency, where he will undoubtedly see the record investment that has taken place there over the past 18 years. He will see it in the glorious vistas of the A55 and in that great triumph of engineering the Conwy tunnel, and in its sister tunnels at Penmaenmawr and Penmaen-bach. He will also see it in the development of Llandudno hospital, which the Liberals have been threatening with closure for the past 30-odd years.
All in all, year on year, the official record of these debates is an essential part of the background to the history of Wales and its people in our time. I hope that these debates will continue.
I shall dip only briefly into the past to set the present and future in perspective, but it is worth reminding ourselves just how heavily dependent we were for employment in Wales on coal and steel, and how both sides of the House came to realise that those industries could not be sustained indefinitely with subsidies from the taxpayer. It will interest hon. Members to know that, as late as 1978–79, the National Coal Board received the equivalent of £1.2 billion in subsidies, and British Steel £2.1 billion at today's prices. There was a string of pit closures in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s and a slimdown in the steel industry. At the same time, considerable efforts were made, through substantial investment, to modernise those industries and make them economically viable.
Those efforts were more successful in the steel industry, probably because we started from a better base. There was no denying the fall in demand for coal, and the severity of competition in steel. Thousands of jobs were lost, and we needed new industries. They came as inward investment from abroad: Sony in 1972 and Ford in 1976. I pay tribute to our predecessors on both sides of the House who had to face up to those difficult problems and take some tough and painful decisions.
Some of us had the pleasure of hearing Lord Callaghan at lunchtime. When he represented Cardiff, South he had to endure the closure of East Moors steelworks in his constituency. Similarly, Michael Foot had to face the prospect of the end of steelmaking in his constituency of Ebbw Vale. I must commend the foresight of those, including the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), who anticipated the devastating

477
consequences of those and other closures on our economy, and took steps to ameliorate the effects by establishing the means to attract and develop new industry.
Hon. Members will know that, from 1979, my noble and spirited Friend Lord Crickhowell, then the Secretary of State, led mission after mission to North America and Japan, at some cost to his health, as did his successors. As a result, some 300 overseas companies have established 380 plants and provided 75,000 jobs in Wales. I am glad to say that I played some part in that. I visited Japan and met the president of Hoya: I am still wearing the Hoya lenses that I acquired before I met him. I also visited North America and Europe to procure jobs for Wales. I know from experience how important an attraction to foreign companies was the unrivalled quality of the Welsh work force and its astonishing flexibility. The co-operative, welcoming attitude of the local authorities was also very much to the fore. All those people deserve the highest praise for their patience, and their readiness to embrace new developments.
Local indigenous companies were not ignored. Laura Ashley began as a kitchen industry: that is how the great lady herself described it. It was a local company and grew to employ hundreds of people in mid and north Wales; and it still does. Control Techniques and other companies also achieved international stature.
Someone said that history is the biography of great men—and, I am sure, women. Wales has been fortunate in having people who have dedicated themselves with a will to tackling its problems, including my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State. My dearest wish is that that tradition will continue.
I must also draw attention to the extensive support that Wales has received from the rest of the United Kingdom in its transition to a more diversified economy. It was not just money that came to us; there was more to it than that. There was good will towards us; a will that we should succeed in Wales. Without that assistance from the rest of the United Kingdom at home and abroad, the change that we have witnessed would hardly have been possible.
We still require that assistance to make further advances, and to raise the standard of living of our people in Wales. The standard needs raising, as is shown by the statistical data to which the hon. Member for Bridgend referred. We all know that, but it stands to reason that we should not put support from the United Kingdom at risk. If we do, we put the future prosperity of the people of Wales in peril.
We are all agreed—Conservative Members at least—that we need more and better jobs in Wales, and that that is the way to raise wage levels and improve conditions. We must pursue present policies vigorously and relentlessly, as my right hon. Friend is doing. We realise that circumstances may change, that there may be fewer potential inward investors about and that competition for their investment may become keener. We have known that situation in the past. We may have to change tack and provide more forceful encouragement to indigenous businesses in the westernmost parts of Wales, but our main thrust is right: jobs, more jobs, better jobs. That must be our top priority. I want to see Wales vie with the very best and most prosperous regions in the United Kingdom.
478
The Opposition pay lip service to that kind of thinking, but in reality their major priority is purely political: to make constitutional changes and to establish a Welsh Assembly. That is already taking a great deal of their time and energy. If Labour wins the election—which I do not think it will—it will take up even more time. There will be the referendum campaign followed by a protracted legislative process. What will happen to the Welsh economy while all that diversionary activity is going on? There will be little progress, if any, because everyone will be distracted from the main aim of improving economic conditions in Wales.
I listened to the hon. Member for Bridgend, but he had nothing to offer us. He talked about partnerships, about chatting up people across Wales and about asking for more money, but he did not tell us where he would get it from or say what he would do as a result of that talking-shop activity in Wales. It is not just him: I do not want to blame him unduly. If—it is a very big if—a few years from now, the 60 assemblymen are comfortably seated in Cardiff, Caerphilly or perhaps Llandudno, sorting out their responsibilities for the quangos, how much better off will the people of Wales be as a consequence? Not a penny piece.
There will be. We already know of the 20 questions that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) has put to the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). They contain an implicit threat. We can be sure that confusion will reign, and confusion is not a prescription for progress.
I warn Labour Members that their assembly proposals are a recipe for divisiveness. Wales is easily divided: Cardiff versus the valleys, north versus south. Furthermore, it is a recipe for unfairness. One thing that can be said of my right hon. Friend and his predecessors in the Welsh Office is that they have always dealt fairly and equitably with every part of Wales and with all the people of Wales. I am not sure that that would happen necessarily under an assembly.
An added problem is that an assembly would isolate Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom and, possibly, from the world, which would be dangerous because our national needs in Wales will not be met if we are isolated. They would be ignored, so I have serious misgivings about the future that the Opposition hold out to us, and I assure them that those misgivings are shared by many people in Wales—as they were almost 20 years ago.
I may be accused of being somewhat servile—that is the worst that has been thrown at me. My reply is that at least I recognise a gift horse when I look it in the mouth. I know where power lies. Opposition Members should not forget that Nye Bevan set out on that search and he ended up here. It is here in Westminster and in Whitehall that power lies, and this is where it will remain.
Members of Plaid Cymru frequently refer to the recent progress made by the Republic of Ireland with assistance from Europe—which I welcome—but they tend to forget that the Republic has taken a long time to reach its present position, that it still has 11 per cent. unemployment, and that 43 per cent. of its population is under 25. A fifth of our population are pensioners, so the situation is different and, of course, the Republic does not have the generous backing that we in Wales receive from the UK. The Irish receive strong support from Europe, but for how long if Europe is enlarged?

479
Hon. Members will know my tradition—the tradition of the manse—so it is not without reason that I say that, without vision, the people perish. Conservative Members have long cherished the vision of a more prosperous Wales, and we are determined to harness people's energies to realise that vision. I regret to say that the Opposition only pretend to share that vision. It seems to be alien to their thinking. It is certainly not at the core of anything that we have heard this afternoon. The core of their vision for Wales is the consolidation of their party's political power in Wales, so I am inclined to share Nye Bevan's nightmare of people starving in front of their television sets. That seems a distinct possibility as one listens to the offbeat plans and priorities, and the discordant, irresponsible separatist voices in the wings.
In the past 18 years, we have made considerable progress in building new hospitals, laying new roads and improving education and training. Our further and higher education colleges are pervaded by a new spirit of enterprise, but there is still a vast amount to be done by way of improving servicees when we have the resources at our command. We must keep our eyes fixed on those needs and try to meet them head on. We must not allow ourselves to be diverted in the race—that is the great danger-and we must realise that those needs can be met only by driving the wealth-creation process as hard as we can to produce the necessary resources.
I am sure that we are on the right path. The challenge is to stay on it. The people of Wales wish to do so because it is the only path that offers them hope of a better life. They will enable us to stay on that path provided that we tell them clearly enough the positive benefits that lie ahead and contrast them with the troublesome, counterproductive and, sadly, negative prospects represented by the Opposition.
I am humble enough to think that I may be wrong, but I do not think so. Conservative Members must eliminate those negative, unprofitable prospects and accentuate our positive record of achievement and positive vision of a better material future for the people of Wales. Fortunately, we do not have to worry about the use that Welsh people will make of any prosperity that may come their way: they have an incomparable cultural and linguistic heritage and a rich spiritual inheritance which they will not allow to be lost in the sands of time.
6.25 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: It has always been a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), but on this occasion, that pleasure is obviously tinged with sadness because, as he said, this is the last occasion on which he will address the House, certainly during a Welsh debate. He has always made his contributions with charm and civility. Although he and I have differed from time to time, especially on the assembly—perhaps he remembers one or two occasions in the dim and distant past when we debated the matter—I have never doubted, indeed I do not think that any hon. Member has, his patriotism and his dedication to his country, to its culture and its language. We shall certainly miss him in the House.
A year is longtime in politics, but it is not a long time in economics. Last year, we debated Welsh affairs and the Welsh economy. Despite the bullish upbeat performance by the Secretary of State for Wales, sadly, little has
480
changed fundamentally for the Welsh economy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said. It is no good the Secretary of State muttering; sadly, Wales is still at the bottom of the league. It is the poorest region in Britain and has been for the past 18 years, through the 1980s and into the 1990s. The gap between Wales and the rest of Britain may be getting wider—I do not know—but the least that can be said is that we are at the bottom of the pile.
We can find plenty of people to blame. Labour Members can blame Conservative Members and the economic policies of the early 1980s, with interest rates at 17 per cent. and the crippling level of the pound, which destroyed many of our industries. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has his demons: those fat, sleazy, short Labour councillors. The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) and his friends have their demons, too—the London Government and the English—and they are looking forward to the new Brussels Government, who, they believe, will one day solve all the problems. Therefore, we can all blame each other and others for this sad state of affairs.
The reality, however—the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West and others mentioned this in the devolution debate—is set out starkly in the Welsh budget, which the Welsh Office has produced, for 1994–95. It is never easy and never has been—I think that it was the Labour Government of 1974–79 who started this exercise—to produce a budget for a separate area, region or country, within a single economic unit such as the UK, but, obviously, things are getting more sophisticated and it is perhaps becoming easier to do so, because there is more information.
I congratulate the Welsh Office on producing the budget. No doubt there are assumptions and perhaps we can challenge some of them, but, by and large, it seems to be a fairly realistic portrayal and analysis of what was happening in 1994–95, although, since then, not much has changed in the Welsh economy.
The figures are stark and worrying. According to the Welsh budget, total Government expenditure was £15.6 billion, but revenue was only £9.9 billion. That is a deficit of revenue against expenditure of £5.7 billion. If we make certain assumptions and take the Welsh gross domestic product in 1994–95 to be £28 billion, we arrive at a dreadful Government borrowing requirement or fiscal deficit of 20 per cent.
When I saw that figure, I thought that it could not be true, so I decided to look at 1996–97, as there had been some improvements. I assumed no increase whatever in public expenditure, a growth rate of 2.5 per cent. a year, or 5 per cent. over the two years, and an increase in revenue of 2.5 per cent. a year, or 5 per cent. over the two years. I rounded up when it was favourable to Wales and rounded down when it was favourable to Wales. I increased the GDP by 2.5 per cent. a year for the coming year, but I still reached a borrowing requirement or fiscal deficit of 15 per cent. for the Welsh economy.
I shall not go back over the Maastricht debate, but we all know that the Maastricht treaty called for a fiscal deficit of 3 per cent. We all read about the troubles and problems of Chancellor Kohl and others in Germany, in trying to reduce the German fiscal deficit from 4 per cent. to 3 per cent.

481
I then looked up the figures for the European Union. The country with the highest deficit is Greece, with a figure of about 8 per cent. We are talking about a deficit of 15 per cent. for the Welsh economy, and that is on favourable assumptions. I do not believe that any country in the western world could survive with such a deficit. It would be impossible to fund a deficit of 15 per cent. Who would fund it? The banks certainly would not fund it, nor would major international corporations. The International Monetary Fund would not fund it without substantial cuts in public expenditure. It just would not happen.
I received at my house in my constituency a piece of paper from Plaid Cymru, advocating that Wales should leave the United Kingdom and join the European Union. That is a fine idea, but it did not explain how a 15 per cent. deficit in GDP would be funded if Wales were to move from one union to another. Some £5 billion would have to be found, and it would not come from the European Commission.
I see that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn has a newspaper cutting saying that Wales is to lose £200 million in regional aid. We are talking about not millions, but billions. We are talking about a deficit of £5 billion or slightly more. There is no way in which it could be funded. Mr. Jacques Santer would not fund such a deficit. The idea that any political party could go to the people of Wales in a general election and say, "Look at Ireland. We shall join the European Union and then we shall be able to survive as an independent nation," is simply impossible.
It is dishonest to the people of Wales to pretend that somehow it would be possible to switch from one union to another and finance an enormous deficit. It could not be done. The Welsh economy would disappear down a black hole. In theory, it could be financed by major cuts in public expenditure and pensions and major closures of hospitals and schools. It just is not credible. I should have thought that Plaid Cymru would at least do the people of Wales the service of making it quite clear that it is economically impossible.
We are also told that money could come to Wales in the same way as it comes to Ireland, and that if Wales could get over that huge chasm and become part of the European Union, it would get more money from the cohesion fund. It would probably receive about five or six times as much as it does now—the figure would probably increase from about £30 million to £40 million now, to about £200 million. That is quite a large sum, but we are talking about millions, not billions. The extra £200 million or so would make no dent in a borrowing requirement of more than £5 billion.
To return to the Welsh economy, it gives none of us any pleasure to draw attention to the difficulties, but they have to be faced. I hope that matters will improve and that the new LG investment, among others, will raise income levels and lower the need for public expenditure, but that can make only a small dent in the deficit in the Welsh economy.
As the right hon. Member for Conwy said, global competition for loose capital will increase. The wages that are paid in manufacturing and engineering in western countries and the United States are certainly far higher than the average wages in those industries, in the global
482
economy. As developing countries develop further and countries such as China begin to produce car components, it is inevitable that the pressure will be even greater on the income that we in the west obtain from producing goods that will also be produced by other countries. Competition will become more intense, and only way in which we in Wales will hold our own, improve and compete will be by trying to ensure that our education system is equipped for the global market.
There has been much emphasis on education in the debate. Companies require an extraordinary combination of skills in their managers and key personnel. They need people with literacy and numeracy skills and technological competence. That is a difficult combination of skills. Sadly, whatever has been said in the debate, I do not believe that the Welsh education system is equipped to create those skills.
Over the past 30 years, the gap between Welsh secondary education and that in the more prosperous parts of England has widened. It is my impression, not empirical evidence, that it has worsened. Certainly, the gap between Welsh state-funded secondary education and the better English public schools has become much wider.
Mr. Alex Carlile: The right hon. Gentleman is making an important point. Will he develop it further by agreeing that the fact that there are now almost no grants available for postgraduate education for Welsh students is diminishing the enormous skills that the brightest young Welsh people have to offer their country and the world? Does he agree that the Government have miserably and wretchedly ignored postgraduate education?
Mr. Davies: Indeed. My generation was able to benefit from that system, but the present generation cannot. Perhaps I can concentrate on the 12 to 19-year-olds, where the gap has grown wider.
In Wales, we pride ourselves on our democracy and the fact that we do not educate an elite. Wales is the only country in the United Kingdom that does not specifically educate an elite. The English do and so do the Scots. I am not quite sure about Northern Ireland, but I suspect that it does, too.
The main condemnation of the way in which the English and Scots educate their elite through their public school system is not that it is a boarding system, or even the fact that they educate an elite—it is that that elite is based on money, because access to the institutions depends on a person's resources. The French seem to have managed to educate an elite through their state system. The Germans, perhaps, have done so as well. The Americans are in an interesting position. They rightly pride themselves on the equality of opportunity that they provide, but they also make sure that they educate an elite. That elite is educated partly through private schools and partly through neighbourhood schools, bolstered by the planning and zoning system, which makes sure that the children who go to those schools are from very well-heeled homes.
Wales is one of the few countries that do not educate an elite. Perhaps we take pride in that—I do not know. The result is that the gap between our education system

483
and those in England and Scotland for children between the ages of 12, 13 or 14 and 19 is very wide. We are fooling ourselves if we believe that our state secondary system is able to make even a dent in that gap.
I have a brief suggestion.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman's argument means that he will support the provisions in the Education Bill that is before the House.
Mr. Davies: I heard the Secretary of State's brief comments about that. I do not think that the proposals go anywhere near far enough towards solving this very real problem. If those in the educational establishment in Wales read Hansard, no doubt I shall be lynched on my way back to the Principality, but I suggest that we should think about trying to educate an elite in Wales between the ages of 12 and 19.
The only way to do that would be by setting up centres of excellence. I shall not talk about elite schools any more—centres of excellence is a fine term. We should establish five or six centres of excellence to educate an elite, based not on money, but on competition, on merit, and on interview or examination.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Grammar schools.
Mr. Davies: No, not grammar schools. I grew up in the grammar school system, and I do not have a starry-eyed, romantic view of it. I do not believe that we can have a grammar school in every town.
Mr. Richards: The right hon. Gentleman said a moment ago that we did not educate an elite in Wales. Surely he of all people will realise that, some years ago, we did—we educated elite people to play rugby at grammar schools in Llanelli, Carmarthen, Bridgend, Gower—
Mr. Anderson: And Swansea.
Mr. Richards: And Swansea. They were an elite, educated by the grammar schools that I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's party did away with.
Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. I was not talking about sport. I was trying to address my remarks to the problem that Wales will face in, to use a vogue phrase, the global market in the next millennium. It is a real problem. We have never set out to educate an elite in Wales. The old grammar schools did not do that. The gap between our old grammar schools and the better grammar schools in England—and certainly the better public schools in England—was always wide. Let us have no romanticism about a grammar school in every town.
My suggestion, which no doubt will be shot down in flames by the educational establishment, is to set up five or six centres of excellence. They would have to be boarding centres, because we could not have more than five or six. Entry would be by competitive examination or interview. They would be funded by the state—I shall come back to that in a moment—and they would teach a small number of subjects. They would not teach the easy
484
subjects such as sociology, law, politics, business studies and the others that have crept into the A-level system to provide padding.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Bring back Latin.
Mr. Davies: Yes, indeed. The schools would teach the subjects that would equip young men and women in Wales to compete in this awful global economy that we are faced with. They would have to teach English, because literacy will be very important. It is no use teaching French—French is not on the Internet, and nor are German or Chinese. The language of the global market is English. Those who can communicate in English—when I watch some of our television programmes, I wonder whether some Welsh people can—will have an advantage. The schools should obviously also teach science and mathematics. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) muttered something about Latin. Indeed, we should teach the classics. There is no need to teach any more than that.
Where will the money come from? It cannot come from the present education budget, because that would defeat the whole purpose. We need to raise the standards of everybody. I am not talking about educating an elite at the expense of somebody else. We all have to address funding in this era of iron Chancellors and over-mighty central bank governors. The money would have to come from either a grant from the London Government or the rest of the Welsh Office budget. Hard choices would have to be made, and money might have to be taken from health, transport or other important services, because education is more important than anything else. If we do not equip our young people for the future, we shall not have much of a health service or a transport service or anything else to spend money on, bearing in mind the enormous gap between expenditure and revenue in Wales.
All nations need myths and perhaps small nations such as Wales need more than most. However, one myth that we can do without is the old one that the Welsh really believe in education and that we have a marvellous education system. We do not and we have not had one for a long time. If we do not acquire one, at the end of the next 20 years we shall still be at the bottom of the economic pile.
6.46 pm
Mr. Rod Richards: I, too, begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) for his long service and contribution, as a Member of this House and as a Minister, to his constituents and to the people of Wales.

The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made an interesting contribution, as always. He commented on the speech that I made during last Thursday's debate on the constitution. I should like to return to that issue for a short while this afternoon, because it is fundamental to the current debate on devolution, whether one is debating the Labour party's proposals or the more extreme proposal of independence campaigned for by Plaid Cymru.
Last week, I drew on data from the 1994–95 "Government Expenditure and Revenue" report for Wales, published in January this year. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli said, it shows a fiscal deficit of

485
£5.7 billion. That is a structural deficit—it is there every year. It is the difference between Government expenditure in 1994–95 of £15.6 billion, and tax receipts of £9.9 billion. Just to maintain public services at the current level and quality, £5.7 billion a year would have to be raised. That is not taking into consideration Plaid Cymru's promises and pledges, which although they are very difficult to cost would certainly add several billion pounds to that deficit.
Since my remarks last Thursday, the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), who I am afraid is not in his place at the moment, has come up with what I think he would argue are responses to the charges that Wales could not pay its way in the world at the current level of public services. He said that, if there were an independent Wales, its contribution to the defence budget would be much lower and, therefore, the cost of additional services and the deficit could be made up. I am afraid that that does not stand up to any scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon said that, under Plaid Cymru, Wales would spend 1 per cent. of its gross domestic product on defence. The published figures for 1994–95 show that Wales's contribution to defence is £940 million a year. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) said, 1 per cent. of Welsh GDP is £280 million. The net contribution to the revenue of an independent Wales would therefore be something short of £700 million, which would still leave a recurring fiscal deficit of more than £5 billion a year.
It is something of a revelation that Plaid Cymru has attempted to quantify its defence policy of all policies because it has not attempted to quantify any other spending pledges. We have the figure of 1 per cent. for defence but nothing else. Normally, a country would decide how much to spend on defence by assessing national security and the threat to it. Having made such a threat assessment, the Government of the day of whichever country would decide how best to meet it by deciding how much money to spend and what resources would be required. I am sure that Plaid Cymru has not thought for a moment about a threat assessment or the national security implications of an independent Wales. Its policy is complete nonsense.
A short while ago, while listening to the debate, I wondered what sort of defence policy and forces Plaid Cymru might have in mind to defend Wales. It occurred to me that some day, under an independent Wales whose assembly is run by Plaid Cymru, we might see a flotilla of stainless steel coracles on the River Teifi, perhaps an armoured regiment of Skodas with mounted peashooters, or even an air squadron of bilingual carrier pigeons. I shall leave that to Plaid Cymru to consider if such a situation ever arises.
The other policy that Plaid Cymru has attempted to quantify is its health policy. About two years ago, it published what it called a health "White Paper", which contained pledges costing many hundreds of millions of pounds on top of the existing level of provision in Wales. The document said quite clearly that health and social services in Wales would be paid for by 9 per cent. of Welsh GDP. Had the person who wrote that paper taken the trouble to look at the data, they would have found that we already spend 10 per cent. of Welsh GDP on health and social services. So, without mentioning any
486
extra resources, Plaid Cymru would have to find an additional 1 per cent. of GDP just to maintain the current level of services.

Bearing in mind the fiscal deficit of £5 billion, the total tax take in Wales from all sources—income tax, corporation tax, value added tax, council tax, and so on—is £9.9 billion. For argument's sake and ease of calculation, let us call it £10 billion. Taxes across the board in Wales would have to be raised by 50 per cent. just to maintain services at today's levels. As the right hon. Member for Llanelli quite clearly said, that is just not feasible; it cannot be done. Plaid Cymru does itself and the people of Wales a great disservice by suggesting that an independent Wales with a Parliament in Cardiff could improve the quality of life in Wales—it could not. The right hon. Gentleman also blew a hole in the myth that Plaid Cymru has woven about European funding. We are talking about small beer—I suppose that it is small beer in Plaid Cymru's terms—of a couple of hundred million pounds here, and a couple of hundred million pounds there. I am talking about a recurring deficit of £5 billion. Members of Plaid Cymru should at least be honest with the people of Wales and say that what they plan cannot be done.
The other comment that the hon. Member for Caernarfon has published since I spoke last week is that much of Plaid Cymru's spending would be financed by increasing the basic rate of income tax in Wales by 2p in the pound, taking it up to 25p. One penny on the basic rate of income tax in Wales raises £60 million, and 2p raises £120 million. That would just about cover the cost of the Welsh television channel S4C, which would presumably be responsible to the assembly or parliament of an independent Wales. Plaid Cymru has been rather silent about S4C, as has the Labour party. Whether S4C would be responsible to an assembly and whether the assembly would finance it is a question for the Labour party as well as Plaid Cymru.
Before I turn to commenting on the Labour party, I should like to make one more point about Plaid Cymru. It continually says that it speaks for the people of Wales. Its members constantly deride the Conservatives because we have six Members of Parliament representing constituencies in Wales. At the last general election, Plaid Cymru was supported by 10 per cent. of the people in Wales—so it does not speak for them. The Conservatives were supported by and large by about 30 per cent. of the people in Wales. We therefore speak for rather more of the people of Wales than Plaid Cymru. It is offensive of Plaid Cymru to suggest, as I am sure the Labour party would also argue, that it speaks for the people of Wales, because 90 per cent. of them do not support Plaid Cymru.
As for the Labour party, it is regrettable that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) is not in his place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy said, it does not take very long to get to north Wales. Those of us who have constituencies in north Wales frequently have to travel up late on a Thursday evening or very early Friday morning to attend meetings or surgeries. It is bread and butter for us, and just goes to show how rarely the hon. Gentleman has been in north Wales since 1992. Indeed, to my recollection, the only time that he visits north Wales is when there is some form of election pending.

487
I should like to ask Labour Front Benchers several questions. I do not expect to receive an answer to the first one, because I know that they—certainly the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—do not have an answer to it. It is the West Lothian question. If the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has a formula to explain how to resolve the West Lothian question, with an assembly in Cardiff and a Parliament in Scotland, Conservative Members would dearly love to hear it.
The second question—as opposed to the West Lothian question—is more of a Cardiff West question. It was interesting—a mild revelation—to hear the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) talking about a Welsh Assembly forming committees to run the Welsh Development Agency, to run health and to run this and that. However, Conservative Members should like to know what the relationship would be between the Executive—in the form of the Secretary of State for Wales, who is responsible for services such as health and education in Wales—and the assembly? As he said a moment ago, an assembly would have some executive powers. However, the Secretary of State would not be a member of the assembly, and therefore would not have a vote in the assembly on how the Welsh bloc would be distributed or be able to take part in debates on those serious issues.
Therefore, what would be the relationship between an assembly with executive powers and a Secretary of State—who is presumably a member of the Cabinet—with executive powers? Which would be supreme in a dispute? How would a dispute be resolved? How would it work? Perhaps the hon. Member for Bridgend would like to answer that question.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman to receive a copy of our document, which explains those matters. Basically, however, the Welsh Assembly will assume the duties and responsibilities that are currently held by the Welsh Office.
Mr. Richards: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that an assembly would have no executive but merely advisory powers? Is he saying that it would have only the power to advise the Secretary of State?
Mr. Griffiths: No.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what he is saying? If a Welsh Assembly would take the place of the Welsh Office, it would have no executive powers and merely advise the Secretary of State. Perhaps he does not understand how the Welsh Office works.
Mr. Griffiths: The powers and responsibilities currently held by the Secretary of State for Wales will be vested in the Welsh Assembly.
Mr. Richards: Therefore a Welsh Assembly would assume the powers of the Secretary of State. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore tell us—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] The point is very interesting. What would be the Secretary of State's role in the Cabinet? Would he be a messenger boy from the assembly to the Cabinet—or would there be a Secretary of State?
Mr. Griffiths: Yes.
Mr. Richards: I will let the hon. Gentleman think on that for a moment.
488
My understanding of the proposed assembly is that some of its members would be elected by proportional representation. It would be composed of 60 representatives: 40 of whom will be territorial, representing each constituency in Wales, and 20 of whom will be elected in a list. I should like to ask a question from the point of view of my and other hon. Members' constituents. If a constituent has an issue that he would like to raise with an assembly—with the executive powers that have been described very loosely by the hon. Member for Bridgend—should he contact his territorial, constituency representative or a list representative—or would there be a two-tier system? How would it operate? We do not know the answer. If the hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Cardiff, West have an answer, we should very much like to hear it in the reply to this debate.
I should like to return to the matter of Sianel 4 Cymru. It will be very important to many people in Wales to know whether a Welsh Assembly would take over funding of S4C or whether the Department of National Heritage would continue to do so. It is an important issue, and perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff, West will deal with it in his reply.
7.4 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: In the early evening a year from now—on the occasion of the next Welsh day debate—I suspect that I shall be putting my feet on the domestic fender, pouring a glass of wine for my wife, talking to the children about the day they have had at school and at university and suffering from a little bit of withdrawal at not being in the House to take part in it. I have now been an hon. Member for 14 years, although I do not even pretend to possess anything like the distinction of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) or to have the respect that he has earned from all hon. Members. I think that many hon. Members—particularly those of us who know north and mid-Wales well—look on him as the best Secretary of State that Wales never had.
As I look back on my 14 years in the House, I think that I will regard occasions such as this—Welsh day debates, Welsh Grand Committee debates and similar occasions—as perhaps not making very much everyday difference to the way of life of people in Wales, but as demonstrating that a tradition of political understanding and lively political debate continues in Wales as expressed in the House, as it did 100 years ago—when the early ferment of Welsh politics, which was exemplified by Lloyd George, was beginning to develop, and when Welsh politics really began to have an enormous impact on the wider politics of the United Kingdom.
Indeed, I would say to those who have ambitions or are interested in a political career—if that is the right noun to ascribe to it; I have always thought that politics was more an activity than a job or a career—that they could start in no better fashion than by reading the early speeches of David Lloyd George, the speeches of people such as Tom Ellis, the very distinguished former hon. Member who served Merionethshire, or those of other of our Welsh political forebears, on whom of course I look with particular affection.
On the wall of my office in the House is a map—from the "Daily Graphic" of that time—of the result of the 1892 general election, which was presented to me by a

489
constituent during the 1992 general election campaign. It shows every single seat in Wales having fallen to the Liberal party. As I leave the House, I wish that I could deliver the same result to the Welsh Liberal Democrats. I will leave it to the public to judge how well the Welsh Liberal Democrats should do at the next general election. I say without fear, however, that I think that we still have a very important role to play in Welsh politics.
When a Welsh regional tier of government—with its democratic element, in whatever form—is established, I look forward to the flowering within that arena of young talents coming from the Welsh Liberal Democrats. I hope that they will be able to make a very considerable contribution to the politics of Wales. Like, I suspect, the right hon. Member for Conwy and other hon. and right hon. Members leaving the House at the forthcoming general election, I shall miss the House enormously. However, like them, I am beginning to discover that opportunities lie outside the House, which perhaps have around them the framework of real life.
On such an occasion, the temptation is of course to indulge oneself in an exegesis of the breadth of Welsh politics, to offer a blueprint for the future and to try to teach some lessons about mistakes made during one's time in the House, but I do not propose to go down that road. I want to talk about only one specific subject.
I am the son of a doctor. My father came to this country in early middle life and worked in the Polish hospital in Penley. We lived in Ruabon. Then he took a job in the national health service as a general practitioner, running a practice—at first single-handed—in Burnley, an industrial town in Lancashire. For many decades, we lived in the house that contained his surgery. I remember hearing from my bedroom window the clacking of the clogs as the cotton workers walked along Trafalgar street to the cotton mills at 5.30 every morning. That was a familiar sound until the mid-1950s. Many of my father's patients were cotton workers, until the cotton industry closed. Another large slice of his patients were coal miners, who came not only from Lancashire, but from Wales, Italy, Poland and Hungary. They came from everywhere. Now the coal mines have closed.
Many of my father's patients lived in streets that evoke in my mind wonderful memories of childhood—Rowley street and Sackville street. They were little slum streets of that great industrial Lancashire town which had already suffered, between the turn of the century and the middle, a decline in its population of almost 50 per cent. The planners—I make no criticism of the political party in charge at the time, although it will not be difficult to guess which party ran Burnley county borough in the 1950s—took the view that the slums should be removed and replaced with beautiful housing estates. Of course, that did not work, and the result was disjointed communities. I still visit Burnley occasionally, because my widowed mother lives there, and I also like to go to Turf Moor, as I have since I was five and a half years old. Burnley still has a community spirit, but it is fighting to retain it.
My father started his life practising medicine as a specialist in central Europe before he became a general practitioner in Lancashire. He used to say to me that the most important social change that had happened in any country this century was the introduction of the national health service. I used to go out on his rounds with him in
490
his Austin A30, not only because the nice ladies in Rowley street gave me sweets, but because I enjoyed his company and the education he gave me, which has stayed with me throughout my life and long after his death.
My father used to say that whether a person was a prince or a pauper—he told me to remember that all princes were bandits once—the national health service treated him the same. If my father chose, as a general practitioner, to send a patient to Professor Charnley in Preston for one of the early hip replacement operations, he could do so as a matter of right, because that was his diagnosis. If he chose to send a patient for a specialist consultation in London, because he judged that the best thoracic surgeon was there, he could do so, as long as he made his choice intelligently. He was greatly respected for the way in which he ran his practice, and his message about the value of the national health service has been imbued in me.
I have continued to take a close interest in medicine and health issues during my life and during my time in the House. I have done it professionally, through my legal practice, and politically. Like the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), I am a lay member of the General Medical Council. I have been one for some eight years now, and I have learnt a lot about the effect of Government policies on the health service from a different viewpoint, well away from the House.
During my representation of the wonderful county of Montgomeryshire, I have seen the treatment of people's health suffer because of the Government's policies. I regret that. I say in all sincerity to the Under-Secretary that I accept that the Government have not been malevolent, but they have got their policies wrong. The national health service, which my father taught me to believe benefited everyone equally, does not benefit everyone equally any more. That principle has been abandoned—wrongly.
The Secretary of State alluded to the community hospitals in the Dyfed Powys health authority area. There could be no worse example of the way in which people have been regarded not as patients, but as pawns, than the behaviour of that health authority. I am delighted to read in my local newspapers that the Under-Secretary has condemned Dyfed Powys health authority for its behaviour, which should be put on record.
On 23 December 1996, the health authority, deliberately behaving in a Scrooge-like fashion, issued a statement that included the judgment from its powerful position that eight community hospitals in the old counties of Dyfed and Powys would have to close. That was an appalling time to issue the statement and it caused widespread anxiety over Christmas and the new year among staff, patients and potential patients.
On the day the press release was issued, I took the trouble to write to Mrs. Vanessa Bourne, the so-called chairman of the authority, to ask her to reveal to me, as a Member of Parliament for the area concerned, which eight community hospitals she intended to close, and to supply the background papers that justified her conclusion. I received a response of an arrogance that would shock even hon. Members. I wrote to her again. I asked again to see the background papers and I asked which hospitals would be closed. After many weeks, I still await a response to that letter.

491
The health authority released a further press statement in which every member of the health authority had a little sentence quoted, including references to politicians as though we were the ignorant detritus of society. Those arrogant people should remember that they have been appointed by politicians, and that they are accountable through their board and via politicians to the House. The health authority has produced a plan with no background papers, which refers to no individual hospital, which has no quality learning behind it—the health authority has not denied those facts—and which has caused panic throughout mid-Wales.
Last week in Llanidloes, 1,000 people attended a public meeting about the future of Llanidloes hospital, which is a wonderful community hospital which could be held out as an example to the world, let alone to rural Wales. I regret that the Conservative party failed to send a spokesman to that meeting. Unfortunately, excuses were made. The feeling of the meeting was clear.
This afternoon, the Secretary of State issued a severe rebuke to Dyfed Powys health authority. I hope that that rebuke will be carried through to its logical conclusion, which should include the dismissal of the chairman of the health authority, followed by the resignation of her board. Apparently, the Government believe that the disciplines of management and private industry should be applied to the national health service. I do not disagree that management discipline is useful in the public service. However, if that board and that chairman had been employed by a company in Wales—such as Control Techniques or Laura Ashley, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Conwy—the major shareholders would have had them out by midnight. The Government should have that lot out by midnight.
I wish to mention one further national health service issue that is more directly related to my upbringing as a general practitioner's son. Since I went to live in the Welshpool and Newtown area of mid-Wales, I have been the patient of a doctor in Llanfair Caereinion. He is a partner in an excellent practice, and a doctor with political principles. I do not know for which party he votes, but I know that his political principles belong on our side, rather than the Conservative side, of the House.
On principle, and with his partners' agreement, my doctor has chosen not to be a fundholder. There is one similar practice in the area at Westbury in Shropshire, on the border, and about half the patients of that practice live in my constituency.
If I want treatment under the national health service, I am now at a disadvantage; the hospitals where it is provided delay my treatment because my general practitioner, on the basis of a well-thought-out belief and judgment, does not wish to follow the Government's encouragement to have a fundholding practice.
That is not the national health service that my father taught me to respect. It is not the national health service that Lloyd George and others created in this country, and taught this country to respect. It is a national health service infected by greed and devil-take-the-hindmost. That is not the national health service that we want.
As I depart this place and leave politics, I regret above all things the fact that the national health service seems to be in worse fettle than when I entered the House 14 years ago. I hope that the next generation of Welsh politicians will heed the message, and will do what they
492
can to ensure that the great tradition of Welsh politicians who have sought better health for their constituents is maintained for future generations.
7.21 pm
Sir Raymond Powell: I regret the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) is leaving the House—although I get on well with all his Liberal colleagues in the House, too, and have done since I was the Opposition pairing Whip. I have always listened attentively to the hon. and learned Gentleman's speeches, and today was no exception, especially when he was reminiscing about his father and the fact that in the area where he lived he could hear the cotton workers walking across the cobblestones.
Although the Western Mail last week printed my birthplace as Machynlleth, I was not born and bred anywhere near there; I was born in Treorchy, in the Rhondda valley. I am proud of my birth and heritage, and of the people of the Rhondda, who are no different from the people in Ogmore, the constituency that I represent now, or from the people of the other valleys.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Lloyd George and the national health service, but I have read and reread all the words uttered by Nye Bevan during the introduction of the national health service—something that the nation could be proud of. However, the health service has gradually been eroded and left underfunded by the present Administration.
I also share the views that the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed about the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), who is one of the Secretaries of State we never had. The right hon. Gentleman deserved the office, there is no doubt about that. It used to annoy me every time a Secretary of State was appointed from the other side of Offa's dyke, when everyone in all the parties in the House knew that there was a Member from Wales who could, and would, do the job. Undoubtedly, he would have been nearer to us, because he is from Wales. It annoys me to think that, in the past 18 years, we have had five Secretaries of State for Wales, all of whom were living outside Wales.
I must get on to the subject of my speech, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or you will be calling me to order. What I wanted to say is that this debate could prove historic. The annual St. David's day debate for 1997 is taking place in the year of the general election that will end 18 years of the most vicious Conservative Government this country has ever known.
I could spend some time telling the story of the industrial rape of Wales that has taken place over those 18 years, but most of my constituents are already well aware of that story, and the other electors of Wales know the nightmare only too well, because they have suffered, and will continue to suffer until a new Government with vision and policies for change are elected. That cannot be much more than 63 days away.
All my time in Parliament has been spent in opposition, but I will fight the next election to retain my seat in Ogmore and cross the floor to the Government Benches. The electors throughout the Principality are crying out for the opportunity to vote; they are crying out for change. They will vote in their traditional way, but this time they will look to the English constituencies, hoping that this time they, too, will want to see change.

493
We have seen the number of Conservative Members in Wales reduced to six, and this election we shall see a Conservative-free Wales. Despite what the press and the other media say about politicians, there will be dancing in the streets and celebrations when the electors give their verdict, perhaps on 1 May—the day on which we in Ogmore have always celebrated May day. This year, we shall have something else to celebrate—a Labour victory.
Last week, we had a debate on the constitution. I suggest that hon. Members who could not attend read the Official Report of that debate; but, although I have nothing but praise for the Hansard writers, they could not capture the atmosphere of the occasion, or the sincerity of most of the speeches. Many more hon. Members wished to contribute as well, but time was not on their side.
I said that this debate could prove historic. It is being held on the day of the Wirral, South by-election, which could put the Government in a minority. If a vote of confidence is called, the election could come early. The debate could be historic for another reason too—it is being held on the eve of the Wales Labour party conference, which will be asked to agree the Welsh Labour party executive committee's proposals for devolution.
In the 1970s, I was party to what was then the vision for the future. That is what Labour party activists called the strongly held views of supporters of devolving government to an elected Welsh Assembly. Mixing reflection, memory, reality and truth, I recall the mood of members of the Labour party in Wales when they met in Llandudno in 1977.
That conference, which I chaired, adopted the document prepared by the executive committee for the introduction by the Labour Government of a Wales Act. Hansard for that period will give details of the discussions and decisions. No doubt history will record who was responsible for that lost opportunity. Now, 20 years later, we again have the opportunity to seek a reversal—the opportunity to present to the people of Wales, by their agreement in a referendum, the devolution of power to an elected assembly.
At least some of our efforts in the 1970s have not been wasted. At that time, we argued for an elected assembly with unitary authorities, and some power going to community councils at the local roots. Over the past two years, 22 unitary authorities, covering the whole of Wales, have been established. That is a major step forward, and it is one to be welcomed. I hope that, following devolution, the Welsh Assembly will deal with the escalating problems—including the lack of finance and the system of allocation of funding, which is tightly controlled by the Secretary of State. I hope that this will be remedied by an elected assembly. The £7 billion budget that is now allocated and controlled by the Secretary of State—added to the 180 quangos under his responsibility, which spend more than £2.5 billion and have 850 appointees—is a reason for democratic accountability to be introduced under a Welsh Assembly.
The fears of the Prime Minister and Conservative Members that Welsh devolution threatens the fabric of our unitary state are totally unfounded. The debate last Thursday on the constitution tended to concentrate on Scotland and the House of Lords, and much was said
494
about the West Lothian question. Some suggest that it is insoluble, instead of seeking some way of resolving it. Those who read the Hansard report of last Thursday's debate will have seen that my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland)—in an excellent speech—spoke on the English regions and suggested that English regional government provides part of the answer to the West Lothian question. One of the major reasons why the devolution proposals in 1977 and 1978 failed was undoubtedly the lack of realistic and rational thought on English regional government. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend give the details of the progress that has been made in the creation of the North of England Assembly of Local Authorities. I hope that other English regions will follow that lead.
We have the problem in reverse in Wales. Where is the justice in allowing English Members to speak and vote on business which is exclusively the interest of the Welsh nation? Where is the justice when English Members are elected to Committees to provide the Government with a majority to get their business through? Where is the justice in allowing a large number of English Members to table questions for Welsh question time, thus depriving Welsh Members of their only opportunity each month to ask the Secretary of State questions applicable to Wales and to their constituencies? They have no other parliamentary opportunity. Where is the justice in having a Secretary of State for Wales—the controller of the Welsh Office—who is not a Welsh Member of Parliament? In the past 18 years, we have had five Secretaries of State for Wales, none of whom has represented a Welsh constituency.
Much has been said about the reformed Welsh Grand Committee, but the Committee of Selection has to appoint the Secretary of State and other English Members to enable them to sit on the Committee so that the Government have a majority. On one occasion, when Peter Walker turned up to start a debate at the Welsh Grand Committee, he was challenged on a point of order and the Committee of Selection had to be recalled to appoint him and others before the business could proceed. There is talk that a solution might be to reduce the number of Welsh Members of Parliament, but it is unthinkable that, as long as Westminster decides on defence, foreign affairs, taxation and social security for Wales, Wales should not continue to be adequately represented at Westminster.
After the election, there will be 72 Scottish Members of Parliament, 40 Welsh Members and 17 Members from Northern Ireland, making a total of 129. There will be 529 English Members of Parliament—so what is there for the Government to fear? Last Thursday, the Prime Minister laid down a challenge that the election would be fought on the constitution and on Scottish and Welsh devolution. The Labour party in Wales is ready for that challenge. The present system of holding the Government to account is deplorable and it is scandalous to allow more money to be spent by unelected and unaccountable quangos than by directly elected local councils. We need to roll back the tide of quangos and revive democracy in local government. The plans for a Welsh Assembly have been set out in detail and we will legislate for their implementation in the first year of a Labour Government.
When discussions were proceeding on our devolution proposals, I made my views known on the questions of a referendum and proportional representation. I am glad that

495
a referendum will be called, and I am confident that, this time, the result will be totally different. In my view, there should be 80 elected members of a Welsh Assembly—based on current parliamentary constituencies and election procedures—with two from each of the 40 parliamentary constituencies. I have also suggested that there should be one male and one female candidate in each constituency. This would be a great step forward towards achieving a fair gender balance, and would avoid the problem of women-only shortlists. It would also signal to all the women in Wales and the rest of the UK that the Labour party wants more women in the Government.
Perhaps this weekend, the women attending the conference at Llandudno will demand a change in the executive committee's proposals and will rebel—like the Tory women of the Wirral who, according to the Evening Standard, are flocking to the polling stations to vote Labour. I hope that they will take up the challenge over the weekend and change the proposals of the executive committee.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) spoke on Thursday and recalled his speeches on the Scotland and Wales Bill and the Wales Bill in 1976 and 1977. He promised the House at that time that we would return to the subject in due course. That was 20 years ago. We have had 20 years to reconsider our policies and to persuade the electors about what devolution would mean to Wales. It has worked, and people are better informed and are responding positively. I believe that devolution will be accepted in the referendum that will follow a Labour victory.
7.37 pm
Mr. Gareth Wardell: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell)—a friend since I was elected to the House in 1982. I am sure that our friendship will continue after I, too, leave the House at the forthcoming election. It has been my privilege to have been a member of the Welsh Affairs Committee since I was elected, and to have been its Chairman since December 1983. My good health has enabled me not to miss one meeting—and, indeed, not one minute of its proceedings—since I was made Chairman.
With your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to share a few memories with the House before turning to the subject that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) raised.
The first highlight I remember was the promise, made in 1983 by the then Secretary of State for Wales, that there would be a second cardiac surgery and cardiology centre in Wales. At last, the present Secretary of State said in the debate today that, later this year, the second cardiac centre would open in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). It has been much in demand. As far back as 1983, it was recognised that only slightly fewer than 800 adult open heart operations a year were being carried out in the University hospital of Wales in Cardiff, when the need was for at least 1,300.
It is always a bad idea in politics to claim credit for anything, but the Welsh Affairs Committee was at least partly responsible for eliciting one statement from the consultant cardiologist at the Heath hospital in Cardiff which influenced Ministers in the Welsh Office: he wrote to the Committee saying that patients were dying on the
496
wards because of the lack of intensive care facilities. The response was fast, and a promise was made that the new centre would be delivered.
In 1983, the Welsh Office and the Department of the Environment issued waste management paper 25, concerning clinical waste disposal in England and Wales. Unfortunately, the Welsh Office issued it to local authorities in Wales and not to health authorities. At that time, responsibility for monitoring all emissions to air of hospital incinerators lay firmly with health authorities, and it was a major surprise to them to find that out when they came before the Committee in January 1990.
The Welsh Office responded in a wonderful way: it dispatched a civil servant to write a letter to us saying that, with hindsight, it was difficult to understand how the situation had come about and that new guidance was being issued to all health authorities in Wales laying responsibility on them.
I remember an outbreak of anthrax on Singret farm, just outside the village of Llay, near Wrexham. The Welsh Office was intent on prosecuting the farmer for allowing slurry to run over the land around the farm, but the Committee was able to persuade the then Secretary of State, now Lord Walker, to pay compensation, purely as a one-off ex gratia payment, of £600,000 to the farmer, to enable him to carry on with the essential work of clearing up the major problem on his pig farm.
Rechem International, now owned by Shanks and McEwan, presented an interesting problem because of the incineration of polychlorinated biphenyls at the plant in Pontypool. For many years, there was a running battle between the company and the community of New Inn around the incinerator.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and I were delighted to be able to persuade the Welsh Office to take a major step forward in setting up an independent monitoring system under the august leadership of Professor Lewis Roberts, the eminent chemist at the university of East Anglia. That enabled people to be confident that the emissions did not pose any further significant health risks.
We enjoyed considering planning in the open countryside. We examined six authorities in detail, with pride of place perhaps going to Ceredigion. The way in which it carried out its planning decisions was novel, if I say no more. The view of the chairman of planning was that the Welsh Office had the utmost cheek to interfere in any way by issuing so-called circulars and Acts of Parliament.
We were able to persuade the Welsh Office that the hundreds of houses in the open countryside in Wales, flouting all its circulars and legislation, were a matter to which it should pay some attention. I am delighted that it has at least gone a little way towards preventing the continuation of such a situation, although even this week we were alerted by the Welsh Office local authority commissioner to certain planning applications that are still being decided on the personality of the applicant rather than on planning grounds.
The Secretary of State painted a wonderful picture of the quality of Welsh bathing beaches. European Community directive 160 was introduced in 1976, under a Labour Government, but Conservative Governments subsequently, for as long as 10 years, interpreted the definition of bathing beaches in such a way that there was not one in Wales, and

497
only nine in England, so of course there was no need in Wales to apply the rules on the Escherichia coli and the faecal coliforms specified in the directive.
When the Secretary of State waxes lyrical about the quality of Welsh bathing beaches, he seems to assume that every beach in Wales is a bathing beach. In practice, there are 51 defined bathing beaches in Wales—the so-called Euro-beaches—but many more are not so defined under the directive.
Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman has been a distinguished Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I for one shall miss him when he departs the House after the general election. He was saying how effective the Committee has been as a watchdog on the Government. Does he agree that it is a great shame that those who watch the affairs of the House in some detail, and write and comment on them, have not paid more attention to the Committee and to how effective it has been over the years? Perhaps he would like to comment on the need for a Welsh Assembly in the light of how effective the Committee has been.
Mr. Wardell: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman looks at the Committee's work in that way. The critical factor about a Welsh Assembly will be whether its presence will lead to improved government for Wales and to more jobs, better housing and better health. In the referendum campaign it will be crucial for those arguments to be demonstrated, because if they cannot be demonstrated the whole exercise will have to be called into question. I look forward to a vigorous assessment.
The Welsh Affairs Committee had to examine the proposed closure of Mynydd Mawr hospital in Tumble—the village I was brought up in, where my father has been the village barber for 64 years—where my mother was an auxiliary nurse and where my sister was a patient for some time.
When the former East Dyfed health authority had the gall to issue a consultation paper the quality of which was so low as to insult the intelligence of the local people, the Committee visited Tumble and was appalled to find that the chief nursing officer of the health authority had never visited the hospital, although he was in large part responsible for drawing up the consultation document.
The quality of this month's Dyfed Powys health authority document shows that it has not learnt the lessons of the old East Dyfed health authority. It is prepared to issue consultation documents that again insult the intelligence of local people. The health authority employs 164 people. If this is the best it can do, we must ask seriously whether the Welsh Office should take over the commissioning of health services there. If this is the quality that it is prepared to deliver, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that the whole board should be dismissed immediately and someone who knows what quality means should be put at the helm.
I want to consider three or four major points in the document to illustrate the points of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to ensure that the House understands what is at stake. Like him, I am a member of the General Medical Council and I find it distressing that a health authority should issue such a document.
498
Paragraph 3.3 on page 3 summarises seven jobs of the health authority. The first is assessing health needs. The sixth job that it says it does is to
"evaluate how we are progressing".
Nowhere in the document is there any attempt to assess the extent to which health needs are being met.
To take the example of diabetes—I am proud to be the chairman of all-party diabetic group—the health authority has little idea of the incidence the disease. That was admitted by the Secretary of State for Health when I put that point to him on the Floor two weeks ago. How can the health authority measure what progress is being made to meet the health care needs of diabetic patients in Dyfed Powys when it does not even know how many people with that problem reside there? I could repeat the point across the board, but for it to claim that it is assessing needs when, abysmally, it does not have the necessary information, is the utmost cheek.
In the fourth paragraph on page 17, the authority talks about clinical effectiveness. The report states:
"Next year we will review one area of clinical practice which is not considered effective. We will then decide either to purchase a significantly reduced level of this service or not purchase it at all."
It does not say which area of clinical practice. It has not yet considered the effectiveness of any area of clinical practice, yet that is its function. Why wait until next year when it can do it now? There are 164 people employed in the health authority, which is charged with purchasing health services for its people based on clinical effectiveness, and it is to be done next year. That is its job, but it is not doing it.
Page 23 deals with maternity services and says that Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines state that a consultant-led unit should deal with a minimum of 2,000 births per annum, but the document uses the 1983 figures. In a consultation document, the authority cannot tell us how many births there were in Dyfed Powys in each of its hospitals in 1996. Is the health authority so indolent that it cannot be bothered to find out? It does not have the figures for live births for 1993 in Withybush hospital, only those for West Wales general hospital and Bronglais.
My next point makes me more angry than any of the others and was again mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The Government say that they are committed to community care, but paragraph 16 shows that the health authority is, like the Welsh Office, trying to get the trust to do its dirty work. It does not name the community hospitals that are to be closed; it says that it will leave it to the trusts to decide. The Welsh Office put that system in place and it is its responsibility to ensure that the system is made to work. The Secretary of State appointed the chairman and the non-executive directors of the health authority, which says that it is prepared to support the closure of up to eight community hospitals.
The crucial point that makes me more angry than anything else is the farce—I put it no higher—of the Government's handling of the discharge of patients from hospital and the social care plans drawn up for them. I have seen frail elderly people who have had strokes and major surgery who are in no position to understand a social care plan, for which they have to ask before they can see it. The farce is that social care plans are supposed to identify—this affects not only elderly people, but others

499
who are discharged into the community, such as the mentally ill—how much physiotherapy, speech therapy, occupational therapy, chiropody or community dentistry is needed. The Government know that there are not enough people in Wales to do that work and fulfil the social care plans.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I may not have enough time to deal with all the hon. Gentleman's remarks later, so at this important point I should tell him that we will publish shortly—in the next week or so—our assessment of those services in relation to at least three parts of Wales. While he is working himself up into a lather because the provisions are not operating properly, he should recognise that we have an inspectorate to examine operations on the ground. We believe that that information should be put into the public domain, as it soon will be.
Mr. Wardell: I am pleased to hear that, but I do not have confidence that it can be delivered. When the Committee considered severe head injury rehabilitation, we visited the homes of people in different parts of Wales. It was plain that the physiotherapy and occupational therapy that they needed was not available because not enough therapists have been attracted into the health service in Wales to deal with them. If there are not enough physiotherapists in an area, it is a farce to put into a social care plan that someone needs two physiotherapy sessions of two hours a week—or that people with diabetes need a chiropodist every month because they have feet problems.
It is a farce when somebody in the House has to say, "The King is in the altogether. He is as naked as the day that he was born." What is happening—I see it when I go around—is that people are languishing in their homes because the physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists and chiropodists are not available. Some manpower planning is necessary. If the Government would say openly, "We agree that there is a huge gap," people would know when they are given social care plans that their delivery is impossible.
I shall finish by saying a few words about dentistry. The Government and dentists have been on a collision course for some time. People do not realise that deregistration can now take place after 15 months. As from this month, there is a difference between what dentists and general medical practitioners may do. People registered with a dentist can be deregistered after 15 months. That is happening in large numbers, and it has important consequences.
If a person is not registered with a dentist, the dentist owes them no duty of care. That is rarely an issue for people until they experience pain of dental origin, but when it occurs they have great difficulty obtaining immediate treatment. The usual chain of events is that a person in excruciating pain, who no longer has an NHS dentist, rings around the area to find a dentist who will take him or her on.
I received a letter this week from my dentist saying that he is no longer prepared to treat me as an NHS patient. He gave me the option of joining BUPA or being treated by him privately. If I were not in a position to pay—fortunately, I am—either BUPA or for the private plan that my dentist has given me, I would turn to my doctor, who would prescribe me analgesics or antibiotics, or I would turn up at the hospital casualty department,
500
but analgesics and antibiotics do not deal with the fundamental cause of pain. GPs are already under great stress, and their problems will be exacerbated by patients turning up at their surgeries, and major casualty departments will have serious difficulties unless they have a maxilla-facial department with doctors and dentists on call. People in great pain inevitably take time off work, which has economic consequences.
The Government have driven the dental profession to leave the national health service on a large scale)and1he people of Wales now find it extremely difficult to find a dentist with whom they can register. I hope that, when he winds up, the Minister will say that the community dental service will be expanded in Wales as a safety net to ensure that the scenario that I have described will not come about.
Sir Raymond Powell: You said at the start of your speech that you are retiring at the general election. As you are an hon. Friend of mine, I wish to say that the speech that you have just delivered is a classic. We have always come and listened to your speeches—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.
Sir Raymond Powell: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I wish you well for the future. The House is grateful for your contribution to Welsh debates and to the Welsh Affairs Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I have just proved that my tolerance has no end.
Mr. Wardell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will consult closely the Secretary of State for Social Security to ensure that Benefit Agency offices in Wales do not close. It will be a disgrace if elderly and vulnerable people are denied first-class information on the benefits that they can receive. Indeed, closure would be a severe blow to many of them.
It has been a pleasure to chair the Welsh Affairs Committee. I see around me many right hon. and hon. Members from all political parties who have served that Committee well, and I am grateful to them. They have all, whichever side of the Chamber they sit on, become my friends, and I am delighted that that has happened. The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) has been a stalwart in the Committee since he joined it, and we have worked extremely well together. I say that with great respect. I have watched the right hon. Gentleman carefully over the years, and learnt quite a few lessons from seeing the balance that he has brought to many debates.
I wish to thank the three Clerks, who are still in the House—David Harrison, Mark Hutton and Philippa Helme—and the staff who have supported them. The work that any Select Committee does relies heavily on its support staff.
It is with, in a sense, regret that the one job I have thoroughly enjoyed since I have been in the House is chairing the Welsh Affairs Committee. I hope that whoever takes over will do as good a job as our former Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East

501
(Mr. Anderson). I learnt a lot from him. Before him, there was Mr. Leo Abse, who was famous in the House, and we all learnt a great deal from him, too.
Thank you foryour indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
8.6 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: It is a great honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) tonight. This has been a strange debate, because we have listened to three speeches from hon. Members who will leave the House at the next election: the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts); the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile); and the hon. Member for Gower. Reference has been made to their contributions not only to the House but to Welsh politics.
It is also right to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower for the part that he has played as Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. Those of us who had the privilege of serving with him on the Committee will remember the tremendous attention to detail that he displayed in all his work. We wish him well in his occupation once he leaves the House.
This has been an interesting debate for members of Plaid Cymru tonight. Two hon. Members—one from either side of the House—have devoted a large part of their speeches to the policy that my party espouses. I did not agree with their interpretation of that policy, but it has been a privilege and honour to listen to other people talking about it.
I drew an analysis of the time spent by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) when he discussed my party in the debate on the constitution on 20 February, and he did exactly the same tonight. He spent 19 minutes discussing Plaid Cymru, and a mere seven minutes discussing the other Opposition party. It is clear where he thinks opposition to him will come at the next election.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting and remarkable speech on 20 February, and I shall concentrate on one aspect of it—it would be impossible to deal with all of it in a short speech, because it was so full of inaccuracies. He spoke of Wales's position within the European Union and its entitlement to structural funds from the European Union. That point was alluded to by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
I shall do the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West the honour of quoting his speech on 20 February. He said that Wales does not qualify for funding under the objective 1 criteria that currently pertain, and added:
"Indeed, that status reflects a level of economic deprivation that I would not like to see inflicted on any part of Wales."—[Official Report, 20 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 1114.]
The sad fact is that his party has inflicted it on parts of Wales. Some parts of Wales now have the lowest income levels of any country in the British Isles, and some of the lowest in western Europe.
We have to get one fact relating to European funding absolutely straight: two areas of Wales would qualify under the current criteria. The old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed easily qualify under those criteria, as do the old coal mining areas of south Wales. The old coal mining
502
valleys of Glamorgan would qualify and, if one included the coal mining valleys of Gwent, south Wales would still be a borderline case. Under the criteria adopted in 1993, both would have received objective 1 funds. The reason why we did not secure those funds is that the Welsh Office did not adopt what I would describe as a robust negotiating position when those matters were discussed in Brussels.
Welsh Office Ministers tell us that they do not want Wales to qualify under objective 1—that was the tone of the remarks of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West and of the Secretary of State during the last Welsh Office Questions. Yet Department of Trade and Industry Ministers were not reticent about parts of England qualifying for objective 1 status; nor were Scottish Office Ministers reticent about parts of Scotland qualifying for objective 1 status.
Scottish Office Ministers went to Brussels, argued their case and secured objective 1 status for the highlands and islands of Scotland; and the Deputy Prime Minister argued the case for Merseyside to be granted objective 1 status. At the same time, the counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed and the valleys of south Wales had an equal claim to qualification for objective 1 status, but the Welsh Office hardly put up a case in Brussels. Those are the facts.
What are the criteria? Let me put them on the record: if an area has less than 75 per cent. per capita of the average EU gross domestic product, it qualifies. The two counties on the western seaboard of Wales therefore qualify, although the old coal mining areas have slightly over the qualifying percentage, at perhaps 76 per cent. or 77 per cent. of average EU GDP. One would have thought that it would be in the interests of Wales to get the increased funding that objective 1 status brings. Ministers tell us that we are talking about an odd £100 million here and there, but the truth is that the extra funding is far greater than that.
I have never claimed that the whole of Wales would qualify for objective 1 status, so the comparison with Ireland is not fair, because the whole of Ireland qualified—or did it? I looked at the figures, and found that it barely qualified. The highlands and islands of Scotland do not technically qualify, because they exceed the 75 per cent. mark, and neither does Merseyside, for the same reason. The fact is that nobody made the case for Wales when these matters were being discussed. It may well be that we can argue about the figures, but what is not arguable is the loss that Wales has suffered as a result of the failure to secure that funding.
We have heard that Ireland benefits substantially from objective 1 status—with a population of around 3.5 million, it receives about £5 billion over five years. With a population of 2.8 million, Wales receives about a tenth of that sum. Would Wales have received substantially more if we had secured objective 1 status? I have calculated that, over five years, the loss to Wales resulting from the failure to secure objective 1 status is about £1 billion. That is a substantial sum.
We have also heard that we might have benefited from cohesion funds, for which Wales would easily qualify. The qualifying standard in that respect is 90 per cent. of GDP, whereas Wales has only 83 per cent.
Mr. Denzil Davies: The hon. Gentleman says that Wales would easily qualify for cohesion funds, but that would be true only if Wales was a member of the Council of Ministers. Is that the proposition he is advancing?
Mr. Jones: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Under the current rules, only member states can qualify for cohesion funds—but why were cohesion funds established in the first place? They were established because the European Union decided that it was important to have social and economic cohesion in the run-up to economic and monetary union.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I listened to the hon. Gentleman, and he must now listen to me.
My point is that the Maastricht treaty contained a specific commitment to social and economic cohesion; accompanying that was a recognition that there would be parts of the European Union that would need assistance to qualify under the strict convergence criteria, which were extremely monetarist in tone. What emerged from negotiations by the Commission and from European Union guidelines was that structural funds were doubled over a period, so as to assist those poorer and peripheral regions. The money was devoted to helping countries such as Wales to qualify, yet Wales gets not a single penny piece more under the regional funds from 1994–99 than we received under the previous regime.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I have given way once; I will not give way again. I must finish my point.
The reason why structural funds were increased so substantially was to help countries such as Wales and Scotland and the poorer regions of England.
Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jones: No, I have made it perfectly clear that I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman has already had the opportunity to develop his arguments.
Mr. Davies: This is a debate.
Mr. Jones: I did give way to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Davies: Once.
Mr. Jones: Once is enough in the present circumstances.
The structural funds that were devoted to regions such as Wales should have come to Wales. It is a bogus argument to say that Wales would not qualify when it patently does.
There is one other difficulty in relation to regional funding, which is that the way in which Wales is divided for regional fund purposes means that we would not have qualified under the old rules. In other words, the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics II areas
504
divided Wales into two regions, not four. The problem with that is that, as north-west Wales and north-east Wales are joined, and there is a similar pattern in south Wales, the western seaboard of Wales or the valleys of south Wales could not qualify. The Welsh Office has recognised that difficulty, and the Commission is to consider redrawing the map of Wales for European Union funding purposes. Let us hope that this time the Welsh Office gets it right; it will receive Opposition Members' support to ensure that that happens.
There is a clear case for designating the western seaboard of Wales a special region, because it already has Interreg funding. Nonsensically, under the Interreg initiative, the western seaboard of Wales will collect about £10 million over five years, whereas the eastern seaboard of Ireland will receive £70 million. The difference in population accounts for part of the difference, but the main difference is that that part of Ireland has objective 1 status, whereas we have objective 5b status. That is grossly unfair, and even under the current system it is possible for us to ensure that objective 1 status applies to the western seaboard of Wales.
We know that the Commissioner for Regional Policy in Brussels is considering ways of changing the operation of regional funding; she is saying that regional funding will be far more concentrated in years to come. She wants smaller areas to benefit; funding will be more focused. Wales, as it is currently organised and constituted for funding, would lose even more under that system. To ensure that the parts of Wales that should benefit are taken into account, we must bear those factors in mind during renegotiation of regional policy—which will be necessary as we seek expansion into eastern Europe.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: In relation to the next reclassification, which the hon. Gentleman knows is currently a matter to be considered, the area he mentioned covers Clwyd, Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys. Is he saying that Clwyd and Powys should be separated from Dyfed and Gwynedd, and therefore should not have the best opportunity of participating in bids for European funding? Is that his argument?
Mr. Jones: I did not say that; what I said was clear. The western seaboard of Wales already secures Interreg funding. That area, taken together, would qualify for objective 1 status. The Minister knows well that parts of Clwyd and Powys would qualify, as they currently do, under objective 5b. He also knows well that neither Clwyd nor Powys would qualify for objective 1. I am asking the Welsh Office to argue the case to maximise the benefit for Wales—objective 1 in parts of Wales and objective 5b in other parts of Wales. That is what he should argue for.
Under the scheme that I have proposed, no part of Wales would lose, but more areas would benefit.
I conclude by addressing an important fact that is close to the Minister's heart, and that I hope he comments on when he winds up tonight—the need for us to get cracking with setting up an agri-environmental scheme for the whole of Wales. He knows that it has been said that the Tir Cymen scheme is wonderful. The environmentally sensitive areas that we are developing—the best bits of Tir Cymen—are being taken on board. We also have several other small agri-environmental schemes.

505
I was very surprised to hear the Secretary of State talk about the review of Tir Cymen. I should have thought that we have now had a good deal of experience of that scheme, which is very beneficial and is welcomed by farmers. Five years ago, farmers probably would not have embraced Tir Cymen as they have, and we would not have witnessed the developments in the environmentally sensitive area schemes.
The time has come for the Welsh Office to make up its mind. Is it in favour of an all-Wales scheme? If so, how will such a scheme be funded—may we be told today? We know that an analysis by Professor Gareth Wyn Jones says that the net cost of that scheme would be about £20 million to £25 million. Does the Welsh Office agree? It is very important for Welsh farmers especially to know before the general election the position of the Conservative party and the Government on that issue, and I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that.
8.25 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: In today's debate there has been an end-of-term feeling, with three Members—the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell)—probably making their final contribution to our annual Welsh day debate. I add to the tributes that hon. Members have paid to their invaluable contributions to our debates over the years, and wish them well in their future careers, be they in the other place or elsewhere.
I want to discuss devolution. To emphasise the end-of-term feeling, this will be the last speech, as it were, by a Member representing the Carmarthen constituency. It is an historic constituency, which has produced many surprises at general elections, but at the next general election it splits. There will be two Members—both Labour, we hope—one for Carmarthen West and Pembrokeshire South, and myself as the candidate for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr.
Were it not for the Carmarthen constituency, the subject of devolution might not have been debated as vigorously as it has been in the past few months—or as vigorously as it will be in the next few months. In a by-election in 1966, Carmarthen returned the first nationalist Member of Parliament, Gwynfor Evans. That was a sea change in Celtic politics because, within a year, at a by-election in Scotland, the first Scottish nationalist Member was returned, and between 1970 and 1974 the nationalist parties peaked at a total of 12 or 14 Members of Parliament.
At about that time, the Conservative and Labour parties thought much about the constitution, and whether it should take account of the call for greater say in our government in Wales and in Scotland. I have been very much affected by such arguments. My regular contestants are the Conservative and Welsh national parties; I take an interest in what they say, and must rebut their arguments.
My commitment to devolution predates the 1966 by-election in Carmarthen. As a young student at Oxford, I attended a Liberal club meeting on decentralisation. I cannot remember whether Jo Grimond or Jeremy
506
Thorpe spoke, but I do remember being very impressed generally by the arguments made that evening—that Britain has a uniquely centralist form of government, that in every country in Europe and most countries worldwide, there is much stronger local or regional government, and that it would be sensible if, in our structures, more power was devolved to the regions.
I have always thought of devolution to Wales and Scotland in the wider context of regional government throughout Britain. Over the years, the system that I have come to admire is the German lander system, which allows strong local government. Some of the lander are controlled by the SPD, some by the Christian Democrats and some by Green-SPD alliances. The Liberal party and the FBT are also involved. I should like to see a similar form of government evolve in Britain.
I did not join the Labour party until 1977. I was not politically active until then. In 1977, however, it was very much our policy to set up assemblies for Wales and Scotland, and in 1979 I worked hard on the campaign to establish an assembly in Wales. Unfortunately, the result of that campaign was strong opposition to such an assembly—and we felt that during the campaign, even in Carmarthen, in south Wales. It was difficult to persuade our party members to work for the campaign. Nevertheless, as the Government will recognise by the end of the year, opinion has changed profoundly.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman—who was obviously involved in that campaign, as I was—recalls that, some time before the campaign started, opinion polls were saying that people in Wales were in favour of an assembly. In fact, the Western Mail published the result of a poll to that effect. What the hon. Gentleman is describing is the way in which opinion changed during the referendum campaign itself. Does he share that view?
Mr. Williams: I accept that. Before the referendum, many opinion polls were very encouraging, in that they indicated support for an assembly. What they did not take into account was the party's opposition at grass-roots level, which is a statistical fact.
During the 1980s, the feeling changed substantially, mainly because of a succession of Conservative Governments. The people of Wales and Scotland are left of centre, and the fact that we have had 18 years of Conservative rule has been deeply frustrating for them. They feel that, if there were a Parliament in Edinburgh and an assembly in Cardiff, those bodies would act as bulwarks against the excesses of Conservative Governments.
Another reason for the change of feeling is the Conservative party's treatment of quangos—the increase in their budgets and their powers, and, more particularly, the way in which their membership has been manipulated so that the people of Wales are not represented. That is true at all levels: it applies to trusts, the Welsh Development Agency and the development board. Conservative placemen are put in charge of the whole plethora of quangos, and people have become very cynical about their composition.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made some excellent comments about Dyfed Powys health authority. The Minister is currently

507
a victim of one of its directives—or, at least, of a consultative paper. The authority seems to have no accountability. I do not quite echo the hon. and learned Gentleman's call for the resignation of its members, but I certainly think that the document should be scrapped, and that the authority should return to square one. As a quango, it illustrates the democratic deficit.
A third reason for the sea change in public opinion is that the last four Secretaries of State for Wales have not come from Wales. Lord Crickhowell, formerly Member of Parliament for Pembroke, was not very popular, and did not have a typically Welsh personality; none the less, he was from Wales, and represented a Welsh constituency.
I am not anti-English, and I acknowledge the validity of the West Lothian question, but there is something curious about the fact that the last four Secretaries of State have been the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and his predecessors the right hon. Members for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and the former Members of Parliament for Wirral and for Worcester. None of them was elected by any of the people of Wales, yet they have run the Welsh Office. The current Secretary of State is affable and able, and has many good qualities, but why should he decide how much should be spent on health, social services and highways in Wales, and where bypasses in Wales should be built? He has only got to know Wales in the past three or four years.
I know that our policy in favour of an assembly for Wales is not robust enough for some elements of Welsh public opinion. That obviously applies to the Welsh national party, and it may apply to some members of the Labour and Liberal parties. In the past 15 years, however, we have sincerely tried to develop a consensus—a policy on which the people of Wales can unite.
That consensus will achieve two main objectives. First, it will democratise the Welsh Office, so that decisions currently taken without accountability by civil servants working under the Secretary of State's direction will be discussed much more thoroughly. Such a forum will lead to better decision-making. Secondly, it will allow us to make quangos more accountable.
Later this year, once we have a Labour Government again, there will be referendums. By autumn, there will have been referendums in Wales and Scotland. It is often forgotten that we also propose an all-London body to take over the responsibilities of the old Greater London council—again, subject to a referendum. We propose proportional representation, or a strong element of it, to provide a wider base and more accurately reflect the political geography of Wales.
I see the assemblies in Wales and London, and the Parliament in Scotland, as part of a much more long-term trend. Once the Scottish Assembly has been established—within three to five years—the north-east and north-west of England will no doubt demand their own assemblies, again subject to referendums, and those assemblies should be granted. In the next 10 years, under continuing Labour or Liberal-Labour Governments, the people of the south-east, the south and East Anglia will begin to look at what is happening in the north and in Scotland, and will think, "We could have a Tory-controlled assembly in our area." They will realise that the powers that those other bodies have are very proper, and gradually,
508
over 10 or 20 years, we shall move towards that lander system in which governments share power. Central Government will remain at Westminster, but there will, very properly, be a regional tier.
I was encouraged, although not surprised, by what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said last Sunday. I watched the interview live on Sunday morning, and I was impressed by his comments. Of course, he has more time to examine the issues than the rest of us. I have a transcript of what he said. First, there was his put-down of what the Prime Minister had said about breaking the nation: he said how absurd that was.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: May I put the record straight? The hon. Gentleman may recall that, when the last Labour Government presented a Bill to introduce evolution, a number of Labour Members voted against it or abstained. Five Conservatives voted with the Labour party, one of whom was my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). He has held that view for a number of years.
Mr. Williams: Absolutely. He has been consistent on many issues over the years. I respect him greatly for that, and for his judgment. History might have been quite different if he had been around during the last 20 years. This is what he said last Sunday morning:
"If we"—
a Conservative Government—
"had been returned in 1974, we would have gone ahead with it, because we believed it was for the good of the UK as well as of Scotland … We gave this system to Canada, we gave it to Australia, we gave it to South Africa, we gave it to Central Africa, we gave it to the Caribbean, and with the Americans and the French we gave it to Germany."
Handled clumsily, regional government, a strong regional tier, could threaten to split the United Kingdom; but handled properly, and in an evolutionary way, it would markedly improve the government of the United Kingdom.
8.39 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) in commending the contribution to the House of the three hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, who are to retire. We heard three remarkable valedictory speeches. Each of those hon. Members is a very considerable parliamentarian, with different contributions. One was a Minister of long standing on the Conservative Benches. Another is a distinguished lawyer, who has brought his experience and expertise in the law very effectively to the House. Finally, there is my good friend and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is a much more distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs than was his predecessor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower has shown tonight that he has a great grasp of detail of the Welsh scene. I was interested in what he and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said about the recent initiative of the chairman of Dyfed Powys health authority. I hope that, given the consensus in certain areas of the debate, I can make a proposal that will be accepted

509
by both sides of the House. If the Government sack the chairman of Dyfed Powys health authority, a good and obvious successor would be a gentleman who still lives in the area of the health authority, who hails from Tumbl—whether upper or lower Tumble, I am not sure—and who will reside in Carmarthen, teaching at the college there. Therefore, I formally propose to the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower should become chairman of Dyfed Powys health authority.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Do we have a seconder?
Mr. Anderson: Perhaps you will accept my motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
More seriously, I wish to make two points. I shall not ask the Minister for an answer tonight, but I respectfully urge him to examine demand-led element funding within the further education sector, and the impact that removal of that funding would have on further education in Wales. That matter is causing great concern in Wales. I understand that a decision is imminent. Perhaps he will write to me about it.
We had a debate in the House on 19 February, during which only English Members spoke, mainly from the north-west. The situation in Wales, however, is very different. In my judgment, there should be a Welsh solution to the problem, which would not result in exceeding existing budgets. The Minister will know that DLE funding in Wales has been used to enable mainstream growth in FE for the 16 to 19 age group, and, more important in some ways, to widen participation for adults. There is not a franchise problem in Wales, as there is in England.
I commend the Government for their initiative on DLE funding, which has enabled extra, cost-effective growth. For example, in the current year, DLE payments will reach £4.5 million, which will result in an extra 20,000 students. Swansea college—first under the distinguished but just retired principal, Cyril Lewis, and now under principal Keith Elliott—has the Eastside initiative, which particularly helps disadvantaged groups in my constituency. I opened the Morriston office of the Eastside initiative. It is reaching out to groups that would not otherwise come into contact with continuing education.
Swansea college is already 22 per cent. above target. The result of removing DLE for 1997–98 would be a severe reduction of provision, affecting 16 to 19-year-old students, and particularly the wider groups of adults who have been so beneficially affected by the Eastside initiative in my constituency.
In Wales, it cannot seriously be argued by the Government that the DLE is out of control. Wales is not three years in arrears, as in England. The FE sector in Wales has achieved controlled growth in the number of students since 1993. In my view, there should be a Welsh solution in the Welsh Office to the problem, which is essentially different from that in England. As the Minister will know, principals in FE colleges have a four-year cycle. There is now a real danger—the problem is imminent—that DLE funding will be removed, which would have a major and adverse affect.
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: There is a unique Welsh institution in my constituency, St. David's
510
college, which is the only sixth form college in Wales. The principal tells me that each student at that college receives between £400 and £500 less than students in similar English institutions, that it had to bear a 14 per cent. cut in funding last year, and that it will have to bear a cut of 19 per cent. in the next three years, even though it is very successful and is educating more students each year.
Mr. Anderson: And it is doing what the Government want, in terms of extending education in that key group. My hon. Friend makes a similar point to mine.
I understand that the Welsh Office was originally sympathetic to the continuation of the scheme, but the problem arose when English authorities and the English Department for Education and Employment became involved and suggested that there should not be a Welsh solution. Our problems are difficult, but with good will, surely we can provide a solution within Wales. I do not expect an answer when the Minister winds up, but I hope that he will respond seriously to the real problem that FE colleges face. What is the purpose of the Welsh Office, if it cannot take independent decisions on matters that affect Wales? I hope that we are not carried in the slipstream of England in such matters, when our problems are fundamentally different.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) mentioned the Welsh question. There is indeed a Welsh question. It is sad that in last Thursday's debate on the constitution, only four of my Welsh colleagues were able to speak. We felt somewhat marginalised, as if it was a case of for Wales read England, or, perhaps, for Wales read Scotland.
I shall comment on the themes that the Government put forward in respect of their absolutist, no-change policy. The Prime Minister said that the debate should be the start of a great debate on the constitution. I have been around for some time, and recall that, after the defeat of the proposal of the Labour Government of 1974–79, the then Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Crickhowell, made a similar proposal for a great debate. He talked about the possibility of a Welsh council, and the need for a strategic group within Wales. The idea may have been flawed, but at least it was speedily forgotten.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: The hon. Gentleman is right. I recall Lord Crickhowell saying at that time that he did not think that the 1979 vote was the end of the debate. That vote had its effect on the political parties. For instance, Plaid Cymru, which believes in independence for Wales, had virtually two lines on devolution in its 1979 manifesto. There is no doubt that the result was regarded as a sea change, even though it is right to remark on the fact that Lord Crickhowell said that the debate should continue.
Mr. Anderson: It was the elephant on the doorstep: no one can gainsay that. But Lord Crickhowell made a pledge to initiate a debate. I merely ask: what is the Government's motive in seeking to raise this debate now? Are they not indulging in the politics of fear? As we approach the election, the Government are trying to wrap themselves in a flag. That is the essence of a unionist party. They want to bang the anti-foreign drum, especially on Europe, and to wrap themselves in the flag on Scotland and Wales. They are, in effect, reducing themselves to an English national party. It is not serious or credible politics.

511
Amid the debates about constitutional change, it is sad that the Government have set their face against any form of change. That contrasts with the 1970s, when many hon. Members who are now on the Government Benches were openly saying that problems of governance had to be addressed. There is a range of problems: the House of Lords, the incorporation of the European convention on human rights, our voting system and the governance of Wales and Scotland. It is incredible that the governing party takes an absolutist no position on all those major issues.
That is not how our constitution evolved. When problems arise, our political system usually evolves to accommodate them. Like it or not, there is a Scottish question, and, to a lesser extent, a Welsh question. It is absurd that the Conservative party has traditionally set itself against any change until that change becomes a tradition. We saw that happen with the Welsh Development Agency and with the Welsh Office.
Another of the Government's themes is their argument that devolution will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. Failure to recognise the Scottish problem and the Welsh problem is more likely to lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. It is insulting to say that the people of Wales and Scotland are so politically unsophisticated that a degree of decentralisation, and an exercise in democratic control over the cluster of administrative bodies in Edinburgh and in Cardiff, will inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, whereas Catalonia, Rhône-Alpes and the other motor regions that the Welsh Office and the Government want to link up with can have experiments in decentralisation without people fearing that those countries will break up. Germany has the länder: because of its history, Bavaria is different from Nordrhein Westphalia. There is devolution à la carte in Spain, where Catalonia is more prosperous and has a more developed sense of identity than Valencia.
There are different models. History will find the Government funny peculiar in saying that, despite all these great debates, we cannot have any change. In the 1970s, the Conservative party was prepared seriously to enter into a debate to address real problems. Now there is a total veto and it rejects any change.
Alas, last Thursday and now, Conservative Members have parroted the West Lothian question as if its mere repetition will end the argument. Of course it is a serious question, and I concede that at one level it is unanswerable. It should be put in the context of the problem, and we should seek to address that problem, with all the disadvantages that may indeed flow. We should also take into account the Northern Irish precedent, and the possibility of an English Grand Committee.
I accept that that may mean moving to a quasi-federal solution. Everyone accepts that the proposed changes for Scotland and Wales are a transitional position, and that they will move in different ways. There may be English assemblies. At least there will be a debate on the nature of our constitution. We should not be frightened into saying that at the end of the road the United Kingdom will be broken up. The objective is to allow ordinary people to have a greater say in the governance of their country.
I played a role in the 1970s debate. At that time I was, on balance, against the proposals of my own party, and I voted consistently against them. I am now, on balance, in favour of my party's proposals. I do not pretend in an
512
absolutist way that there are not advantages and disadvantages: as with all political problems, there are pros and cons.
I shall mention the factors that have induced me to change my mind—I shall just give the headlines because of the time. The first factor is the Thatcherite centralisation and the removal or neutering of the intermediary bodies between the state and the citizen, such as local government, which has been put in a greater financial straitjacket, and the trade unions. I have already mentioned the European dimension. I envisage a cluster of institutions in Brussels, another in London and another in Cardiff, each with its own form of democratic control. The second factor is the identity of Wales, which I believe is of value and should be enhanced by a Welsh Assembly.
I am not alone in changing my position. I read the interesting interview with David Waterstone in the Western Mail, which I thought was extremely significant. I recently met a senior business man who is known to many of us. He told me that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) was the missionary who converted him to devolution. When the right hon. Gentleman slashed the grant to the Countryside Commission for Wales by half, and there was nothing we could do about it—we had no say, and there was no accountability—that business man began to ask various questions about the governance of Wales.
Quangos have been used ruthlessly by the Government, who cannot win by democratic means. They have filled them with their placemen. I shall not mention poor Dr. Gwyn Jones—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has been doing a demolition job on the learned doctor for some time. The man who is now the Conservative candidate for Worcester is an able and likeable man, but he had hardly arrived in my city before he was put on a health authority. Many people were born and brought up there and have served the city well, but they have no serious prospect of getting on the Conservative quango. That sort of thing annoys ordinary, right-thinking people, who may not be politically minded otherwise.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: Was the hon. Gentleman here when the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said how balanced the board of the Welsh Development Agency was, because it had trade union and local government representatives, and all the rest of it?
Mr. Anderson: This is something of a death-bed repentance. If I and the Minister, who is a reasonable man, except when he speaks from the Front Bench, were to have a cup of tea and to consider the history of Conservative appointments to the Welsh Development Agency, the pattern until now and the recent change, we would both come to the same conclusion, which would not be encouraging to the Government.
Another factor is that there is now an increasing feeling of togetherness in Wales and the building of a Welsh community and identity, partly—and I commend the Government for this—because of their Welsh Language Act 1993, which has been a positive development. Language could be so divisive in Wales, as it is in places such as Belgium. Historians will give great credit to the Government for the Act, which builds on consensus and has helped to remove part of the potential divisiveness within the Welsh polity.

513
I hope that the assembly will develop Welsh consciousness, which is, alas, all too lacking in our present age. I have a nightmare of a Murdoch-run age, with everyone speaking in mid-atlantic accents and watching the same shows. There is some value in diversity, which I hope the assembly will reflect.
That is why I applaud the form of proportional representation that has been proposed by the Labour party. The proposal starts from the basis that there should be a reasonable number of Members—60 Members—and that the electoral areas should be well known. That is why we have selected the Westminster constituencies and the Euro-constituencies. It also accepts that there should be an attempt to include everyone in Wales, and hence to ensure that people from each part of Wales are represented in the new assembly, according to the strength of their party. That is a good starting point. In so far as electoral systems can have consequences, that will be a means of bringing the diversity of Wales together.
In that context, I find the attitude of Plaid Cymru puzzling. It is being coy and says that we cannot count on its support in the referendum. Is it a party, or is it a pressure group? Is it trying to be serious, or is it playing games? It must know that, historically, a chance to make a change of this substance comes only once in a generation or so.
Think back to 1966, when the Welsh Office was formed. Some people said, "This is such a puny creature. We do not want it. People might vote against it." Let us compare the Welsh Office of today to the Welsh Office of 1966. It has moved sensibly, with additions by the Government and by my party, according to the wishes of the people of Wales, and at the speed that they wanted.
It is absolutely absurd for Plaid Cymru, the Welsh nationalists, to say that we cannot count on them. They must know that this is the historic opportunity to bring greater democracy to the governance of Wales. If they seek to sabotage or not to help that process, they will do a great disservice to the people of Wales. The giant step is to get an assembly. Thereafter, it will move as fast and as far as the people of Wales want.
I have set out my personal credo of why I have moved in respect of Welsh devolution. There is a Welsh dimension and it is of value. Obviously, as we saw last Thursday, there cannot be a serious debate before the general election, but I hope that afterwards there will be such a debate up to the referendums in September—a healthy national debate, building on the strength of our community and on our identity, which is diverse, real and of value, when globalisation and all the forces that internationalise us can lead to such a dreary sameness.
9.3 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: This has been a remarkable St. David's day debate on Welsh affairs for many reasons. First, it is the last St. David's day debate before an election, which on present form looks as though it may bring to an end, within eight or nine weeks, 18 years of continuous government by the Conservative party. Secondly, the debate coincides with a by-election in the Wirral, which again, according to form—we do not know what has happened today—may put the Government in a minority position for the first time in 18 years.
514
Thirdly, the debate has been remarkable because of the retirements that have been celebrated in the valedictory addresses, which we have heard from three corners of the House, if I can put it that way. The right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) said goodbye to such debates in his inimitable style as an old Harrovian, with the emphasis of course on the Harrovian. He said that some people might consider him to be servile, but that he saw himself as humble. He has made countless distinguished speeches. He may end up serving the Palace of Westminster in another capacity, but we know not yet.
I should also mention the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), a distinguished lawyer from the Liberal party who has been in the House for many more years than I have. In the past four years at least, we have not had to worry about splits in the Welsh Liberal party. He has given remarkable service during that period and previously.
Like many others, including the Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the bizarre procedure of the Dyfed Powys health authority, which announced the closure of eight community hospitals, without naming them. The Secretary of State administered what seemed to be a rebuke that may be acted upon—I do not know whether Mrs. Bourne, the chair of the health authority, will resign tomorrow.
That brings me to the third retiree, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), my mother's and brother's Member of Parliament who has been Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs for a long time. Whichever party is elected, the next Government will have to give serious thought to the best way of employing my hon. Friend's remarkable talent in the public service. One could say that a Welsh triple crown of retirees have made their valedictory addresses tonight. I hope that they do not become a Bermuda triangle of people lost to the public service when they cease to be in the House.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to the importance of the national health service in Wales, not only because of the problems of the Dyfed Powys health authority, but, as we should always remember in a St. David's day debate, because of the remarkable contribution that Welsh politicians have made to founding the modern welfare state.
Being a Liberal, the hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned Lloyd George. As a Labour Member, I would add the two other distinguished names of Jim Griffiths and Aneurin Bevan. Between them, those three politicians erected the triple crown of the welfare state by introducing old-age pensions, universal national insurance and the national health service.
One might say that the Welsh contribution to modern British politics is the welfare state. It arises from Welsh history and the difficult and dangerous occupations in which Welsh people have traditionally been engaged—mining, quarrying, steel making, tinplate and so on—which made people concerned about what would happen if the roof fell in, for example. A miner might think, "I have money today, but what would happen tomorrow if I broke my back in a pit accident?" and others might worry about something happening in the dangerous and dirty occupations of most of our ancestors.

515
The speeches to which I have referred have given us a picture of Welsh debates over the past 10 years or more and that is enormously valuable to those of us who hope to be here after the next election on whichever side of the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower, a distinguished son of the famous village of Tumble, also mentioned the 14-year wait for a cardiac surgery unit in Morriston hospital. It was a famous pre-election promise by Lord Crickhowell just before the 1983 election. The unit will open later this year, some 14 years later.
Mr. Donald Anderson: It did not help him in Swansea.
Mr. Morgan: Perhaps not. That is the great paradox of Welsh politics. Whatever Conservative Secretaries of State think they are donating to an area, they certainly do not get any reward from the people of Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower asked what we should do about the withdrawal of NHS dentistry from large areas of Wales. Should we solve the problem by utilising salaried dentists employed by the health authorities or by expanding community dental services that are provided by the NHS? We have never had a clear answer on that.
My hon. Friends the Members for Gower and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) mentioned the Sea Empress disaster. We are just past the anniversary of that—it was about 13 months ago. I imagine that I am speaking for hon. Members on both sides when I say that we expect a proper statement—I know that the matter falls primarily to the Secretary of State for Transport—and some debating time, if possible, on the report of the marine accidents, investigation branch of the Department of Transport. The people of Wales will insist on that as part of their rights of parliamentary accountability, although I fully appreciate that the Secretary of State for Wales cannot make that promise on behalf of his colleague at the Department of Transport.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who is certainly not retiring, made two points. The first was about transforming the Welsh education system to concentrate on elite education. I would prefer to give greater priority to the problems of vocational education and the shortage of engineers that we shall have, to ensure that the new firms that move into Wales do not take all the engineers from the existing factories, thereby creating a crisis out of the success in getting new firms to move in.
I believe that the Secretary of State referred to the headline in yesterday's Western Mail about south-east Wales being the easiest place to get a job. That newspaper article was based on a report from the Gwent training and enterprise council into that problem, because it was being lobbied by 200 business men from Gwent who were worried that there were not enough engineers to staff the middle management, the technical side, the quality control side and the design side of the new firms, such as Newport Wafer-Fab and LG, which are moving in.
Those new jobs create a problem at the level of skilled labour, technician labour and graduate engineer labour. That is a problem that the Welsh economy must address now—not the creation of an elite for sport or the old professions, but the creation of an expanded vocational
516
engineering service and the removal of the low prestige that vocational subjects still have relative to academic subjects.
Another issue addressed in many speeches is the Welsh fiscal deficit. The Secretary of State has published two booklets on the subject, referring to Wales having 5 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, but producing only 4 per cent. of the tax revenue. That is not because the Welsh are better tax dodgers than the English, I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in case you are concerned on behalf of your constituents. It is simply a reflection of the fact that, although it has 5 per cent. of the population, Wales has only 4 per cent. of the UK gross domestic product.
That fact has emerged from many other studies. Only last month a study was published on regional trends or economic trends—I forget which—showing that gross domestic product in Wales, which is one of those boring statistics that nobody understands, has fallen again relative to the United Kingdom average. In 1995, it was down from 84 per cent. to 83 per cent. That means that the average family income of Mr. and Mrs. Jones and the kids in the back streets or the valleys of Wales has fallen and can now be said to be 20 per cent. below the UK average. Someone whose income is 20 per cent. below the UK average will clearly pay 20 per cent. less tax than the UK average.
Those figures can be used in various ways. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli used them in the context of the Maastricht debate and the issue of the fiscal deficit. My point is—
Mr. Denzil Davies: For the record, my remarks were not made in the context of a Maastricht debate. I said that a country with a fiscal deficit of 15 per cent. could not exist as an independent country.
Mr. Morgan: I paraphrased my right hon. Friend wrongly. He is right. He specifically excluded Maastricht. He used the figures in his argument against the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones). How does the conclusion in the Secretary of State's booklet that Wales has only 4 per cent. of Great Britain's GDP and 5 per cent. of its population fit the picture painted in his speech? We must say, "Hang on a minute, Secretary of State. Where is this land of milk and honey with its vast numbers of jobs that you are claiming to be leading, indeed to have created?"
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morgan: No, I will not give way. If it is true that the Secretary of State has created all those jobs—I have certainly heard such claims from him and his four or five predecessors in the 10 years that I have been in the House—and high standards of health and education, how can the statistics in his own booklets on the Welsh fiscal deficit and Welsh GDP indicate that average family income in Wales is 20 per cent. below the UK average? To take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, as of this moment, according to the statistics—
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morgan: I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way.

517
If Wales were an independent country or, to make it sound less controversial, were counted as an independent country, and therefore in the OECD GDP league table, it would be 21st out of the 26 countries. We would be ahead of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Turkey—and that is it. I think that that is an accurate picture of where we are at the moment. What a remarkable contrast that is to the picture painted by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State mentioned that, over the past 10 years, manufacturing employment was up in Wales. "What a remarkable thing that was," he said. When the Government came to power in 1979, 300,000 people were employed in manufacturing—but only 200,000 people are now. In fact, there has been a net loss of a third of manufacturing jobs over the 18 years that the Government have been in office.
The Secretary of State's speech was very much like a colonial governor's report back to the colonial office of 50 years ago, saying that the crops are growing well, exports are up, the natives are happy, there are a few noises about constitutional change but those can soon be sorted out by sending another boat-load of trinkets. That was really all he was saying. He was not looking at the bottom line, the acid test: how prosperous is the country that he is claiming is doing so well? That is the con trick.
The Secretary of State used the words "con trick", especially with regard to the health service. When he talks about increasing expenditure on the NHS next year, why does he always use the weasel-word, con-trick phrase of "compared with the plans for the present year"? Why does he not compare the figures with actual expenditure? He says that, when comparing expenditure this year—he means actual expenditure, which is what the Health Minister says whenever he makes a speech—with actual expenditure next year, it will increase by more than the rate of inflation. Yet the plans that he has announced for next year do not represent an increase of more than the rate of inflation.
The Bank of England says that inflation this year will be 2.9 per cent., yet the Government's plans, which have been announced, represent only 2.4 per cent above this year's health expenditure. If the Secretary of State is talking about con tricks, I am afraid that he must look at the use that he makes of the health statistics by leaving out the fact that he must go back to planned expenditure not actual expenditure for the present year.
I should like to refer briefly to the constitutional issue, which has come up time and again. Its broad thrust is whether being interested in constitutional change makes Wales turn inwards as a country, which I think was what the Secretary of State was saying, although how he would know I do not exactly know, or whether it helps Wales to emerge on the international and European stage more than it has in recent years, as we would claim. As we see it, the European summit is a huge opportunity to put Wales and its capital on the map. We are all absolutely delighted—I believe that we are all delighted—that it will be held for the first time in Cardiff in June next year. In the following year—1999—the rugby world cup final will be held in Wales.
By their very nature, the European summit and the rugby world cup are temporary, although they will be huge boosts to Wales and to perceptions of Wales abroad.
518
Once the caravan has passed, things will go back to normal. If Wales wants not merely to be put on the map but to stay on the map, the creation of a Welsh Assembly is absolutely essential. An assembly will be the final part of a triple crown of achievements for which we should aim in 1997–99. I also hope that the timing will work out so that the first meeting of the Welsh Assembly will be held on the same day as the world cup final. I say that not because we want to ensure that a Welsh team is playing in something on that day, but because it will give a permanent boost to Wales.
The Secretary of State will have moved on by that time. He will have become the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer in the current Home Secretary's shadow Cabinet. He may even be enjoying himself there. Indeed, we have been told that he now has a private aeroplane, because he has been sponsored by some wealthy aeroplane-owning plutocrat. He might use that aeroplane to leave Wales—like the last American to leave Saigon—before the Welsh people take over and push him out. The Welsh people might say to him, "You've been here for a couple of years, and we're grateful that you've filled the job while we were waiting for a Labour Government. But now you've done your job. Get in that plane and go, because we need a Labour Government to put Wales back on its feet and, through a Welsh Assembly, to put it permanently on the map."
9.20 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): In preparing for this debate, I thought that it might be helpful to cast my eye over some previous St. David's day debates. I entered the House at the previous general election, and, although I participated in St. David's day debates as a Back Bencher, this is the first time I have had the honour of replying to one. Looking through the speeches made in those debates, I was struck by those made last year, as they seem to show a consistent theme. It is interesting that the Labour party recently decided not to run with a series of advertisements based on the Mr. Men characters. If it had decided to do so, we would, of course, have seen on the Labour Benches Mr. Gloomy and Mr. Glum, who always appear at St. David's day debates.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), however, is the person who consistently does not appear. He was not in the Chamber for last year's St. David's day debate, and he is not here today.
Mr. Morgan: As the Secretary of State knew that the Labour party conference was in Llandudno, would not the right solution have been for him to lend his new private aeroplane to the shadow Secretary of State so that he could have gone to Llandudno after the debate?
Mr. Evans: I think that we have heard rather too much in this debate about rail and road services to Llandudno.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) seem to know rather more about those services than the hon. Member for Caerphilly. However, I can cast some light on the matter. Today's newspaper states that the hon. Member for Caerphilly is in favour of a St. David's day holiday. He obviously decided—this year and last—to put that

519
preference into practice by taking a St. David's day holiday himself. I see from the Opposition Benches that he has been joined by virtually half his parliamentary party in missing the debate.
It is interesting to examine some of the remarks made in last year's debate—not least those made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). He was very generous, and said:
"In the past 10 years, Wales has missed out on all the big new investment providing 2,000 jobs or more."
He detailed those investments, and said that there were
"six big investments providing 2,000 and 3,000 jobs during the past eight or nine years"
He said that Wales had got none of them. He then went on to say
"We would have liked to have one of those firms and we might then have felt satisfied that Wales remained at the forefront of the Government's regional economic development effort."—[Official Report, 29 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 1042.]
Those were his words in last year's debate. Within weeks, however, we had an announcement of 6,000 jobs at Newport.
In last year's debate, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West made 10 references to a company called Chunghwa Picture Tubes. Those of us who have listened to him repeatedly in debates know that 10 references to a company are only a few for him. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I listened for the name of LG in the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I am afraid that it did not spill from his lips. The hon. Gentleman is gloomy on every occasion.
Mr. Morgan: When the Under-Secretary reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that I referred, in the most complimentary terms, to the arrival of LG, but I also referred to the fears expressed by 200 businesses in Gwent that, unless the Government got off their backside and did something about the supply of engineers, problems could be caused. Does he recall that, and will he now withdraw his stupid remarks?
Mr. Evans: I remember the hon. Gentleman making that point. I was listening keenly for the name of LG, because I had these references to earlier debates. I did not hear it. If the Hansard writers have managed to record one utterance of LG, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not hear 10 references to LG like the 10 that he made when he attacked the Secretary of State 12 months ago. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) cannot just stand up and wave his notes.
Mr. Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Morgan: Will the Under-Secretary give way?
Mr. Evans: No, I want to make some progress and to respond to some of the points made in the debate.
One of the other consistent themes of Welsh debates has been the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy. On every occasion on which he has contributed, he has graced the proceedings. I am grateful
520
for the remarks which have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House praising his contribution. Their remarks were generous, and rightly so.
Everyone recalls the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy to the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1993 and his work to promote the Welsh language. The fact that Welsh is now taught in all our schools in the Principality is down to his efforts. We can also thank him for the establishment of the fourth television channel. People in Wales, whatever their political opinions, recognise that those changes are down to his efforts.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy should also take credit for the remarkable improvement in standards of education in Wales in the time he was Welsh Education Minister. I had a letter last week from someone in my constituency setting out the view that everything was wonderful in education in 1979, and then the Tories were elected and problems started. I have been involved in politics for longer than that, and I have a report produced and published in 1980 by the current director of the Institute of Welsh Affairs, who is not regarded as a supporter of the Conservative party. The report spoke of the widening gap in the performance of Welsh schoolchildren compared to English schoolchildren during the Labour Government. At the beginning of that Government's time in office, around a third of young people in Wales left school without any qualifications.
That point ties in with the refreshing and honest speech by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). He made an interesting contribution which I hope many people will read. He said that the problems went back more than 30 years and he was not seeking to make any party political point. The evidence is that there has been a remarkable improvement, although I recognise that there is more to be done. The gap has not totally closed yet, but it has narrowed remarkably in the past 18 years, largely because of the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Conwy. I reiterate the point that, in the five years to 1979, the gap in performance widened, and that is a judgment on some of the claims about the likely performance of a Labour authority.
I did not follow entirely one of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Llanelli. I accept his points about the need to ensure that we do our utmost to develop as much talent as we can in the young people of Wales and to present them with as many opportunities as we can. He made a point about supporting the elite in the education system, and I seem to remember him saying that it was also important to try to get standards in some schools in Wales up to those of the best public schools in England—I think that those were his words. He will recall that our assisted places scheme provides places in schools in Wales that operate at that level. I found it difficult to reconcile his opposition to the assisted places scheme with some of his remarks.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) also made a valedictory speech, which gives me the opportunity to say to him that, although we have disagreed about a wide range of things, as constituency neighbours over the past five years we have also managed to find things on which, from time to time, we can agree, and advance the interests of the people of Wales. During the hon. and learned Gentleman's time in the House,

521
he has demonstrated his willingness to work in that way; I certainly know that he has done so during the years in which I have been here.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's contributions have always been interesting. I note what he said about Dyfed Powys health authority, but he does not require a further reply from me, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already dealt specifically with his questions.
Both the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) gave what was, in my view, too negative an opinion of the health service. I remind them that, for about 37 of the 50 years of the existence of our national health service, a Conservative Government have been in office, building up that health service.
The Opposition sometimes want to portray an image of the Government as one in some sense committed to undermining the health service, but this is a health service that we have grown during the years in which we have been in government. The good things about our health service are things that we have developed, and we need to assert that much more strongly in the weeks, months and years ahead.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) also made a valedictory contribution, and I agree with everything that has been said about his chairmanship of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. He told the House that he had received a good deal of training, both from his predecessors and from others in the House, not least Leo Abse. The hon. Gentleman will know of my own personal connection with Leo Abse. Certainly there is a great deal to be learnt from somebody of such wide experience. I owe a personal debt to the hon. Member for Gower, because I have learnt much from him.
I am also grateful for the hon. Gentleman's observation, which in a way underpinned the debate, that he regarded all the people who had served with him on the Welsh Affairs Committee as friends in the House. Just about everybody who has contributed to the debate falls into that category, and the feeling is mutual—although I also share the view expressed in a telling intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West. It may be received rather better by the Opposition than by some of my hon. Friend's other interventions.
My hon. Friend tellingly pointed out that the hon. Member for Gower was saying how effective his work on the Welsh Affairs Committee had been, which showed how accountable our system of government is, here in the House. It is a shame that more attention is not given to the work undertaken by the Committee that the hon. Gentleman chaired, because it gives the lie to claims that Parliament is unaccountable.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) talked about a Welsh Assembly, and also spoke in glowing terms about my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). In my intervention, I tried to set the historical record clear.
The strictures of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) about political appointments being made to all the public bodies in Wales sat rather ill with the fact that he then proceeded to propose the hon. Member for Gower as the next chairman of the health authority.
522
My knowledge of the old Labour party tells me that, irrespective of Lord Nolan, it seems to be a case of "back to the old days".
Mr. Donald Anderson rose—
Mr. Evans: I am seeking to draw my remarks to a close.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East also said that he was concerned about the demand-led element in further education funding, and asked me to write to him. I shall be happy to do so, although I can tell him that I am aware of the position, and I am examining the options. I shall write to him in fuller terms in due course.
The hon. Gentleman went on to allege that we were a Unionist party, as though that was something of which we should be ashamed. From the time I made my maiden speech in the House, I have made it clear that I have no shame about the fact that I am a Unionist. The time was when the Labour party was a Unionist party, but we have come to question that now.
Mr. Anderson: The point I was making was that, as the Conservative party has lost support in both Wales and Scotland, it has retreated into being an English nationalist party.
Mr. Evans: It cannot be claimed that pointing out the disadvantages inherent in Labour's proposals for the creation of a separate Welsh Assembly means that we are an English nationalist party. That does not necessarily follow at all. The line that we are putting to the people of Wales and to the rest of the country is the same line as we were putting in 1979. I am bound to say that I remember those debates, and the way in which we were characterised at that time as isolated from Welsh opinion.
I remember that those campaigning for a yes vote produced a leaflet saying that, in fact, the only people opposed to an assembly were members of the Conservative party and members of the Country Landowners Association. They also produced cartoons at that time which portrayed a similar message. I recognise that we were helped, in that we had one or two Labour Members who were prepared to join us during the debate. I am bound to say that, in his heart of hearts, the hon. Member for Swansea, East knows that that opinion still lurks in the Labour party.
Mr. Morgan: What about the former Prime Minister?
Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup has been consistent in his view on this matter for more than 30 years. I well remember another leaflet produced by those campaigning for a yes vote which contained a photograph of my right hon. Friend and urged the people of Wales to vote yes because Mr. Heath was recommending it. I am bound to say that that has not been put forward by the Labour party as an explanation for the eventual result. Against a background in which those proposing the establishment of an assembly claimed the support of all within the trade unions, those within the Churches and the intelligentsia in Wales, the result was that the people of Wales voted by a margin of four to one against.

523
The hon. Member for Carmarthen was typically honest in responding to my question to him. The public mood in Wales in the late 1970s was very much more in favour of the establishment of an assembly than it was towards the conclusion of the debate on the referendum itself. There are a number of reasons, one of which was that the public in Wales had the opportunity of watching the way in which the debate went in Parliament. They saw that Members of Parliament from all parts of the UK had individual proposals for changes to the propositions, and we were able to engage in a debate and decide whether amendments should be made to legislation. That has always been the procedure of the House.
Those debates substantially informed the referendum debate and the final decision of the people of Wales. The Labour party proposes to have what it calls a pre-legislative vote, in which the people of Wales will be invited to vote on a paper produced by the Labour party without there being an opportunity to amend it. Presumably, Labour will then railroad those Members of Parliament who are here into the view that they should support that proposal, come what may. That is an
524
outrageous proposal, and Plaid Cymru must think so also. That is why it is arguing that there should be not pre-legislative choice, but a multi-option choice. In that regard, I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) about a multi-option choice.
The answer is to ensure that we have a proper debate in the House before any such proposal is made. In the circumstances, it is clear that the Labour party is not prepared to go down that road, because it is fairly sure that the outcome of a referendum would be the same the next time.
Mr. Gyles Brandreth (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Ten o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Courts (Induction Loop Systems)
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many courts in England and Wales provide induction loop systems for people with hearing impairments; and what steps his Department has taken to raise awareness in the courts of the special needs of dual-sensory-impaired people. [17117]

  Mr. Streeter
  There are 40 courts in the Court Service with induction loop or infra-red systems for people with hearing impairments. Our records do not enable us to identify separately how any magistrates courts have induction loop systems, but we have provided grant funding to allow at least 50 courts to have induction loop or infra-red systems for people with hearing impairments.

  Through various building guides and published standards, we have made staff, local authorities and magistrates courts committees aware of the features to be included in new buildings and, subject to building constraints and funding availability, in older buildings, to meet the requirements of disabled people. Training courses for all new managers in the Court Service include sessions on disability awareness and managers are expected to raise these issues among their staff. Each court has customer liaison officer who is available to help disabled court users. The Court Service is currently producing an action plan to meet the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Under section 22A(6) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, all magistrates court committees are required to have regard to the needs of court users who are disabled in discharging their responsibilities for the administration of the magistrates courts. My officials are currently working, in collaboration with a variety of disability organisations, on the production of a good practice guide covering disabled court users which is aimed at magistrates courts committees. The aim of the guide is to raise awareness in the magistrates courts of the special needs of all court users with disabilities. The guide will be published later in the year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Servants (London Supplement)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the annual cost of paying a London supplement to civil servants working in London in the last year for which figures are available. [17686]

  Mr. Freeman
  The London weighting allowance was abolished on 1 October 1994. At that time, there were three levels of London weighting paid to non-industrial staff: inner London £1,776 per person per annum;288
  intermediate zone £1,015; and outer London £736. On the basis of where staff were employed on 1 April 1994, the total annual cost of the London allowances was £151 million. Since 1 April 1994, Departments and agencies have had delegated authority to determine the pay and allowances of their own staff.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prisoners (Drug Tests)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) in what circumstances video recording occurs of prisoners giving urine samples for random drug tests; [16357]

  (2) how many prisoners have (a) been fined, (b) lost remission and (c) been subject to other disciplinary sanction for refusing to co-operate with a random drug test before a video camera. [16358]

  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 27 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the circumstances under which video-recording occurs of prisoners giving urine samples for random drug testing; and disciplinary sanctions resulting from prisoners refusing to co-operate with such a test before a video camera.
  There are no circumstances under which a prisoner has given a sample of urine for the purposes of drug testing while being video-recorded. Consequently, no prisoners have been disciplined for refusal to co-operate with such conditions.

  Prison Visits (Recording)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the video recording of legal visits at(a) Belmarsh, (b) other prisons and (c) legal visiting rooms; [16049]

  (2) on what statutory basis the video recording of legal visits is permitted; [16050]

  (3) in what circumstances audio recording of legal visiting rooms is permitted. [16051]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answers 26 February 1997]: 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. Tam Dalyell, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about video and audio recording of legal visits.
  I shall deal with your second and third Questions first. Prison Rule 37 provides that legal visits shall take place out of hearing but in the sight of an officer.
  One way to achieve this is to use CCTV without sound, recording the CCTV image on video tape to allow an officer to review the visit at a convenient time. The camera facilities used do not allow any documentation that may he open on the visits table to be read.
  The Prison Service does not permit the audio recording of legally privileged visits.

  289
  Belmarsh prison uses video-recorded CCTV without sound in the legal visits facility in its special secure unit (SSU). A system similar to that used in the SSU at Belmarsh is used in the other SSUs at Full Sutton and Whitemoor. CCTV without sound is used in the non-SSU legal visits rooms at Full Sutton, Long Lartin, Frankland and Wakefield, and can be video recorded if necessary. Information about the rest of the estate is not held centrally and accurate information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Belmarsh Prison
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours per day on average over the past 12 months prisoners in special secure units at Belmarsh prison have been confined to their cells; and if he will make a statement. [17309]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the hours prisoners have been confined to their cells in the special secure units (SSU) at Belmarsh prison.
  Prisoners are confined to their cells at all times outside of the core day. The core day at Belmarsh SSU is from 0830 to 2030 hours. In addition, during the core day prisoners are confined to their cells for the following periods of time:

  On Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday for 3 hoursjy40 minutes.

  On Wednesday for 6 hours and 15 minutes.

  On Saturday and Sunday for 5 hours and 25 minutes.

  The figures quoted are averages calculated over the last 12 months.

  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been received from the solicitor representing Brian McHugh about the confidentiality and conditions for him to interview his client at Belmarsh prison; and if he will make a statement. [17368]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 February 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about representations received from the solicitor representing Brian McHugh.
  Mr. McHugh has been categorised as an exceptional risk Category A prisoner. Such prisoners are held in special secure units and are subject to closed visits. In exceptional circumstances an open visit may be allowed with the approval of the Director of Dispersal Prisons. The Prison Service has received a number of representations from the solicitor representing Mr. McHugh in support of applications for open legal visits.

  Prisons (Special Secure Units)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to put into practice the proposals contained in the report on health in the special secure units at Full Sutton, Whitemoor and Belmarsh prisons; and if he will make a statement. [17405]
  290
  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 26 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 Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 27 February, 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the implementation of the proposals contained in the report on health in the special secure units at Full Sutton, Whitemoor and Belmarsh prions.
  Sir Donald Acheson's review of the possible effects on the health of prisoners of the regime in the special secure units contained nine recommendations. Eight of these recommendations endorsed existing policy or have since been implemented through amendments to the SSU Operating Standards.
  We cannot accept the recommendation that prisoners in SSUs should have access to open visits with members of their immediate families. The recommendation was qualified by the assertion that it should be possible for the Prison Service to devise a system of open visits which prevented the passage of unauthorised items. The policy of closed visits was introduced in 1995 precisely because it represented—after analysis of the options and taking into account humanitarian concerns—the only guaranteed means of preventing the passage of such items.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements are to be made to ensure that, if she gives birth while still in detention, Roisin McAliskey is not separated from her child; and if he will ensure that, if Ms McAliskey is extradited, she and her baby will not be separated. [17625]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 25 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Max Madden, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Question about the arrangements to be made if Ms Roisin McAliskey gives birth while still in detention.
  Careful consideration is being given to the care of Ms McAliskey's baby should she give birth while detained in prison custody. No decisions have yet been taken. If Ms McAliskey is extradited to Germany, care arrangements will be matters for the German authorities.

  Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Administration)
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra staff are to be taken on to administer the Firearms (Amendment) Bill following its enactment. [17452]

  Miss Widdecombe
  A new firearms compensation section is to be set up within the Home Office on a short-term basis and will initially comprise 50 staff. Their specific task will be to process claims from those persons who surrender their lawfully held handguns which become prohibited under the Act. Payments will also be made in respect of ancillary equipment used solely in connection with those handguns, and to owners of small calibre pistols who choose not to, or are unable to, join a licensed pistol club. In addition, there will be some new
  291
  work arising from the granting of licences for the new pistol clubs. It is expected that this work can be accommodated within existing resources.

  Foreign Students (Residence Restrictions)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what restrictions apply to the length of time students from(a) Australia, (b) Canada, (c) New Zealand and (d) South Africa may reside in the United Kingdom; and what permits are required. [17355]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  There is no upper limit on the time an overseas student may remain in the United Kingdom. A student who fully satisfies the requirements of the immigration rules will normally be given leave for the period of his course.

  The criteria for leave to enter or remain as a student are set out in the "Statement of Changes in the Immigration Rules", HC 395, as amended, at paragraphs 57 to 62, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Nationals of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa do not need to obtain a visa before travelling to the United Kingdom as students. However, they may apply for an entry certificate should they wish to do so.

  Criminal Case Papers
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the provisions on the retention of case papers in the code of practice prepared under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. [18375]

  Mr. Howard
  I published a draft code on 4 July 1996 for consultation, modified it in the light of representations received, and laid it before Parliament on 18 December. The draft code required each chief police officer to develop his own policy on the retention of case papers, taking account of certain specified criteria. I received representations that the code should prescribe a national policy on this issue so that each police force followed the same practice. The version of the code which I laid before Parliament on 18 December contains a national policy in that it requires each police force to retain all material obtained by the police in the course of a criminal investigation which might be relevant to the investigation at least until the conclusion of the trial; and if the case resulted in a conviction following a not guilty plea, to retain the material for a further minimum period of one year following summary conviction or three years following conviction on indictment.

  At present, police forces are not subject to any statutory requirement to retain material for any specified period. Each police force has its own policy and there is no common practice. The effect of the provisions in the code is to increase protection for defendants by inserting a statutory minimum retention requirement where none exists at present. These provisions leave untouched the current ability of the police to retain material for any length of time beyond that. In very serious and high-profile cases, I would expect the police to continue to retain material for a long time, as they have tended to do under the informal arrangements which currently exist.
  292
  Nevertheless, in the light of concerns expressed recently about these provisions, I have concluded that the interests of justice would be better served by an alternative set of requirements. Accordingly, I intend to amend the code of practice so as to require the police to retain material at least until the end of the trial and then, in the event of a conviction, either until the convicted person is released from custody, if the court imposes a custodial sentence, or until six months from the date of conviction, if the court imposes a non-custodial sentence. Where a convicted person is given a short custodial sentence and would be released within six months of conviction, material would still have to be retained for at least six months. If an appeal is in progress at the end of one of these periods, or an application is being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the period will be extended until the appeal is concluded or the commission makes a decision on the application.

  I will lay an amended code of practice before Parliament today.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Deregulation
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he received following the recent DTI consultation exercise on proposals made by the deregulation task force in respect of employment rights in small firms; which organisations submitted responses; and how the results of the exercise will be made available. [17490]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My Department received representations from some 90 organisations, businesses and individuals expressing a range of views which we are currently considering. I shall be placing a list of the organisations which replied in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Regional Services
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff directly employed by the DTI were providing DTI services to the regions in each year from 1990 to date. [17305]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows the number of permanent staff—full-time equivalents—directly employed in the Department's regional offices between 1990 and 1993. In 1994, my Department's regional offices integrated with those of the Departments of the Environment, of Transport and of Employment, as it then was, and the table shows the number of permanent staff employed by DTI in the integrated Government offices from 1994. DTI staff in the GOs may carry out work for other Departments; similarly, staff in the GOs employed by other Departments may provide DTI services.1 April 1990: 1,004
  1 April 1991: 1,013
  1 April 1992: 996.5
  1 April 1993: 980.5
  1 April 1994: 988
  1 April 1995: 880.5
  1 April 1996: 796.1
  1 January 1997: 704.4
  293
  Prior to 1 April 1995, part-time staff were counted as 0.5 of a full-time equivalent. Staff working fewer than 10 hours per week were excluded from the count. From 1 April 1995, the full-time equivalent of all part-time staff was based on actual hours worked.

  Institute of Food Research
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total expenditure of the Institute of Food Research in each year since 1986 in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [17658]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The figures are shown in the table.

  Institute of Food Research expenditure—1986–96

  Year

  Current cash expenditure £000

  At constant cash prices3£000

  Capital cash £000

  1986–87

  11,541

  17,838

  1,927

  1987–88

  12,473

  18,304

  1,380

  1988–89

  13,321

  18,322

  1,307

  1989–90

  13,810

  17,754

  3,123

  1990–911

  13,580

  16,168

  4,564

  1991–922

  14,083

  15,757

  1,200

  1992–93

  14,834

  15,927

  1,334

  1993–94

  14,676

  15,314

  1,119

  1994–95

  15,162

  15,545

  1,022

  1995–96

  15,448

  15,448

  1,417

  Notes:

  1 Bristol site closed.

  2 Move to Whiteknights site at Reading (Shinfield site closed).

  3 Using November 1996 GDP deflators.

  Genetic Testing (Insurance)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the new guidelines issued by the Association of British Insurers relating to the use of the results of genetic testing. [17366]

  £ million

  Cost of advisors

  1995–96 Budgeted passenger revenue

  Budgeted support to BR for whole year

  Including administered profit1

  Support paid at franchising (year 1)

  Year 2

  Year 3

  Year 4

  Year 5

  Intercity West Coast

  1.96

  251.80

  92.53

  19.12

  76.800

  68.362

  56.091

  53.675

  52.254

  North London Lines

  1.12

  64.30

  54.87

  4.87

  48.600

  35.501

  29.627

  26.415

  23.040

  Thameslink

  1.02

  82.10

  16.43

  5.34

  2.500

  -6.748

  -16.204

  -22.466

  -23.224

  Central Trains1

  1.14

  75.80

  198.10

  7.64

  187.549

  173.365

  153.681

  145.794

  140.922

  North West Regional

  Railways1

  1.42

  54.30

  191.90

  6.77

  184.900

  168.900

  153.411

  140.815

  134.828

  Regional Railways North

  East1

  1.40

  76.30

  223.20

  7.80

  224.539

  197.054

  175.791

  164.311

  156.327

  ScotRail1

  1.31

  117.70

  292.30

  11.17

  280.100

  264.841

  250.539

  234.911

  220.351

  Total

  9.37

  722.30

  1,069.33

  62.71

  1,004.99

  901.28

  802.94

  743.46

  704.50

  Savings on BR support

  64.34

  168.06

  266.39

  325.88

  364.83

  Cumulative savings

  64.34

  232.40

  498.79

  824.67

  1,189.50

  294
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 24 February 1997]: I welcome the statement by the Association of British Insurers outlining its current position on genetic testing and the use of genetic information in the underwriting process. The Government have been urging the ABI to make constructive proposals to deal with public concern on this important issue and I am pleased that some progress has been made. The prospect of a wider range of genetic tests becoming available in the future, with greater sophistication in the interpretation of test results, means that the implications for insurance must be kept under constant review. My Department, with the Department of Health, has established the Human Genetic Advisory Commission to examine this sort of issue, taking account of continuing development in genetic science.

  Industrial Action and Trade Unions
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of the views submitted in response to the Green Paper on industrial action and trade unions (Cm 3470). [17920]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I shall arrange for a list of respondents to the Green Paper to be placed in the Library of the House shortly after the end of the consultation period on 28 February. Since respondents were not asked to indicate whether they were willing for their comments to be published, it would not be appropriate to make the responses themselves available. However, some respondents may be willing to supply copies of their comments on request.

TRANSPORT

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each franchise let since 13 January the details of payments to or from the franchisee in the same format as his answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 119–20, indicating the support previously paid to British Rail for the franchises and the amounts of administered profit included within such support. [17191]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is set out in the tables.
  295

  £ million

  Year 6

  Year 7

  Year 8

  Year 9

  Year 10

  Year 11

  Year 12

  Year 13

  Year 14

  Year 15

  Intercity West Coast

  -3.885

  -52.705

  -55.840

  -72.029

  -126.625

  -151.557

  -167.600

  -184.528

  -202.194

  -220.305

  North London Lines

  19.968

  16.919

  15.805

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Thameslink

  -27.015

  -28.434

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Central Trains1

  136.638

  132.645

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  North West Regional Railways1

  129.745

  125.518

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Regional Railways North East1

  150.493

  145.579

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  ScotRail1

  209.254

  202.494

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Total

  615.20

  542.02

  -40.04

  -72.03

  -126.63

  -151.56

  -167.60

  -184.53

  -202.19

  -220.31

  Savings on BR support

  454.13

  527.31

  187.44

  164.56

  219.16

  244.09

  260.13

  277.06

  294.72

  312.84

  Cumulative savings

  1,643.63

  2,170.94

  2,358.38

  2,522.94

  2,742.09

  2,986.18

  3,246.31

  3,523.37

  3,818.09

  4,130.93

  Notes:

  1 The BR support figures for these franchises have been restated on a comparable basis to the franchise agreement and include budgeted payments from the passenger transport executives.

  2 Not covered by the franchise.

  The year 1 franchise payment is the amount to be paid for 1997–98. Any amounts to be paid in 1996–97 have been excluded from this table.

  It is expected that these franchises will commence between 2 March and 1 April 1997.

  Payments to the franchising director appear as negative amounts.

  All payments are real amounts.

  Advisor costs are correct to January 1997.

  This table makes no assumption about the potential for cost savings if the franchisees had remained in BR ownership.

  Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the contracts awarded by his Department to(a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992 and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17607]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is set out in the table. The value of individual contracts has not been revealed on the grounds that this information is commercially confidential.

  Contractor

  Nature of Contract

  1992

  Capita

  Financial Reporting Review

  1993

  BMI

  Health Screening

  Capita

  Financial Services

  Capita

  Financial Reporting Review

  Capita

  Market Testing

  Capita

  Financial Adviser

  EDS

  Provision of Computer Services

  EDS

  Provision of Computer Services

  EDS

  Provision of Computer Services

  EDS

  Provision of Computer Services

  Sema

  Office Systems Feasibility Study

  1994

  EDS

  Phase I of IS Strategy

  Sema/BAE

  Study of new and combined Technologies and Optical Technique in Variable Message Signs

  Sema

  IT Consultancy

  1995

  Capita

  Marketing Support for Staff Welfare

  1996

  Capita

  Administration of Driving Theory Test

  Capita

  Advice on the production of a new Resource Accounting and Management Information System

  296

  Contractor

  Nature of Contract

  Capita

  Development of Training Strategy

  Capita/RAS

  General Recruitment Services

  EDS

  Phase II of IS Strategy

  Freight Facilities Grants
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlie the overestimate in the budget for freight facilities grants for the years 1994–95 and 1995–96. [16526]

  Mr. Watts
  The 1994–95 freight grants budget was £13.347 million. This was notionally split into £3.347 million freight facilities grants and £10 million for the new track access grants. Spend on FFG at year end was £2,803 million. The shortfall was caused by two large claims not being submitted until the following year.

  The 1995–96 freight grants budget was £14,415 million, notionally split into £3.415 million for FFG and £11 million for TAG. FFG spend was £4.007 million.

  The provision made for TAG in these years was based on independent consultancy assessment of rail freight traffic likely to face difficulty in meeting newly introduced Railtrack track access charges. The first TAG awards were made during 1996 and payments are now being made.

  Pescado (Sinking)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the marine accidents investigation branch report into the sinking of the fishing vessel Pescado; and if he will make a statement. [17938]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Secretary of State has not yet received the report of the marine accidents investigation branch inspector's inquiry into the sinking of the fishing vessel Pescado. Normally, such a report would be submitted within one year of the incident. The delay in this case was due to the criminal prosecution of the operator of
  297
  the Pescado and subsequent appeals. Now that criminal proceedings are at an end, the MAIB will complete the process prior to publication of the report, which is required by the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1994 and will submit the report to the Secretary of State for him to consider in due course. In line with the requirements of these regulations, the Secretary of State normally publishes reports into incidents shortly after they have been received.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to amend the Highways Agency's 1996–97 key business plan targets. [18334]

  Mr. Watts
  I have reviewed the Highways Agency's key targets and decided that the business plan should be amended to reflect decisions taken during the year.

  The following 1996–97 targets are deferred, reflecting the new timing or priority of these schemes. They should be deleted from annex D of the plan: "Roads Programme Completion, Starts and Other Milestones":
  A650 Hard Ings Road Improvement: (Public Inquiry)
  A40 Gypsy Corner Improvement: (Award of Contract)
  A40 Western Circus Junction Improvement: (Award of Contract)
  London Primary Route Signing Project: (Award of Contract)
  A30/A36/A46/A303: (DBFO Tender Invitation).

  Milestones which are added to annex D are:
  Al Tempsford Junction Improvement: (Publication of Orders).

  A copy of the Highways Agency business plan 1996–97 is in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  South Yorkshire Supertram
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 14 February,Official Report, column 319, what estimate he has made of the effect of the further £20 million in credit approvals on the South Yorkshire supertram, on council tax rates of Sheffield, Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster following his announcement; and if he will make a statement. [17511]

  Mr. Curry
  The £20 million supplementary credit approval offered to South Yorkshire passenger transport authority will allow it to set a lower levy in 1997–98. We estimate that each £20 million in the levy is equivalent to around £56 in council tax for band D two-adult households in each of the four South Yorkshire districts.

  Estates Renewal Challenge Fund (Wythenshawe)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effect of and implications for Wythenshawe of the announcement made by the Minister of State for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration in Manchester on 18 February in relation to round 2 of the estates renewal challenge fund; and if he will publish in the Official Report the text of the announcement. [17289]
  298
  Mr. Curry
  My announcement of the successful bids for funds from round 2 of the estates renewal challenge fund is good news for the residents of Wythenshawe. Manchester have been allocated almost £21 million towards the costs of the regeneration of 7,000 properties in the Wythenshawe area. If the tenants agree, their homes will transfer to a new local housing company and will then benefit from an estimated additional £64 million of investment, beyond what would be possible if the housing stayed with the council. This area is already a successful bidder for Government support under the single regeneration budget so the estate transfer will enable a comprehensive area renewal policies to be pursued by public-private sector partnership. The text of the announcement on the estates renewal challenge fund has been published in the Official Report. I refer the hon. Member to column 420 on Monday 17 February.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the licences issued in 1996 by his Department for the destruction of wild birds. [17836]

  Mr. Clappison
  Details of licences issued by my Department to kill wild birds are contained in the report by the United Kingdom to the European Community on derogations under article 9 of the directive on the conservation of wild birds, 79/409/EEC. The latest report for which figures are available covers 1995. Figures are not yet available for 1996, but when the report has been prepared a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Terrorism
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance he intends to provide towards the costs of clearing up after the terrorist attacks on London docklands and Manchester city centre on 9 February 1996 and 15 June 1996. [18142]

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report No. 26 has today been laid before the House. The report provides for grant—up to a total of £2.5 million—to be made available to the London borough of Tower Hamlets, Manchester city council and Greater Manchester Police Authority towards the costs of dealing with the aftermath and loss of income suffered as a consequence of the terrorist attacks of 9 February 1996 on south quay on the Isle of Dogs and of 15 June 1996 on Manchester city centre.

  Subject to the approval of the House, grant will be payable on those costs necessarily incurred by each authority in the six months following the explosions as a direct result of responding to and clearing up after the incidents. The authorities will also receive some recompense for loss of income during the same period directly or indirectly attributable to the explosions. Insurable expenditure or loss of income will not, however, be eligible for grant; nor will costs which are eligible for other grants or credit approvals.

  Direct Labour (Wolverhampton)
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the response of Wolverhampton metropolitan borough council to the
  299
  notice served on it on 11 September 1996 in respect of its decision to assign highway maintenance, winter maintenance and street lighting work to its direct labour organisation. [18141]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered the response made by the authority on 10 October. He has today served a direction on the authority because it still appears to him that the authority acted in an anti-competitive manner in assigning work to its direct labour organisation. He took this view because of the way in which the authority undertook the evaluation of bids. The effect of the direction is to require the authority to seek consent if, when it retenders the work at the end of the current assignment, it wishes to continue to carry it out in-house.

  Granny Annexes
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response was received to the consultation paper on proposed changes in the treatment of granny annexes and similar self-contained units of accommodation when they form part of a larger property. [18376]

  Mr. Gummer
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I proposed changing the ways in which council tax is assessed for self-contained units of accommodation when they form part of a larger property. We consulted with local authorities and organisations representing the elderly and disabled. The list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House. The responses were overwhelmingly positive. We have accepted the views of many respondents that our objectives can be achieved more simply by means of an exemption.

  We now propose that from 1 April 1997 any part of a property, such as an annexe, which is occupied by a dependent relative of the family in the other part of the building, will be an exempt dwelling, where "dependent" means:

  (a) aged 65 years or more,

  (b) severely mentally impaired within the meaning given in paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, or

  (c) substantially and permanently disabled (whether by illness injury, congenital deformity or otherwise).

  and "relative" means: spouse, parent, grandparent, child, stepchild, grandchild, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece, or the parent or child of such a relative, including a relationship by marriage and of the half-blood.

  These changes will apply in England and in Wales.

  Landlord and Tenant Report
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in the light of the Law Commission's report, "Landlord and Tenant: Responsibility for State and Condition of Property Law", Com. No. 238. [18377]

  Mr. Clappison
  I am grateful to the Law Commission for its very full and helpful analysis of this area of the law in England and Wales.
  300
  Of the commission's four main recommendations for change, we agree that the law should be amended so that, in respect of new leases, etcetera created after the commencement of the new provisions:
  there should be implied into every lease, subject to the exceptions listed below, a covenant that the landlord shall keep the premises in repair, to a standard which is appropriate having regard to the age, character and prospective life of the premises and to their locality. This would not apply to a lease of a dwelling house for a term of less than seven years: to a lease of an agricultural holding; to a farm business tenancy; or to an oral lease. Nor would it apply in cases where there was an express repairing covenant in the lease, or the implied covenant was expressly excluded in the lease. Where the premises which are leased form part only of a building, and the landlord has an interest in other associated premises within the building, a similar repairing covenant would apply in respect of the associated premises.
  a court should have a power to decree specific performance of a repairing obligation in any lease or tenancy
  the law of waste should not longer apply in most cases, and the implied covenant that a tenant will use premises let to him in a tenantlike manner should be abolished. Instead, an implied statutory covenant or duty should be created by which any tenant or licensee would undertake to take proper care of the premises, including any common parts of the building; to make good any damage wilfully done to them by him or by others with a right to be on the premises; and not to carry out works to the property which would be detrimental to the landlord's or licensor's interest.

  The commission also recommended that, with certain exceptions, there should be implied into a lease of a dwelling house for a term of less than seven years a covenant by the lessor that the dwelling is fit for human habitation at the start of the lease and that the lessor will keep it fit during the lease. We are not yet able to come to a view on this recommendation, since a review of the fitness standard is currently taking place.

  Once that review is complete, we will resume consideration of the commission's recommendation on fitness of dwellings and, when we have reached a decision, seek a suitable legislative opportunity for the implementation of the agreed proposals.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for extending the non-fossil fuel obligation subsidy to facilities which operate anaerobic digestion and energy recovery. [17520]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  Energy recovery facilities which employ anaerobic digestion have been eligible to bid for contracts under the non-fossil fuel obligation. NFFO policy will be reviewed before the next order, NFFO5, is announced.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Appointments
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will name the members of the independent appointment panels or committees
  301
  established to advise on appointments to non-departmental public bodies made by her since July 1995. [10275]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The first Department of National Heritage public appointments advisory panel was held in September 1996. The following are advisory panel members:

  Professor Dawn Ades

  Dr. Eric Anderson

  Dr. John Ashworth

  Averil Burgess OBE

  Professor Averil Cameron

  Dame Elizabeth Esteve-Coll DBE

  Matthew Evans

  The right hon. Lord Faringdon

  Professor Sir Brian Follet

  Sir Christopher France GCB

  Sir Ernest Hall OBE

  Sir Denys Henderson

  Dr. Anne McLaren DBE

  Michael Moriarty CB

  John Neill CBE

  Dennis Stevenson CBE

  Sir Rodney Walker

  Sir David Wilson

  Sports Clubs and Recreational Charities
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what guidance has been issued to valuation officers when assessing the rateable values of premises occupied by voluntary sports clubs and recreational charities; and if she will make a statement. [18276]

  Mr. Sproat
  Following consultations with the National Playing Field Society and the Central Council for Physical Recreation, the Valuation Office agency has issued additional guidance to valuation officers about the rating of premises occupied by voluntary sports clubs and recreational charities. This further guidance has been agreed with the representative bodies I have mentioned, and gives advice on a number of rating valuation aspects including ability to pay and lottery funding. In addition, it should assist with the speedier settlement of any appeals by occupiers of the type of property in question.

  My hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) is the Treasury Minister responsible for the Valuation Office agenda and she, like me, welcomes this useful step which in some circumstances should be of benefit to voluntary sports clubs and recreational charities.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Overseas Aid
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries currently contribute 0.7 per cent. or more of gross domestic product to overseas aid; and if he will make a statement. [17739]
  302
  Dr. Liam Fox
  Four Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries—Denmark, Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands—contribute 0.7 per cent. or more of gross national product to overseas development assistance. In 1995, the UK provided 0.28 per cent. of GNP for development assistance-above the average for all donors of 0.27 per cent.

  The UK was second only to the Netherlands in total—public and private—resource flows to developing countries, contributing 1.38 per cent. of GNP—ahead of the UN target of 1 per cent.

  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the final outcome of the negotiations to replenish the international fund for agricultural development; and what will be the United Kingdom contributions. [18275]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced that agreement was reached last week on the fourth replenishment of the international fund for agricultural development. With pledges of around $360 million from the developed countries, some $100 million from the oil producers and developing countries together, the release by the developed countries of some $16 million from the third replenishment, and anticipated reflows and investment income, IFAD should be able to maintain a very satisfactory level of annual lending commitments over the next three years.

  The UK's contribution to the fourth replenishment will be $22.01 million—£13.6 million—for which parliamentary approval will be sought in due course. In addition, we will release our share—rather less than $1 million—of the funds previously blocked under the third replenishment: this is not a new financial commitment, promissory notes for the amount having already been lodged.

  I am pleased to say that the UK, as convenor of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group, the largest of the donor groups, played an influential role in securing agreement on the fourth replenishment.

TREASURY

  Income Tax
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the first year revenue which would be raised by the Exchequer from a 50 per cent. rate of income tax on taxable incomes of over £100,000 per annum. [16564]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated first year yield at 1997–98 income levels of introducing a new rate of 50 per cent. on taxable incomes above £100,000 is £660 million; the full year yield is £1.4 billion. It does not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the new rate of tax.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16790]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table gives the number of written and oral questions answered by Treasury Ministers since 1982–83. Figures for earlier years are not available.

  Session

  Written

  Oral

  1982–83

  1,343

  283

  1983–84

  2,743

  591

  1984–85

  2,225

  498

  1985–86

  1,680

  381

  1986–87

  1,340

  157

  1987–88

  3,244

  464

  1988–89

  2,694

  330

  1989–90

  2,145

  338

  1990–91

  1,465

  251

  1991–92

  859

  148

  1992–93

  2,857

  402

  1993–94

  1,742

  217

  1994–95

  2,031

  246

  1995–96

  1,621

  251

  1996–971

  1,048

  120

  1 To 25 February.

  Table 1: Number of deaths which occurred in England and Wales

  Weeks ending

  3rd January

  10th January

  17th January

  24th January

  31st January

  January average

  1992

  13,848

  13,846

  12,985

  12,301

  12,668

  13,130

  1993

  15,568

  13,545

  12,510

  11,740

  11,481

  12,969

  1994

  13,495

  13,256

  12,497

  12,239

  11,662

  12,630

  1995

  12,894

  13,025

  12,483

  12,267

  12,296

  12,593

  19961

  15,879

  14,964

  13,204

  12,109

  12,243

  13,680

  19971

  16,612

  17,255

  15,699

  13,774

  12,012

  15,070

  1 Death occurrences for 1996 and 1997 are provisional. Figures for 1997 are the latest available. They will be incomplete owing to some January deaths waiting to be registered and added to the ONS database.

  You also asked a related question on three-weekly numbers of deaths. The highest numbers of three-weekly death occurrences in England and Wales for each of the past five years are provided in Table 2 on the following page. Table 1 above shows the average weekly deaths for each January in England and Wales.

  Table 2: Highest figures of three-weekly deaths in England and Wales

  Figure

  1992

  38,787

  1993

  40,926

  1994

  37,992

  1995

  44,235

  19961

  42,831

  1 Death occurrences for 1996 are provisional. I hope this reply has been helpful.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the five most recent occasions prior to 10 January when the weekly death rate recorded in England and Wales exceeded 19,000. [16906]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  304
  The analyses sought of questions not answered substantively are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Death Rate
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the death rate for(a) the weeks ending 3 January, 10 January, 17 January, 24 January and 31 January and (b) the nearest equivalent week in each of the previous five years; [16905]

  (2) if he will list for each of the past five years (a) the highest three-weekly death rate recorded by the registrar-general and (b) the average weekly death rate for each January. [16767]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question asking how many deaths occurred in (a) the week ending 3rd January, 10th January, 17th January, 24th January and 31st January and (b) the nearest equivalent week in each of the previous five years. The numbers of deaths in England and Wales are provided in Table 1 below.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr Rhodri Morgan, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question asking if he will list the five most recent occasions prior to 10th January when the weekly deaths recorded in England and Wales exceeded 19,000. This figure is close to the provisional number of death registrations in the week ending January 10th 1997. A search of similar weekly registrations produced the figures listed in the table below.

  Week ending: published

  Recorded number of death registrations in England and Wales, by ONS (OPCS)

  January 6th 19621

  19,522

  January 2nd 19701

  25,007

  January 9th 19701

  20,914

  305

  Week ending: published

  Recorded number of death registrations in England and Wales, by ONS (OPCS)

  December 22nd 19891

  19,180

  January 1st 1994

  24,375

  1 These figures are from the Registrar-General's Weekly Return which was discontinued in January 1994.

  The closure of Register Offices over holiday periods will affect numbers of death registrations. The week following a closure results in offices receiving a backlog of registrations from the previous week. This may contribute to high figures found in the week following a holiday period.
  I hope this reply has been helpful.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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 his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17062]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information is as follows for the Treasury, the revenue departments and the Chancellor's agencies—all values being approximate:HM Treasury
  Seventeen items of equipment and furniture valued at £1,300 were recorded as stolen or unaccounted for and 17 IT items valued at £15,600 were recorded as stolen or unaccounted. None of the items was valued over £5,000.
  Inland Revenue
  Three hundred and eighty-eight items of equipment (or components) with a total value of £460,000, were reported lost or stolen. This includes one item over £5,000, an Escala server valued at £19,000.
  HM Customs and Excise
  Two hundred and fourteen items of equipment and furniture valued at £87,000 were recorded as losses. Of these, 97 were stolen and 117 were not accountable; 125 IT items valued at £121,000 have been recorded as losses. Of these, 109 were stolen and 16 were not accountable.
  Valuation Office
  Eleven items of furniture and equipment with a total value of £600 were reported stolen; 72 IT items were recorded stolen, valued £78,700. No items were valued over £5,000.
  Paymaster
  No equipment or furniture stolen or unaccounted for
  The Royal Mint
  Three items were unaccounted for with a total of £820. No items have been recorded stolen.
  Office for National Statistics
  No items of furniture and equipment were reported stolen or unaccounted; 73 IT items were recorded stolen which valued £24,000. No items recorded were valued over £5,000.
  National Savings
  One item was recorded stolen with a value of £750.

  Inheritance Tax (Access to Works of Art)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what actions his Department has taken over the last three years to make the public aware of their rights of access to homes containing works of art granted exemption from inheritance tax; and if he will make a statement. [17185]

  Mr. Jack
  Since January 1994, the Inland Revenue has issued quarterly press releases publicising the public's right of access, by appointment, to those works of art that are not on general public display and which are listed on the computerised register of conditionally exempt items. Since December 1996, the register has been available on the Internet. The Inland Revenue has also issued a new leaflet, IR 156, "Our heritage—your right to see tax exempt works of art", and a poster to make people aware of their right of access. Copies are available in the Library. The leaflet is available from tax inquiry centres and about 500 museums and public galleries throughout the UK. Copies of the leaflet and poster have also been sent to all chief librarians and to more than 40 university and college art history departments.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of individuals who have visited each home where there are works of art exempted from inheritance tax in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [17186]

  Mr. Jack
  No such estimate has been made. The current arrangements are designed to ensure that qualifying objects are preserved, that public access is available, and that people are aware of their right to view items not on general public display. There is no statutory power to require owners of conditionally exempt chattels to keep statistics of the number of people exercising that right.

  Mr. Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the annual revenue cost to the Exchequer of exemption from inheritance tax for works of art for which public access is granted; and if he will make a statement. [17184]

  Mr. Jack
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) on 29 January,Official Report, column 234.

  National Savings
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement about his plans for use of the private finance initiative in respect of the National Savings agency; [17211]

  (2) what plans he has to privatise the National Savings agency; [17210]

  (3) for what reasons it is proposed to put National Savings agency functions out to tender under the private finance initiative. [17209]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  As I said in my statement of 22 January 1997, there are no plans to privatise National Savings. Our plans are to make sure that National Savings
  307
  continues to provide cost-effective funding of the Government's debt through savings products which customers want.

  National Savings is exploring whether private finance initiative options could assist the agency further, to become a more modern high-performance organisation, improving value for money for the taxpayer and the service offered to customers. No decisions have been taken about the scope of private sector involvement.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much additional tax would be raised if pension funds were subjected to full normal taxation. [17272]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that a reliable estimate cannot be made.

  Pensions Misselling
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies have been prosecuted for pensions misselling. [15752]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 25 February 1997]: I am not aware of any company to date having been prosecuted for the misselling of pensions. Certain firms, however, have been fined or otherwise disciplined.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net cost to public funds of abolishing inheritance tax. [17859]

  Mr. Jack
  Receipts from inheritance tax are forecast to be £1.6 billion in 1997–98.

  Statistics (Rounding)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Economic Secretary had seen a copy of page 37 of the second edition of "Plain Figures" prior to her answer of 24 February,Official Report, column 19, concerning rounding; and if she considered enclosing a copy with her answer. [17908]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Yes, and no.

  Married Couple's Tax Allowance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to public funds of allowing the married couple's tax allowance to be claimed at(a) 20 per cent. and (b) 23 per cent. [17860]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year Exchequer cost at 1997–98 income levels of allowing the married couple's allowance and linked allowances, which includes the additional personal allowance and the widow's bereavement allowance, to be claimed at 20 per cent. is £1.0 billion and at 23 per cent. is £1.5 billion.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many food poisoning notifications there were to the 308
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (a) in each year since 1982 and (b) in 1996 to the latest available date. [17652]

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply, as Director of the Office for National Statistics, to your recent question asking for the number of notifications of food poisoning to the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys from 1982 to 1996.
  The figures you have requested are published annually in the Series MB2 "Communicable disease statistics", copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library for the years up to 1994. Copies of the Series MB2 Quarterly Monitors are also available up to the June quarter of 1996.
  The 1995 national data were published in the March 1996 Monitor, whilst the annual total for 1996 is still only provisional. They cover cases notified under the Public Health (Infectious Diseases) Regulations 1988, and earlier regulations.
  Annual notifications of food poisoning for England and Wales

  1982: 14,253

  1983: 17,735

  1984: 20,702

  1985: 19,242

  1986: 23,948

  1987: 29,331

  1988: 39,713

  1989: 52,557

  1990: 52,145

  1991: 52,543

  1992: 63,347

  1993: 68,587

  1994: 81,833

  1995: 82,041

  1996: 83,664 (provisional)

  I hope this reply has been helpful.

  Tax Law Rewrite Steering Committee
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made by the Tax Law Rewrite Steering Committee established last December. [18076]

  Mr. Jack
  The steering committee had its first meeting yesterday. Copies of the minutes of this and future meetings will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses as soon as they are available.

  This bipartisan committee has a key role in the rewrite project which will deliver real benefits to all taxpayers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total amount paid in national insurance contributions, at 1995–96 prices, and as a percentage, by employees with(a) more than 200 per cent., (b) between 150 per cent. and 200 per

  309
  cent., (c) between 100 per cent. and 150 per cent., (d) between 50 per cent. and 100 per cent. and (e) below 50 per cent. of the average earnings of men and women combined in (i) 1979–80, (ii) 1989–90, (iii) 1994–95 and (iv) 1995–96; and what was the distribution of total earnings in these years between these groups. [13879]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Such information as is available is in the table.

  1989–90

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Class 1 employee contributions (£ billion)1,2

  14.2

  17.9

  18.9

  Percentages in each band

  (a) More than 200 per cent, of average earnings3

  11.3

  12.5

  12.8

  (b) Between 150 per cent, and 200 per cent, of average earnings3

  16.5

  17.4

  17.7

  (c) Between 100 per cent, and 150 per cent, of average earnings3

  34.8

  34.1

  34.2

  (d) Between 50 per cent, and 100 per cent, of average earnings3

  32.3

  31.1

  30.5

  (e) Below 50 per cent, of average earnings3

  5.1

  4.9

  4.8

  Distribution of earnings for each band4

  (a) More than 200 per cent, of average earnings3

  18.6

  19.6

  20.3

  (b) Between 150 per cent, and 200 per cent, of average earnings3

  16.3

  16.9

  16.8

  (c) Between 100 per cent, and 150 per cent, of average earnings3

  30.6

  29.6

  28.9

  (d) Between 50 per cent, and 100 per cent, of average earnings3

  28.3

  27.5

  27.5

  (e) Below 50 per cent, of average earnings3

  6.2

  6.4

  6.5

  Notes:

  1Source: Government Actuary's Department.

  2Excludes contributions paid by HM forces.

  3Average earnings of both full-time and part-time employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey period is unaffected by absence: £224.92 for 1989–90, £283.49 for 1994–95 and £294.33 for 1995–96.

  4Source: Office for National Statistics.

  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the revenue consequences of abolishing the upper limit on employee national insurance contributions in Wales. [17870]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows.

  If the limit were removed for Great Britain, it is estimated that the employees affected would pay an extra£3.3 billion1 in contributions in a full year.

  Note:

  1 Assumes that the current 10 per cent. contributions rate would apply to earnings above the upper earnings limit.

  Scottish Grand Committee
  Mr. Donohue
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has beeen 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
  310
  meetings of the Committee which (a) and (b) have attended, indicating the cost of attendance and the names of those who attended. [16573]

  Mr. Lilley
  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 20 May 1996 in Dunfermline and has officials in attendance as necessary.

  Benefits Agency
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security by what process he plans to oversee the clinical standards of service provided by contractors providing medical services for the Benefits Agency. [17620]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 19 February,Official Report, column 591.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which private sector companies took part in the Benefits Agency medical services partnering project; on what basis they were chosen; and if he will place a copy of their reports in the Library. [17618]

  Mr. Burt
  The private sector companies which took part in the partnering project were BMI, Capita and Serco. Seventeen companies responded to an advertisement in the national press and were sent a questionnaire which was designed to identify specific strengths and formed the basis of a formal sift. Particular emphasis was placed upon practical experience, commitment to quality and customer service.

  The companies reports are commercial in confidence and will not be placed in the Library. To do so would prejudice the effective conduct of commercial activities.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information has been(a) requested and (b) obtained by his Department from each of the private companies contracting to provide medical services to the Benefits Agency concerning (i) safeguarding the records of benefit claimants and (ii) the broad business objectives of the contractors. [17616]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 February,Official Report, columns 203–4.

  The broad business objectives of the successful contractor(s) in relation to the delivery of a medical service to the Department must conform to the objectives of the Benefits Agency. The shortlisted companies have provided copies of policy statements relating to specific areas of the business to be contracted out.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to start an evaluation of the performance of contractors providing medical services to the Benefits Agency; and by what methods this evaluation will be carried out. [17619]

  Mr. Burt
  The formal contract management procedure to evaluate performance will be in place at the time of the handover of the business to the successful contractor(s). The procedure is currently in the process of development.
  311
  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what net savings he expects to accrue from the contractorisation of the Benefits Agency medical service. [17615]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on 7 November 1996,Official Report, column 681.

  Mr. Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to begin the process of system audits and computer audits in each site used by contractors providing medical services to the Benefits Agency; and at what intervals he plans to repeat these audits. [17617]

  Mr. Burt
  Audits of the IT systems will commence when the medical service is handed over to the successful contractor(s). The procedure is currently in the process of development.

  Pensioners
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of(a) pensioners and (b) pensioners aged over 80 years had access to a (i) freezer, (ii) fridge, (iii) telephone, (iv) car, (v) washing machine, (vi) television, (vii) video and (viii) central heating in (1) 1979 and (2) the latest year for which figures are available. [17483]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the tables:

  Percentages

  All pensioners

  Pensioners aged over 80

  Type of durable goods

  1979

  1993–94

  1979

  1993–94

  Freezer or fridge freezer

  32

  81

  20

  68

  Fridge or fridge freezer

  88

  99

  79

  98

  Telephone

  57

  94

  50

  92

  Car/Van

  34

  53

  18

  31

  Washing machine

  64

  83

  46

  66

  Video

  n/a

  51

  n/a

  26

  Central heating

  46

  81

  43

  76

  Access to a Television

  (percentages)

  All pensioners

  Pensioners aged over 80

  Type of durable goods

  1979

  1991–92

  1979

  1991–92

  Television

  96

  99

  92

  98

  1. Information in the tables is derived from the households below average income datasets, which is based on information from the family expenditure survey. The latest available estimates, for 1993–94, are for two financial years data combined. Figures for 1991–92 are for two calendar years combined.

  2. From 1993 onwards, information on access to televisions has not been collected in the family expenditure survey, as reported access to televisions had reached almost 100 per cent. The latest figures for access to televisions are therefore for 1991–92.

  3. For HBAI analyses of the possession of consumer durables, it is assumed that members of the same household share common facilities. The percentages given in the reply represent the proportion of individuals in pensioner benefit units with access to each of the specified consumer durables within their household.

  312

  4. In HBAI, a single pensioner benefit unit is defined as a single adult of state pension age or above (65 for men, 60 for women). A pensioner couple benefit unit is one in which the man of the benefit unit is aged 65 or over. For the purpose of the over 80 years analysis, the same definition applies, except the age threshold is over 80.

  5. Information on access to video recorders was not reported in the 1979 family expenditure survey.

  6. All estimates are subject to sampling error.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many complaints have been made by claimants about their medical examinations in connection with incapacity benefit in the Yorkshire and Humberside region since April 1995. [16047]

  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. John Gunnell, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many complaints have been made by claimants about their medical examinations in connection with Incapacity Benefit in the Yorkshire and Humberside region since April 1995.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are kept for each Medical Services Centre (MSC). Yorkshire and Humberside is dealt with by Leeds MSC. The Leeds MSC covers the Yorkshire Area Directorate and South Humberside District, part of Mercia Area Directorate. Statistics on complaints have only been kept by MSCs since September 1995 and are not broken down by Benefits Agency districts.
  From September 1995 to December 1996 the Leeds MSC received 285 complaints, during which time it dealt with 111,164 examinations. These figures are provisional and subject to change.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times has(a) a warning been issued, (b) disciplinary action been taken and (c) dismissal occurred (i) as a result of claimants' complaints and (ii) otherwise since the incapacity benefit we introduced. [16048]

  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. John Gunnell, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many times has (a) a warning been issued, (b) disciplinary action been taken and (c) dismissal occurred (i) as a result of claimants' complaints and (ii) otherwise since the Incapacity Benefit (IB) was introduced.
  I have assumed your question refers to doctors involved in providing medical advice in connection with IB. The information is in the attached table.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  313

  Benefits agency medical services doctors subject to disciplinary action April 1995 to date

  As a result of customer complaints

  Other

  Warnings issued

  1

  3

  Other disciplinary action

  0

  1

  Dismissal

  1

  1

  Figures are provisional and subject to change. This excludes contracted self-employed, fee paid doctors for whom no formal disciplinary procedures exist.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what criteria are used by the Benefits Agency in determining whether a claimant has deliberately disposed of income or capital in order to qualify for income-based jobseeker's allowance. [17943]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is contained in the jobseeker's allowance and income support adjudication officer's guide, part 33 paragraphs 33570–3589 and part 34 paragraphs 34805–34846. A copy of the guide is available in the Library.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what national insurance contribution conditions carers have to meet in order to qualify for contribution-based jobseeker's allowance. [17942]

  Mr. Evans
  Under jobseeker's allowance, the national insurance contribution conditions for carers are the same as for other jobseekers. As with the previous unemployment benefit scheme, entitlement to the contribution-based element of jobseeker's allowance is based on the individual's national insurance contributions in the last two full tax years before the year of the claim to jobseeker's allowance.

  There are two contribution conditions. The first condition which a person must satisfy is to have paid class 1 contributions of 25 times the lower earnings limit—currently £61—in one of the two relevant tax years. The second condition is that class 1 contributions must have been paid or credited of at least 50 times the lower earnings limit—currently £61—in both the two relevant tax years on which the claim is based. The relevant tax years are the last two complete tax years before the benefit year—starting in January—in which the claim is made.

  However, the linking provisions have been amended under jobseeker's allowance to provide extra help for carers. For the first time, periods in receipt of invalid care allowance are included in the jobseeker's allowance linking provisions. This ensures that a person's benefit position at the end of a period of invalid care allowance will be the same as when it started. Therefore, if a person's contribution record immediately prior to a period in receipt of invalid care allowance is sufficient to qualify the individual for contribution-based jobseeker's allowance, that record will apply to any claim for jobseeker's allowance which is made when invalid care allowance ceases.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Albania
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what official gifts his Department received from the Albanian President; [16407]

  (2) what official gifts he has received from the Albanian President. [16404]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Gifts received by Ministers in their official capacity are dealt with in accordance with the procedures set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". The details are not made public.

  European Summit (Cardiff)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made with the Cardiff county council for the funding of refurbishment and conversion work at the city hall for the European summit conference in June 1998. [17916]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many children in British independent schools are being paid for by the Hong Kong Government; and what is the average payment per child; [17941]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the suitability of the Quantock school, Somerset, to receive money from the Hong Kong Government; and if parents who are employees of the Hong Kong Government with children at that school have been provided with the recent Office for Standards in Education report; [17940]

  (3) what checks are made by the Hong Kong Government on the suitability of independent schools in Britain before payment is made. [17930]

  Mr. Hanley
  Policy on the payment of education fees for the children of employees of the Hong Kong Government is a matter for the Hong Kong Government.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if in his recent official visit to Hong Kong he had meetings concerning party finances; and if he will make a statement. [17825]

  Mr. Rifkind
  I attended a meeting of Conservatives Abroad in Hong Kong on Sunday 16 February. This was not a fund-raising event.

  Political events may be included in Ministers' official programmes overseas, so long as no additional costs are incurred. There were no additional costs involved in this case and no Foreign Office official accompanied me to the reception.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision will be taken on the application made to the United Kingdom post in
  315
  Islamabad by Mrs. Rukhsana Kausar (Ref: HO A525156; IMM/C4652) to join her husband in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [17902]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will have a substantive reply sent to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  European Council
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list(a) the forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union for March and (b) major EU events for the next six months. [17959]

  Mr. David Davis
  Monthly Forecast of business for March 1997

  The following Councils are scheduled:

  March 1–2: Development Aid Council (Informal)

  March 2–3: Education Council (Informal)

  March 3–4: Environment Council

  March 6: Telecommunications Council

  March 10: Internal Market Council

  March 11–12: Transport Council

  March 14–15: Social Affairs Council (Informal)

  March 17: Ecofin Council

  March 17–18 Agriculture Council

  March 24–25: General Affairs Council.

  The following subjects are likely to be discussed:

  March 1–2: Development aid council (informal)

  There is no formal agenda.

  March 2–3: Education council (informal)

  There is no formal agenda.

  March 3–4: Environment council

  Adoption of the agenda.

  Approval of the list of "A" items.

  Community Strategy on Climate Change: Council Conclusions.

  Commission Communication: Implementing Community Environmental Law: Policy Debate.

  Proposal for a Council Decision concerning the signing and conclusion of an International Agreement between the European Community, Canada and the Russian Federation on Humane Trapping Standards: Progress report on negotiations with Third Countries.

  Amended proposal for a Council decision on a Community action programme promoting non-governmental organisations primarily active in the field of environmental protection-legal basis proposed by the Commission: article 130S(1)): common position.

  Future strategy for the control of atmospheric emissions from road transport taking into account the results from the auto/oil programme:

  Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuels and amending Council Directive 93/12/EEC:

  Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to measures to be taken against air pollution by emissions from motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 70/156/EEC and 70/220/EEC;

  Second auto/oil programme: policy debate.

  Proposal for a Council directive on the reduction of emissions of organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain industrial activities: policy debate.

  Presentation by the Commission: possible items.

  316

  Proposal for a directive on energy taxes;

  Proposal for a framework directive on water.

  Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on environmental agreements: policy debate.

  Other Business:

  Commission communication on environmental taxes and charges in the single market: presentation by the Commission;

  Proposal for a directive on landfill: presentation by the Commission (possible item);

  Report on the workshop for the preparation of the informal ministerial meeting on small and medium-sized undertakings and the environment: Presidency statement;

  Re-examination of directive 90/220/EEC on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms: statement by the Austrian delegation;

  Taxation of energy and in particular kerasene: Statement by the Austrian delegation;

  Situation regarding the European agreement on CO2 emissions from cars: French delegation request for information from the Commission;

  First European Conference on the sustainable development of the islands (Menorca, 23 to 26 April 1997): information from the Spanish delegation.

  March 6: Telecommunications Council

  Adoption of the provisional agenda.

  Adoption of the list of "A" points (possible item).

  Proposal for a European Parliament and Council directive on the application of open network provision (ONP) to voice telephony and on universal service for telecommunications in a competitive environment (replacing European Parliament and Council Directive 95/62/EC): common position (legal basis proposed by the Commission: article 100A).

  Ongoing Co-decision procedures with the European Parliament interconnection directive, TENS Telecoms, licensing directive, satellite S-PCS decision.

  Action plan from the Commission on satellite communications: presentation by the Commission (with reference to action plan on space).

  UMTS (next generation of mobile communications): report by the Commission.

  Other business:

  WTO negotiations: report by the Commission; Implementation of telecoms directives.

  March 10: Internal Market Council

  PARNUTS (Foodstuffs for particular nutritional uses).

  Miscellaneous additives (possible item).

  March 11–12: Transport Council

  Proposed amendment to directive 92/14 on phase-out of noisy aircraft: for political agreement on common position.

  Aviation fuel duty: debate on resolution calling for Commission study on effects of imposition.

  Proposal for mandate for Commission to negotiate Community membership of European Aviation Safety Authority: for debate.

  Proposal for mandate for Commission to negotiate Community membership of EUROCONTROL: debate.

  Proposed amendment to regulation 3821/85 to allow for new digital tachograph: common position.

  lnteroperability of road pricing technology: adoption of resolution.

  Proposed regulation on pilot actions for combined transport for political agreement on common position.

  Proposed directive on heavy goods vehicle charging and taxes: debate.

  317

  Proposed eighth directive on summer time: for common position.

  Negotiations with Switzerland: debate.

  Other Business:

  Report on transport research and development.

  Report on the work of the high-level group on public private partnerships/TENS.

  March 14/15: Social Affairs Council (informal)

  There is no formal agenda.

  March 17: Ecofin Council

  Preparation of stage III of EMU.

  Convergency programme of France.

  Convergence programme of Germany.

  Annual report of the Court of Auditors and budget discharge

  Taxation of energy products.

  Solvency ratio direct for credit institutions (mortgages) (possible item).

  March 17–18: Agriculture Council

  Beef labelling/cattle identification.

  Olive oil (possible item).

  Arable penalties (possible item).

  Agriculture price fixing (possible item).

  Veterinary and phytosanitary equivalence agreements.

  Structured dialogue with central and eastern European countries.

  Fruit grubbing-up scheme (possible item).

  Honey (possible item).

  Agrimoney compensation for appreciable revaluation's (possible item).

  March 24–25: General Affairs Council

  First draft agenda—likely to change.

  Former Yugoslavia.

  Albania.

  Middle East peace process.

  Relations with Turkey.

  Pakistan.

  Commercial questions: conclusion of an agreement on information technology.

  Relations with South Africa.

  Preparation of the 23rd ACP-EC Council of Ministers (24–25 April 1997).

  Relations with Australia.

  Mediterranean policy.

  European observatory on racism and xenophobia.

  Transatlantic relations.

  Russia.

  Baltic states: European agreement.

  VIIth ministerial meeting between the EU and the Rio group.

  This calendar is primarily concerned with European Union matters, but certain other relevant events are also included. Events and dates quoted are based on the information available on the date of issue.
  318

  European Calendar: March to August 1997

  Dates

  Location

  Event

  1–2

  Amsterdam

  Development Aid Council (informal)

  2–3

  Amsterdam

  Education Council (informal)

  3–4

  Brussels

  Environment Council

  6

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  10

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  10–14

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  11–12

  Brussels

  Transport Council

  13

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  14–15

  Rotterdam

  Social Affairs Council (informal)

  15–16

  Apeldoorn

  Gymnich (informal)

  17

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  17–18

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  24–25

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council (and IGC Ministerial)

  April 1997

  4–6

  Noordwijk

  Ecofin Council (Informal)

  6–8

  Maastricht

  Informal meeting of Cultural Affairs Ministers

  7–10

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament plenary

  9–11

  The Hague

  Ministerial conference on social integration

  10

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  10

  Luxembourg

  Consumer Council

  14–15

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  17

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  18–19

  Maastricht

  Post-Lomé ministerial meeting

  18–20

  Amsterdam

  Environment Council (informal)

  20–22*

  Warsaw

  Meeting of EU and PHARE— Country Education Ministers

  21–22

  The Netherlands

  Political Committee

  21–22

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  23

  Brussels

  European Parliament plenary

  24

  Luxembourg

  Industry Council

  24–25

  Luxembourg

  ACP/EU ministerial conference

  24–25

  The Hague

  International Conference on Innovative Research, and Appropriate health care for the people of Europe

  24–26

  The Hague

  Ministerial conference on trafficking in women

  25

  Brussels

  European Parliament plenary

  29–30

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (and IGC ministerial)

  May 1997

  6–7

  Strasbourg

  Council of Europe ministerial

  12

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  12–13

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  12–13

  Paris

  WEU ministerial

  12–16

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament plenary

  14–15

  Brussels

  Research Council

  15

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  20

  Brussels

  Internal Market Council

  22

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  25–27

  Domburg

  Agriculture Council (informal)

  26

  Brussels

  Energy Council

  27–28

  Brussels

  Justice and Home Affairs Council

  28–29

  Brussels

  European Parliamentary plenary

  29

  Brussels

  Telecommunications Council

  June 1997

  2–3

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (and IGC ministerial)

  5

  Luxembourg

  Health Council

  5

  Luxembourg

  Development Council

  5–6

  The Hague

  K4 Committee

  9

  Luxembourg

  Ecofin Council

  9–10

  Luxembourg

  Agriculture Council

  9–13

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament plenary

  10

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council (tbc)

  12

  Luxembourg

  Social Affairs Council

  f
  319

  European Calendar: March to August 1997

  Dates

  Location

  Event

  16–17

  Amsterdam

  European Council

  17–18

  Luxembourg

  Transport Council

  19

  Brussels

  Political Committee

  20–22

  Denver

  G7

  23

  Luxembourg

  Fisheries Council

  23

  Luxembourg

  Ecofin Council (tbc)

  23–24

  Luxembourg

  Environment Council

  25–26

  Brussels

  European Parliament plenary

  26

  Luxembourg

  Education Council

  26

  Luxembourg

  General Affairs Council

  30

  Luxembourg

  Culture Council

  July 1997

  1

  Luxembourg Presidency begins

  7

  Brussels

  Ecofin Council

  10–11

  Luxembourg

  Political Committee

  12–13

  Luxembourg

  Labour and Social Affairs Council (informal)

  14–18

  Strasbourg

  European Parliament Plenary

  21–22

  Brussels

  Agriculture Council

  22–23

  Brussels

  General Affairs Council

  24

  Brussels

  Budget Council

  August 1997

  There are no events scheduled for August.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Personal Injury Actions
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Attorney-General how many representations he has received since 1993 urging the amendment of the Limitation Act 1980 so far as it relates to time limits for actions in respect of personal injuries; what proportion of these refer to allegations of sexual abuse of the complainant or litigant when the latter was a child; and if he will make a statement. [16990]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since 1993, my Department has received about 10 inquiries, including questions asked by hon. Members, about possible reform of the law of limitation as it applies to personal injury cases. These have related to the limitation period applicable when there is an allegation that an adult's illness is the result of intentional harm he suffered many years before. In 1995, the Law Commission undertook a comprehensive review of the law of limitation period s with a view to its simplification and rationalisation, and the commission expects to publish a consultation paper this summer.

  Stubbing and Others v. the United Kingdom
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Attorney-General what(a) representations he has received on and (b) assessment he has made of the (i) dissenting and (ii) partly dissenting opinions of judges in the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Stubbing and others v. the United Kingdom. [16991]

  Mr. Streeter
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department has received no representations on any of the opinions expressed by the court in Stubbings and others v. United Kingdom. My Department has studied all
  320
  the opinions closely, as has the Law Commission, which expects to publish a consultation paper on the law of limitation this summer.

PRIME MINISTER

  Letters to Shareholders
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what was the source of the information on shareholder identities which he used to send his letter of 28 January to shareholders in privatised companies; [17954]

  (2) under what statutory provisions he obtained the information on shareholder identities which he used to send letters to shareholders of privatised companies; and if he will make a statement. [17955]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government were not involved in obtaining the information which came from published sources.

  Engagements
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16553]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16638]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 27 February. [16639]

  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.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister how many questions were tabled for reply by his Department in each Session since 1979–80; in how many instances in each year the reply has been that providing the information involved disproportionate cost; and in how many instances in each year questions have been given the reply that the information was not available centrally. [16794]

  The Prime Minister
  A list of the total number of oral and written parliamentary questions answered by Government Departments in the Sessions 1982–83 to 1995–96, as supplied by the parliamentary on-line information service unit, has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Figures for 1979–80 to 1981–82 are not available. My Office estimates that over the past year approximately 1 per cent. of the total number of parliamentary questions were not answered because of disproportionate costs or because the information requested was not held centrally.
  321

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Animal Feed
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates action was taken to ban the feeding of ruminant remains to ruminant animals(a) in the United Kingdom, (b) in other European Union countries and (c) in other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. [17661]

  Mrs. Browning
  The feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants was prohibited in Great Britain in 1988 and in Northern Ireland in 1989. Community decision 94/381 of 27 June 1994 required all member states to ban the feeding of mammalian protein to ruminants. In member states with a system which makes it possible to distinguish between protein from ruminant and non-ruminant species—such as Denmark—the ban is limited to the feeding of ruminant proteins to ruminants. We do not have detailed information on legislation in place in all of the member states but are aware that Ireland introduced a ban on feeding mammalian protein to ruminants on 13 August 1990, that is, before Community decision 94/381. We do not have information on the controls introduced by all OECD members. However, we do know that Switzerland prohibited the feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants in December 1990. Canada is proposing to introduce a ban on feeding mammalian proteins to mammals, and the USA is proposing a ban on feeding ruminant proteins to ruminants.

  Salmon
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the Irish authorities about the action the Irish Government are taking to secure the escape of early-running salmon. [17516]

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been no recent discussions with the Irish authorities on this issue.

  Private Employment Agencies
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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

  MAFF

  ADAS

  CSL

  VLA

  VMD

  PSD

  MHS

  IT equipment

  Number of items

  37

  Figures not available

  nil

  22

  nil

  nil

  3

  Cost of items (£)

  35,000

  —

  —

  Amount not available

  —

  —

  759.00

  Other equipment

  Number of items

  7

  —

  nil

  —

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Cost of items (£)

  8,680.31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Items over £5,000

  Ford Transit

  5,500.00

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  322
  the median cost paid to the agency per person recruited and (d) the average length of contract for persons recruited via such agencies. [16186]

  Mr. Boswell
  From information held centrally, the answers to the questions are as follows:

  1994

  1995

  1996

  (a)

  Manpower1

  Manpower1

  Manpower1

  Reed Employment

  Kelly Services

  Kelly Services

  Anne Pettengell

  Adecco (formerly

  Adecco (formerly

  CBR Group

  ECCO

  ECCO

  Country Bureau

  Employment)

  Employment)

  Hays Accountancy

  Reed Employment

  Reed Employment

  Anne Pettengell

  Hays Accountancy

  Hays Accountancy

  Pertemps

  Anne Pettengell

  Back-up

  Labstaff

  Pertemps

  Baxter

  Office Angels

  Baxter

  Office Angels

  Three Tees

  Office Angels

  Labstaff

  Labstaff

  Plum Personnel

  Accountancy

  Northern

  Personnel

  Recruitment

  (b)

  362

  689

  995

  (c)

  £530,801

  £845,564

  £2,414,0672

  (d)

  4 weeks

  6 weeks

  6 weeks3

  Notes:

  1 A number of recruitment agencies have been used over the last three years. Those listed are the ones with significant expenditure. Some local agencies are used by MAFF and agency offices to recruit a small number of staff at different locations, making it impossible to extract the required information without disproportionate cost.

  2 It is not possible to show the median cost paid to each agency per person recruited as to do so would have involved disproportionate cost.

  3 The overall average length of contract shows an average of averages. Requirements across MAFF and its agencies vary. It is therefore impossible to identify any particular period of contract as being representative of the needs of MAFF and its agencies as a whole.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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 his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17074]

  Mr. Boswell
  The table details the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that(a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for from MAFF and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately.
  323

  North-east Drift Net Fishery
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with the chairman of the Environment Agency about the opening date of the north-east drift net fishery. [17399]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 26 November 1996,Official Report, column 137. I have not had any more recent discussion with the chairman of the Environment Agency about the opening date of this fishery.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when his Department first received a report proposing a delay in the opening of the north-east salmon drift net fishery; and if he will make a statement. [17517]

  Mr. Baldry
  There have been a number of proposals to delay the opening date of his fishery. The report on salmon net fisheries presented to Parliament by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Scotland in October 1991 invited the National Rivers Authority to consider delaying the opening date until 1 May so as to reduce the level of exploitation of spring-running salmon. The NRA decided not to implement this proposal on the ground that any action on spring salmon needed to be part of a wider programme embracing rod and net fisheries in England and Scotland. In June 1995, the then Minister asked the NRA to reconsider its decision, in the light of the Salmon Advisory Committee's report, "Run Timing of Salmon", which recommended that consideration be given to protection of early-running fish, including additional control of exploitation in both commercial and sport fisheries. The Environment Agency, the successor to the NRA, is still considering this request.

  Earlier this month, the task force set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland to produce a management strategy for Scottish salmon fisheries recommended that the opening date for the north-east coast drift net fishery be postponed until 1 June. The Government have issued the task force's report for consultation, and will consider this recommendation together with the task force's other recommendations.

  Veterinary Service
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many vets were employed by the State Veterinary Service in each year from 1979 to the present. [17629]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the State Veterinary Service at 1 January each year since 1980 is detailed in the table. Since 1980, the structure of the State Veterinary Service has changed several times. The Central Veterinary Laboratory, which previously formed part of the State Veterinary Service, became the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in April 1990. The CVL figures are incorporated in this return for the years 1 January 1980 to 1 January 1990. From 1 June 1990 the figures do not include the CVL. The Veterinary Investigation Service became part of the VLA on 1 October 1995 and is not included in these figures from that date.
  324

  Year

  Number of vets

  1980

  580.5

  1981

  563.5

  1982

  557.0

  1983

  549.0

  1984

  539.5

  1985

  527.5

  1986

  506.5

  1987

  464.5

  1988

  444.5

  1989

  422.0

  1990

  430.5

  1991

  408.0

  1992

  414.5

  1993

  420.0

  1994

  408.3

  1995

  394.5

  1996

  301.2

  1997

  289.5

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many veterinary investigation centres are currently operating; what plans there are to develop these centres; how many there were in each year from 1979–80; and if he will make a statement. [17630]

  Mr. Hogg
  I have asked the chief executive of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Dr. T. W. A. Little, to reply on my behalf.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on Veterinary Investigation (VI) Centres.
  Since October 1995 the VI Centres have been part of the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA). There are fourteen Centres and they play a vital role in fulfilling VLA's surveillance responsibilities for MAFF.
  You asked how many Centres there were in each year from 1979 to the present, this is set out below:

  Year

  Number of VI centres

  1979 to 1985

  24

  1986 to 1990

  19

  1991

  16

  1992

  15

  1993

  14

  Research and Development
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many persons are employed in his Department's research and development programme; and how many there were in each year from 1979–80. [17631]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Some figures have been published in the statistical supplement to the "Forward Look"—"Science, Engineering and Technology Statistics 1996,
  325
  issued as a separate document in May 1996"—reflecting the position since 1984–85. The entry for MAFF was as follows:

  Total personnel engaged on R&D within MAFF (full-time equivalents)1

  Year

  Number

  1984–85

  2,264

  1985–86

  2,062

  1986–87

  1,924

  1987–88

  1,919

  1988–892

  2,201

  1989–90

  1,801

  1990–913

  2,514

  1991–92

  2,420

  1992–93

  2,512

  1993–94

  2,529

  1994–95

  2,497

  1 This table refers to personnel engaged in R&D, according to the Frascati definition. Figures for personnel quoted in the departmental reports may include those engaged in other forms of science and technology.

  2 Staff at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, included form 1998–99.

  3 Staff at non-departmental public bodies included from 1990–91.

  These figures cover, in the main, staff directly involved in research at the Ministry's agencies, plus Horticulture Research International and Kew. However, the Department does not keep statistical information on the large numbers of headquarters staff involved in the development of research to meet policy needs and its commissioning, monitoring and evaluation. Nor has it figures for the numbers of personnel working for external contractors who carry out MAFF-funded research. This latter group includes public sector research establishments—such as the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and Natural Environment Research Council research institutes—universities and other private contractors.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his Department's total research and development expenditure was in each year from 1979 to the present in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [17632]

  Mr. Hogg
  My Department's total research and development expenditure for each year from 1981–82 in cash and constant prices is set out in the following table.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Constant prices1

  1981–82

  106.8

  211.2

  1982–83

  113.9

  210.2

  1983–84

  118.6

  209.2

  1984–85

  119.4

  200.5

  1985–86

  118.4

  188.5

  1986–87

  118.3

  182.8

  1987–88

  113.8

  167.0

  1988–89

  115.0

  158.2

  1989–90

  112.2

  144.2

  1990–91

  119.1

  141.8

  1991–92

  121.5

  135.9

  1992–93

  132.9

  142.7

  1993–94

  135.0

  140.9

  1994–95

  137.2

  140.7

  1995–96

  139.7

  139.7

  1996–972

  137.6

  134.2

  1 Using the GDP deflator (1995–96 =100).

  2 Provisional.

  Figures for 1979–80 and 1980–81 are not available.

  326
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many commissions his Department placed with the Agriculture and Food Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council in each year from 1979 to the present; how many such commissions he expects to place this year; and what was the value of those commissions in(a) cash and (b) constant prices. [17656]

  Mr. Hogg
  My Department issued a single commission each year up to 1994–95 for its R and D requirements from the institutes of the Agriculture and Food Research Council and its successor, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. In 1995–96, the commission was replaced with umbrella contracts with each of the BBSRC institutes. Details of the total amounts spent in cash and constant prices are set out. In addition to funding through the commissions and umbrella contracts, MAFF has funded research with the BBSRC institutes through separate contracts, the majority of which have been let by competition since 1994–95.

  £ million

  Year

  Cash

  Constant Prices1

  1979–80

  30.4

  78.0

  1980–81

  37.4

  81.1

  1981–82

  44.3

  87.6

  1982–83

  48.6

  89.7

  1983–84

  51.3

  90.5

  1984–85

  52.8

  88.7

  1985–86

  51.8

  82.5

  1986–87

  47.9

  74.0

  1987–88

  44.2

  64.9

  1988–89

  46.4

  63.8

  1989–90

  46.0

  59.1

  1990–91

  45.6

  54.3

  1991–92

  34.5

  38.6

  1992–93

  34.8

  37.4

  1993–94

  36.0

  37.6

  1994–95

  34.6

  35.5

  1995–96

  34.7

  34.7

  1996–972

  29.3

  28.6

  1 Using the GDP deflator (1995–96 = 100).

  2 Provisional.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his plans for a green paper on quarantine. [17818]

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish details of his review of the current quarantine regulations. [17832]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government's review of the current quarantine regulations is continuing, and further analysis is needed before it can be finalised.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 660, on quarantine premises (1) if he will list the four premises which have indicated that they do not wish to comply with the voluntary code of practice at this stage; [17842]

  (2) if he will list the premises inspected by the State Veterinary Service, indicating which have complied with the standards required for the voluntary code of practice. [17843]
  327
  Mrs. Browning
  As soon as the programme of inspections has been completed a list of premises complying with the code will be included in the literature sent by Agriculture Departments to prospective clients of quarantine premises. I will place a copy of the literature in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 20 February,Official Report, column 660, if he will list the ports and airports which have facilities for holding animals prior to them being taken into quarantine. [17844]

  Mrs. Browning
  Animals may be landed only at the following ports and airports prior to their being taken into quarantine:

  Ports

  Dover Eastern Docks

  Harwich, Parkeston Quay

  Hull

  Portsmouth

  Southampton.

  Airports

  Birmingham

  Edinburgh

  Gatwick

  Glasgow

  Heathrow

  Leeds

  Manchester

  Prestwick

  Belfast.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy as regards the export of live farm animals for slaughter or further fattening in non-EU member states whose welfare standards do not match Community standards; and if he will make a statement. [17827]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have a long-standing policy of permitting the export of animals for further fattening, or slaughter only to those countries with standards at least equivalent to those in force within the European Union on the protection of animals during transport and at slaughter.

  Sheep Scab
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the outbreaks of sheep scab in each month from 1993 to date. [17813]

  Mrs. Browning
  Official recording of the number of outbreaks of sheep scab was discontinued after deregulation of compulsory controls in 1992.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what progress he has made towards implementing compulsory treatment for sheep scab; and if he will make a statement; [17814]

  (2) if he will make sheep scab a notifiable disease. [17815]
  328
  Mrs. Browning
  The public consultation on draft legislation to introduce new measures to deal with sheep scab ended on 7 February 1997 and the comments received are now being considered. The proposed new measures would enable local authorities to deal with sheep scab on common or open grazing and will introduce criminal offences for failing to treat animals affected with sheep scab and for moving affected animals.

  The proposals do not include a re-introduction of compulsory national treatment.

  Sheep scab remains within the meaning of "disease" in section 88 of the Animal Health Act 1981 and is therefore still technically notifiable to a police constable. However, our proposals do not include making sheep scab notifiable to the Ministry or local authorities.

  Parasiticides
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent research he has commissioned into parasiticides. [17816]

  Mrs. Browning
  The focus of research commissioned into parasiticides in respect of animal health is on sustainable disease control and research to develop alternatives to pharmaceutical control. The main sponsor for research of this kind in relation to helminths is the Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries Department which is currently funding the following significant programme of research on nematode parasites in livestock—mainly sheep.

  £110,000: Biological properties of nematode resistance

  £730,000: Host response to challenge

  £210,000: Control strategies.

  Full details of its research is published in its "Programme of commissioned research and development 1996–97" obtainable from SOAEFD' s scientific advisor's unit at Pentland house, Edinburgh.

  In addition, the Central Veterinary Laboratory has just finished a three-year project to determine the effects of counter selection on reversion to anthelmintic susceptibility. A further small project is currently being funded to validate a commercial product to enable farmers to detect anthelmintic resistance. Beginning in 1997–98, a three-year project at CVL aims to develop a means of predicting whether anthelmintic resistance is likely to appear on a farm.

  A major project at Compton is investigating immunity to coccidia which should eventually facilitate the development of immunological means of control if significant resistance does develop.

  To mitigate development of resistance by sheep scab mites, MAFF is also supporting research aimed at controlling sheep scab other than by pharmaceutical means. Other MAFF research relating to developing alternatives to parasiticides includes work involving livestock flies.

  Surveillance on anthelmintic resistance is ongoing via MAFF's Veterinary Investigation Service.
  329

  Pigs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many piglets of less than 12 weeks of age were exported for production or breeding during 1996; [17839]

  (2) if the consignment of piglets exported on 24 January on the MV Cap Afrique was accompanied by an export health certificate as worded in model 111 of the annexe to Council directive 64/432/EEC; [17838]

  (3) how many pigs were exported for slaughter during 1996. [17840]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 24 February 1997,Official Report, columns 76–77.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Taoiseach (Meeting)
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next plans to meet the Taoiseach to discuss the political situation in Northern Ireland. [16367]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have no plans to seek a meeting.

  I have frequent meetings with Mr. Spring, which I value.

  Airport Tax (Effect on Tourism)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact on tourism in Northern Ireland of the airport tax. [16368]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is right to consider the impact of fare levels on tourism. Since the duty was first introduced in 1994, Northern Ireland has experienced record tourism figures.

  Beef Markets
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress his Department has made in developing new markets for beef which was previously exported. [16370]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  Since the ban on the export of beef was imposed, the Government have assisted the industry's marketing effort by setting up a red meat strategy group supporting promotions at UK and international exhibitions, making presentations on the traceability and quality of Northern Ireland beef to retailers and encouraging the development of marketing partnerships between producers, processors and retailers. The Northern Ireland Livestock and Meat Commission received £250,000 of EU money for marketing.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the trends in long-term unemployment in Northern Ireland. [16371]
  330
  Mr. Ancram
  At 9 January 1997, there were 34,441 long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland, a reduction of 8,297, or 17.8 per cent., compared with a year earlier.

  Millennium Celebrations
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to celebrate the millennium in Northern Ireland. [16373]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Government's aim is to ensure that people throughout the community can be involved and participate in both local and UK-wide events. No specific plans have yet been finalised.

  Security Situation
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the security situation in Northern Ireland. [16374]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The murder of Lance Bombardier Restorick and the continuing attacks on the police and Army are evidence of the continuing serious terrorist threat in Northern Ireland, principally from the Provisional IRA. Terrorism from whatever quarter will continue to meet with the undiminished determination of the security forces and the Government to root it out.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received concerning admitting Sinn Fein to the peace negotiations. [16375]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  A wide range of views have been expressed, extending from never admitting Sinn Fein to admitting them at once.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the integrity of the process of compiling electoral registers in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [16376]

  Mr. Ancram
  Reassessment of the methods used to effect accuracy is a constant feature of compiling the Northern Ireland electoral register. Uniquely in the UK, Northern Ireland's registration process is not dependent upon a postal return, as all registration forms are collected personally by canvassers. In addition, the Northern Ireland registration form, in contrast to the rest of the UK, seeks previous addresses to enable entries on the register to be cross checked. Also, over the past three years, the chief electoral officer has developed a computerised absent vote register to identify possible abuses of the system.

  Cross-border Co-operation
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of cross-border co-operation on security issues. [16377]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Security co-operation is regularly assessed against the increasing terrorist threat. The continuous close working relationship between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda plays a vital and effective role in opposing terrorism in all its forms.
  331
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next expects to meet a representative of the Irish security forces to discuss the fight against terrorism. [16383]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government regularly discuss security matters with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. It would be inappropriate to reveal the nature, scope and membership of such discussion, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the security forces on both sides of the border have maintained excellent co-operation and will continue to do so.

  Guardsmen Fisher and Wright
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the oral answer of 30 January,Official Report, columns 498–99, when he expects to complete his consideration of the case of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright. [16378]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The terms of Mr. Justice Girvan's recent judgment require the cases to be looked at afresh and for new information to be obtained and taken into account. I cannot say at this stage precisely when the process will be completed. However, I can assure the hon. Member that the cases of the two guardsmen will be considered as expeditiously as possible consistent with the terms of the judgment.

  Electricity Interconnector
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress is being made on providing an electricity interconnector between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom mainland. [16379]

  Mr. Ancram
  Progress on the interconnector proposal depends on the promoters receiving planning approval. Northern Ireland Electricity plc intends to submit a second planning application in respect of the Northern Ireland element, possibly in late February or early March 1997.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has announced that he is minded to grant planning permission for the Scottish element of the project, subject to sections of the proposed overhead line being placed underground. Comments submitted by interested parties are being considered and a final decision will be made in due course.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the interconnector with Scotland on the electricity needs of the Province during the next decade. [16388]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. This is a matter for Northern Ireland Electricity plc, a private company, which has the obligation under its licence to arrange for Northern Ireland's electricity requirements to be met economically. The company is supervised in the discharge of this responsibility by the independent Director General of Electricity Supply. I am informed that, under the terms of the agreement entered into between Northern Ireland Electricity plc and Scottish Power plc, approximately 20 per cent. of the demand on the Northern Ireland electricity system could be met by the Interconnector, when fully operational.
  332

  Peace Process
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in respect of the peace process. [16380]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Members for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his policies to reduce levels of paramilitary violence in the Province. [16381]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government's first priority in Northern Ireland is to eradicate terrorism from whichever section of the community it comes. To this end, the Government will continue to ensure that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported by the armed forces, has both the resources and the legal powers it needs to combat terrorism effectively. Already this year, the security forces have achieved a number of significant successes, with 22 people being charged with terrorist-related offences and significant terrorist activity disrupted.

  Terrorist Suspects (Recording of Interviews)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce the audio recording of interviews with terrorist suspects; and if he will make a statement. [16382]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government believe, taking into account the views of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that a move to audio recording at this time would not necessarily be in the overall interests of justice. The special circumstances in Northern Ireland mean that, for the time being, audio recording would be unacceptable on security grounds. Indeed, it its entirely possible that people's lives would be put at risk if the contents of recorded interview were made public in a court.

  However, the Government do see benefits, both for interviewees and for the police, in facilitating silent video recording of interviews. A public consultation exercise on the draft code of practice to which the new system will operate has been completed, and it is hoped that the scheme will be up and running later this year.

  Local Authority Powers
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met representatives of local government in Northern Ireland to discuss extending powers to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [16384]

  Mr. Ancram
  I and my ministerial colleagues have frequent discussions with district councillors on a range of subjects. These have included the powers of local authorities. The Government continue to keep the arrangements for local government under review. At present, we see no case for extending powers to local authorities. To act now would be to pre-empt the outcome
  333
  of the multi-party negotiations, strand one of which will consider the issue of local administration in Northern Ireland.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what responses he has received to his consultation on the adjudicatory functions of a parades commission as recommended in the North report. [16385]

  Sir John Wheeler
  We have received a number of written submissions and meetings are being set up as part of the consultation exercise announced in my right hon. and learned Friend's statement of 30 January.

  Sectarian Intimidation
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent representations he has received regarding sectarian intimidation. [16386]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend and other Ministers have received representations from, and had a number of meetings with, local church leaders, Members of Parliament and councillors on the subject of sectarian intimidation across Northern Ireland.

  Rating and Valuation
  Sir James Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review arrangements for valuation and rating in Northern Ireland. [16387]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A non-domestic revaluation has recently been carried out in Northern Ireland and a new valuation list will come into effect on 1 April 1997. A review of rating and valuation matters is planned for the new financial year.

  Action for Community Employment
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the reduction in the number of ACE posts in 1995–96 and 1996–97 to date. [16369]

  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) earlier today.

  Northern Ireland electoral register claims and objections

  Register year

  Received

  Allowed

  Additions to register

  Claims

  Objections

  Claims

  Objections

  1974

  5,928

  5,851

  1975

  9,378

  9,334

  1976

  5,441

  5,105

  1977

  5,361

  5,495

  1978

  6,494

  4,177

  1979

  5,814

  2,632

  1980

  6,108

  3,322

  1981

  5,504

  2,959

  1982

  5,076

  2,642

  1983

  7,452

  3,426

  334

  Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many pages of legislation have been(a) passed and (b) repealed in each of the last three years. [16372]

  Sir John Wheeler
  As regards Acts of Parliament extending exclusively to Northern Ireland, there were no such Acts in 1994, in 1995 there were eight pages enacted and none repealed and in 1996 there were 66 pages enacted and 100 repealed. As regards orders in council in 1994 300 pages were enacted and 53 repealed; in 1995 1,145 pages were enacted and 463 repealed; and in 1996 1,199 pages were enacted and 951 repealed.

  North Report
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in implementing the recommendations of the North report. [16361]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The Government accepted a number of the report's recommendations immediately, including the need for an independent commission. The report's recommendation that the commission should have an adjudicatory function is currently the subject of public consultation. A draft order was published for public consultation on Tuesday to make amendments to the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. We hope to announce the names of members of the commission shortly. Work is proceeding on a code of conduct.

  Electoral Count (Objections)
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many objections were lodged with the electoral court in each calendar year from 1980 to 1996; and how many of the objectives were upheld. [16468]

  Mr. Ancram
  The statistics required by the hon. Gentleman are not kept in the precise form he has requested. The table provided gives the most detailed information available and covers the whole period for which records have been kept. Claims and objections are determined at electoral hearings, not courts, and the statistics are compiled on the basis of the registration cycle and not a calendar year. All the information reproduced is obtainable from the annual reports of the chief electoral officer, which are available in the Library of the House.

  The objections referred to in the table are those lodged to names included in the draft register of electors, which is published in November each year.
  335

  Northern Ireland electoral register claims and objections

  Register year

  Received

  Allowed

  Additions to register

  Claims

  Objections

  Claims

  Objections

  1984

  5,524

  1,679

  1985

  4,108

  1,154

  1986

  4,100

  846

  1987

  3,730

  785

  1988

  1,108

  204

  1989

  1,021

  231

  1990

  456

  195

  1991

  816

  180

  620

  125

  1992

  956

  81

  634

  49

  1993

  1,000

  67

  806

  63

  1994

  630

  25

  436

  14

  1995

  471

  44

  330

  17

  1996

  443

  56

  298

  24

  1997

  1,169

  252

  770

  134

  Under continuous registration, there is also the facility for objections to be made to any claim lodged for inclusion in the published register of electors. Such objections have occurred only in 1981 when there were 22, and in 1982 when there were 60.

  Prospect Downs Development
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) when road works, storm drainage and sewage disposal arrangements at the Prospect downs development, Carrickfergus, will be completed to the adoption standard of the Department of the Environment. [17048]

  (2) what action has been taken by the Department of the environment to persuade the site developer at Prospect downs, Carrickfergus, to bring roads, storm drainage and sewerage systems up to adoption standard; [17050]

  (3) if the bond held by the Department of the Environment in respect of outstanding work at Prospect downs, Carrickfergus, is sufficient to meet the cost of completion of roads, drainage and sewage disposal arrangements to the adoption standard of the Department. [17049]

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

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 26 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State had asked me to respond to your 3 recent PQs about the Prospect Downs development at Carrickfergus.
  The Prospect Downs development consists of 20 phases. Storm drainage and sewerage disposal arrangements have been completed to adoption standards in phases 1–9 and have been adopted. The
  336
  roadworks associated with phase 1 have also been adopted but problems exist in relation to the other phases. Roads Service has been in contact with the two developers involved on a number of occasions with a view to having the necessary works carried out but without success. Enforcement action is therefore under consideration in order to bring the matter to a conclusion.
  With the exception of one of the phases bonds exist in relation to the outstanding work. it is not possible to say at this stage whether or not the amounts bounded would be sufficient to complete the works buy nevertheless the Department can recover any shortfall from the developers.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Council for Catholic Maintained Schools
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the approved budget of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools for 1996–97 and 1997–98; and what reductions are being required in its administrative budget. [17668]

  Mr. Ancram
  The total recurrent and capital budget for CMS in 1996–97 was £1.627 million. The equivalent budget for 1997–98 has still to be finalised, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Teachers (redundancies)
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of teachers in primary and secondary schools in Northern Ireland likely to be declared redundant in 1997–98 in(a) controlled schools and (b) maintained schools. [17664]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information sought is not available. Under the local management of schools arrangements, the number of teachers to be employed is a matter for schools' boards of governors.
  337

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Further Education Funding
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the likelihood that capital grants to further education colleges will have to be repaid to the European regional development fund, where the grant was conditional on an increase in student numbers which was to be funded through the demand-led element of further education funding. [17271]

  Mr. Paice
  Payments under the European regional development fund depend on project performance and delivery outputs. For projects involving the provision of training infrastructure, outputs may include vocational qualification gained or trainees trained. These outputs do not necessarily require a net increase in student numbers in all cases.

  School Security (Sheffield)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been allocated to Sheffield over the planning period for grants for school security measures; and if she will make a statement. [17738]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government will support extra expenditure of £66 million on school security measures in England over the next three years. This is in addition to spending on security from local education authorities' and schools' normal budgets. The extra funding will be allocated to authorities through the Department's grants for education support and training programme and to grant-maintained schools by the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Under the 1997–98 GEST programme, the security grant for Sheffield LEA will support expenditure of £184,900. Grant allocations for future years will be decided in due course.

  Vacancies (Follow-up)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a benefit sanction may be applied for failure to follow up the vacancy where a claimant identifies a vacancy himself and requests an in-work benefit calculation from an Employment Service adviser. [17865]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about whether a benefit sanction may be applied for failure to follow up the vacancy where a claimant identifies a vacancy himself and requests an in-work benefit calculation from an employment service
  338
  adviser. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Employment Service (ES).
  Where the jobseeker identifies a vacancy themselves and discusses it with an ES adviser, it is considered to be notified to the jobseeker. Provided the jobseeker's suitability for the job has been established, if they do not apply for the job, or do not attend for the interview, or refuse the job, the case may be referred to the Sector Adjudication Officer (SAO). If the SAO decides the job, the case may be referred to the Sector Adjudication Officer (SAO). If the SAO decides the jobseeker has acted without good cause, a sanction of up to 26 weeks could be imposed.
  For these, as with all vacancies notified to the jobseeker, an in-work benefit calculation can be done by an ES adviser.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Jobseekers (Minimum Wage)
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what circumstances an Employment Service adviser may use an in-work benefit calculation to encourage a jobseeker to lower his minimum wage as indicated in question 16 of the ES2 form. [17864]

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

  Letter from Robert Home to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about the circumstances when an Employment Service Adviser may use an in-work benefit calculation to encourage a jobseeker to lower their minimum wage.
  All Employment Service (ES) offices provide a structured and coherent advisory and information service which is aimed at helping jobseekers back into work as soon as possible.
  As part of this service, our advisers provide information about in-work benefits, either at the request of the jobseeker or, where appropriate, as part of New Jobseeker Interviews and Restart Interviews. In relevant circumstances, Advisers also provide jobseekers with personal in-work benefit calculations to show how they can be better off in work, either for a particular job or for a range of wages.
  The "Helping You Back To Work" (ES2) form is generally used when the jobseeker initially makes a claim for Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA). In discussing question 16, the adviser determines whether the jobseeker's salary expectation is realistic in the light of opportunities in the labour market. If the expected salary appears unrealistic, then the adviser will make the jobseeker aware of in-work benefits they may be able to claim if they accept a job with a lower wage.
  I hope this clarifies the position.

  Modern Apprentices
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each training and enterprise council(a) the number of modern apprentices and (b) the number in each occupational sector. [17919]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is given in the table.
  339

  Modern apprenticeship England and Wales—trainees in each sector as at 5 January 1997

  Numbers and per cent.

  England and Wales

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire

  North Derbyshire

  South Derbyshire

  Total number in training

  66,700

  400

  400

  400

  1,000

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  1

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Business Administration

  13

  6

  10

  27

  11

  Chemical Industry

  1

  1

  0

  1

  —

  Child Care

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  6

  7

  5

  5

  16

  Engineering Manufacturing

  19

  43

  10

  17

  21

  Engineering Construction

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Information Technology

  1

  —

  3

  0

  1

  Marine Engineering

  1

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Polymers Sector

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Retailing

  7

  5

  6

  2

  2

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  2

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Construction

  8

  0

  15

  5

  2

  Plumbing

  1

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  2

  1

  0

  3

  5

  Air Transport

  —

  4

  16

  —

  0

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Builders Merchants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Engineering Services

  —

  3

  —

  0

  —

  Estate Agencies

  —

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glass

  —

  0

  —

  5

  —

  Hairdressing

  7

  8

  2

  9

  13

  Healthcare

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  6

  —

  18

  4

  2

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  0

  1

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Printing

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  Road Haulage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Sports and Recreation

  1

  0

  2

  —

  —

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Motor Industry

  9

  7

  3

  13

  10

  Health and Social Care

  3

  10

  2

  4

  1

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  340 341

  Numbers and per cent.

  Leicester

  Lincolnshire

  Norfolk and Waveney

  Northants

  Greater Nottinghamshire

  Total number in training

  900

  900

  1,300

  700

  1,300

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  0

  5

  1

  2

  —

  Business Administration

  4

  24

  19

  22

  18

  Chemical Industry

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Childcare

  —

  3

  —

  —

  4

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  6

  3

  15

  4

  13

  Engineering Manufacturing

  32

  19

  20

  9

  6

  Engineering Construction

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Information Technology

  3

  0

  —

  2

  7

  Marine Engineering

  —

  1

  —

  0

  —

  Polymers Sector

  0

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Retailing

  8

  6

  —

  6

  12

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1

  Construction

  4

  6

  30

  1

  5

  Plumbing

  0

  2

  —

  1

  2

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  5

  4

  1

  10

  3

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Builders Merchants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Engineering Services

  —

  0

  —

  0

  0

  Estate Agencies

  0

  1

  —

  0

  —

  Fire Services

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Glass

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hairdressing

  0

  7

  —

  7

  7

  Healthcare

  —

  1

  —

  0

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  4

  3

  5

  8

  1

  Knitting and lace

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  5

  0

  2

  2

  2

  Road Haulage

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Sports and Recreation

  —

  0

  2

  0

  —

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  0

  0

  0

  Motor Industry

  27

  7

  7

  22

  13

  Health and Social Care

  0

  5

  —

  0

  3

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  342 343

  Numbers and per cent.

  North Nottinghamshire

  Greater Peterborough

  Suffolk

  County Durham

  Northumberland

  Total number in training

  600

  500

  700

  1,400

  600

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  0

  3

  9

  1

  0

  Business Administration

  13

  19

  6

  23

  34

  Chemical Industry

  0

  —

  —

  0

  2

  Childcare

  1

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  7

  3

  3

  1

  1

  Engineering Manufacturing

  26

  24

  15

  28

  17

  Engineering Construction

  0

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Information Technology

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1

  Marine Engineering

  7

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Polymers Sector

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Retailing

  4

  4

  3

  5

  7

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  1

  4

  2

  1

  1

  Construction

  8

  —

  18

  10

  8

  Plumbing

  1

  1

  —

  2

  1

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  1

  8

  3

  1

  1

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Builders Merchants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Engineering Services

  1

  1

  —

  0

  1

  Estate Agencies

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Glass

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hairdressing

  5

  3

  7

  6

  10

  Healthcare

  2

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  3

  8

  13

  2

  2

  Knitting and lace

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  —

  1

  0

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Sports and Recreation

  5

  —

  1

  0

  1

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Motor Industry

  10

  11

  8

  9

  4

  Health and Social Care

  2

  6

  7

  3

  6

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Horses

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  344 345

  Numbers and per cent.

  Teeside

  Tyneside

  Sunderland City

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  Bradford

  Calderdale/Kirklees

  Total number in training

  1,200

  1,500

  700

  900

  500

  1,000

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial

  Horticulture

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  0

  Business Administration

  11

  24

  22

  12

  6

  7

  Chemical Industry

  1

  0

  —

  —

  3

  3

  Childcare

  4

  —

  —

  0

  7

  3

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  4

  2

  2

  7

  4

  8

  Engineering Manufacturing

  21

  2

  17

  15

  25

  30

  Engineering Construction

  20

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Information Technology

  4

  8

  0

  2

  1

  1

  Marine Engineering

  1

  12

  —

  —

  0

  3

  Polymers Sector

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Retailing

  12

  15

  9

  11

  3

  7

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  4

  Construction

  3

  0

  13

  9

  13

  5

  Plumbing

  1

  0

  2

  1

  3

  1

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7

  8

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  0

  7

  1

  5

  0

  3

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  0

  1

  —

  0

  —

  Builders Merchants

  —

  1

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  1

  0

  —

  —

  Engineering Services

  2

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Estate Agencies

  —

  2

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Fire Services

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Glass

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  Hairdressing

  1

  3

  4

  10

  2

  3

  Healthcare

  1

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  7

  1

  2

  3

  11

  5

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  1

  0

  1

  0

  4

  1

  Road Haulage

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  0

  —

  —

  2

  2

  1

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  0

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  4

  7

  16

  13

  5

  5

  Health and Social Care

  0

  7

  6

  1

  1

  0

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement

  Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden

  Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  346 347

  Modern apprenticeship England and Wales—trainees in each sector as at 5 January 1997

  Numbers and per cent.

  Humberside

  Leeds

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Wakefield

  Total number in training

  2,200

  900

  600

  800

  300

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  2

  0

  1

  —

  —

  Business Administration

  14

  19

  13

  10

  15

  Chemical Industry

  3

  —

  —

  0

  6

  Childcare

  0

  1

  1

  3

  2

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  4

  15

  3

  4

  6

  Engineering Manufacturing

  15

  9

  23

  20

  5

  Engineering Construction

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Information Technology

  2

  8

  2

  1

  1

  Marine Engineering

  1

  1

  0

  —

  —

  Polymers Sector

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retailing

  3

  6

  2

  10

  5

  Steel Industry

  0

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Steel Industry

  1

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Travel Service

  1

  2

  11

  0

  2

  Construction

  18

  6

  11

  13

  18

  Plumbing

  1

  0

  2

  1

  3

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  2

  3

  2

  2

  4

  Air Transport

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Builders Merchants

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Bus and Coach

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  Engineering Services

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Estate Agencies

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Fire Services

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  0

  1

  —

  0

  2

  Glass

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Hairdressing

  14

  7

  3

  7

  14

  Healthcare

  0

  —

  6

  19

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  1

  3

  6

  3

  2

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  0

  3

  1

  0

  2

  Road Haulage

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Tell Communications

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  14

  13

  2

  3

  9

  Health and Social Care

  2

  —

  3

  —

  2

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  348 349

  Numbers and per cent.

  North Yorkshire

  Bolton/Bury

  Normidtec

  South and East Cheshire

  Cumbria

  Total number in training

  900

  1,000

  900

  600

  1,300

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  9

  —

  0

  *

  3

  Business Administration

  8

  15

  26

  *

  11

  Chemical Industry

  —

  0

  19

  *

  —

  Childcare

  1

  6

  1

  *

  14

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  4

  4

  9

  *

  11

  Engineering Manufacturing

  9

  20

  10

  *

  15

  Engineering Construction

  —

  3

  —

  *

  —

  Information Technology

  1

  0

  6

  *

  1

  Marine Engineering

  —

  0

  —

  *

  13

  Polymers Sector

  0

  0

  0

  *

  —

  Retailing

  12

  9

  4

  *

  6

  Steel Industry

  0

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  0

  —

  *

  —

  Travel Service

  1

  2

  0

  *

  0

  Construction

  21

  14

  7

  *

  5

  Plumbing

  3

  2

  —

  *

  0

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Accounting

  5

  2

  3

  *

  1

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Bakers

  —

  2

  —

  *

  0

  Builders Merchants

  1

  —

  —

  *

  0

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Electricity

  3

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Engineering Services

  0

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Estate Agencies

  —

  —

  —

  *

  1

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  0

  —

  *

  —

  Glass

  —

  —

  —

  *

  0

  Hairdressing

  4

  7

  2

  *

  2

  Healthcare

  —

  0

  2

  *

  1

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  5

  1

  3

  *

  6

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Printing

  2

  0

  0

  *

  —

  Road Haulage

  —

  —

  —

  *

  1

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Security

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  —

  1

  —

  *

  0

  Tell Communications

  —

  2

  —

  *

  —

  Timber Trade

  0

  0

  —

  *

  —

  Motor Industry

  9

  7

  4

  *

  7

  Health and Social Care

  1

  2

  2

  *

  1

  Newspapers

  —

  0

  —

  *

  0

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  0

  0

  *

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Floristry

  —

  0

  —

  *

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  *

  1

  Plumbing

  0

  0

  —

  *

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  1

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  *

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  350 351

  Numbers and per cent.

  Eltec

  Lawtec

  Manchester

  Merseyside

  Oldham

  Total number in training

  1,500

  1,900

  2,100

  1,900

  500

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Business Administration

  24

  15

  25

  7

  12

  Chemical Industry

  —

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Childcare

  2

  —

  5

  1

  1

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  4

  3

  10

  5

  1

  Engineering Manufacturing

  20

  30

  13

  14

  30

  Engineering Construction

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Information Technology

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Marine Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Polymers Sector

  —

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Retailing

  5

  2

  4

  18

  10

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  —

  1

  4

  0

  2

  Construction

  8

  12

  10

  16

  6

  Plumbing

  3

  3

  0

  2

  2

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  1

  1

  1

  1

  3

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  0

  0

  0

  —

  1

  Builders Merchants

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Bus and Coach

  4

  2

  —

  0

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Engineering Services

  —

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Estate Agencies

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Fire Services

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  4

  2

  0

  1

  1

  Glass

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Hairdressing

  4

  3

  9

  11

  9

  Healthcare

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Hotel and Catering

  1

  5

  1

  3

  1

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  0

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Paper and Board

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  1

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  1

  —

  2

  —

  2

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  9

  9

  7

  10

  2

  Health and Social Care

  5

  5

  1

  9

  11

  Newspapers

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  352 353

  Numbers and per cent.

  Rochdale

  St. Helens CC&T

  Stockport and High Peak

  Metrotec

  Cewtec

  Birmingham

  Total number in training

  500

  600

  500

  600

  700

  1,600

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial

  Horticulture

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Business Administration

  21

  14

  9

  14

  6

  17

  Chemical Industry

  —

  4

  —

  —

  10

  —

  Childcare

  4

  3

  11

  —

  0

  10

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  7

  8

  5

  7

  4

  1

  Engineering Manufacturing

  19

  32

  42

  21

  27

  16

  Engineering Construction

  —

  2

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Information Technology

  2

  —

  1

  1

  2

  3

  Marine Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Polymers Sector

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retailing

  2

  0

  8

  3

  5

  11

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  —

  1

  1

  1

  0

  4

  Construction

  15

  5

  1

  15

  13

  6

  Plumbing

  1

  7

  —

  6

  —

  —

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  —

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Builders Merchants

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  0

  Engineering Services

  —

  2

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Estate Agencies

  —

  —

  0

  2

  —

  0

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Glass

  —

  4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Hairdressing

  10

  7

  6

  4

  6

  6

  Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  3

  1

  3

  1

  6

  6

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  —

  0

  2

  1

  0

  0

  Road Haulage

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Security

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  3

  2

  —

  0

  0

  —

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  6

  5

  7

  13

  4

  6

  Health and Social Care

  3

  —

  —

  3

  5

  13

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  354 355

  Numbers and per cent.

  Central England

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Hawtec

  Sandwell

  Total number in training

  300

  1,000

  500

  600

  400

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  2

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Business Administration

  8

  11

  9

  7

  10

  Chemical Industry

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Childcare

  3

  1

  8

  4

  0

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  8

  8

  11

  6

  0

  Engineering Manufacturing

  42

  39

  32

  20

  37

  Engineering Construction

  1

  0

  —

  —

  25

  Information Technology

  —

  1

  3

  1

  0

  Marine Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Polymers Sector

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Retailing

  11

  4

  3

  14

  1

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  2

  4

  —

  0

  —

  Construction

  2

  4

  6

  1

  2

  Plumbing

  —

  0

  11

  1

  —

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  1

  2

  3

  7

  2

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Builders Merchants

  —

  1

  —

  0

  —

  Bus and Coach

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Engineering Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Estate Agencies

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glass

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hairdressing

  8

  8

  3

  9

  1

  Healthcare

  —

  0

  —

  1

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  1

  3

  2

  8

  —

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  —

  0

  —

  0

  1

  Road Haulage

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  —

  0

  —

  4

  —

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  10

  5

  7

  6

  5

  Health and Social Care

  —

  2

  2

  2

  3

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  356 357

  Numbers and per cent.

  Shropshire

  Staffordshire

  Walsall

  Wolverhampton

  Mid Glamorgan

  Total number in training

  500

  1,100

  400

  500

  900

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  1

  5

  —

  0

  3

  Business Administration

  6

  7

  13

  18

  10

  Chemical Industry

  —

  —

  0

  3

  0

  Childcare

  0

  4

  —

  —

  0

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  9

  8

  13

  7

  5

  Engineering Manufacturing

  28

  21

  32

  24

  25

  Engineering Construction

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Information Technology

  1

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Marine Engineering

  2

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Polymers Sector

  3

  —

  2

  —

  1

  Retailing

  3

  11

  2

  6

  2

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  1

  4

  2

  —

  0

  Construction

  1

  4

  8

  5

  7

  Plumbing

  1

  0

  —

  —

  3

  Wool Textiles

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  Accounting

  6

  10

  —

  2

  2

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Builders Merchants

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  0

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Engineering Services

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Estate Agencies

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  0

  —

  —

  —

  o

  Glass

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Hairdressing

  3

  14

  5

  11

  6

  Healthcare

  0

  1

  —

  0

  0

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  —

  0

  0

  Hotel and Catering

  4

  1

  2

  14

  2

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Road Haulage

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Sports and Recreation

  0

  —

  6

  3

  3

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Motor Industry

  27

  7

  11

  5

  12

  Health and Social Care

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  1

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  358 359

  Numbers and per cent.

  South Glamorgan

  Gwent

  North East Wales

  North West Wales

  West Wales

  Total number in training

  700

  1,000

  800

  500

  1,600

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  *

  2

  5

  2

  5

  Business Administration

  *

  6

  17

  9

  6

  Chemical Industry

  *

  —

  3

  0

  0

  Childcare

  *

  0

  1

  25

  0

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  *

  4

  13

  5

  3

  Engineering Manufacturing

  *

  15

  25

  16

  20

  Engineering Construction

  *

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Information Technology

  *

  —

  3

  1

  1

  Marine Engineering

  *

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Polymers Sector

  *

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Retailing

  *

  2

  4

  3

  6

  Steel Industry

  *

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  *

  9

  4

  —

  9

  Travel Service

  *

  1

  3

  1

  0

  Construction

  *

  25

  3

  7

  15

  Plumbing

  *

  4

  1

  4

  3

  Wool Textiles

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  *

  11

  1

  1

  12

  Accounting

  *

  3

  3

  1

  0

  Air Transport

  *

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  *

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Bakers

  *

  —

  0

  1

  Builders Merchants

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  *

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Engineering Services

  *

  1

  0

  2

  0

  Estate Agencies

  *

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Fire Services

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  *

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Glass

  *

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Hairdressing

  *

  5

  2

  5

  6

  Healthcare

  *

  —

  0

  1

  1

  Horticulture (amenity)

  *

  1

  0

  1

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  *

  3

  1

  3

  1

  Knitting and lace

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  *

  —

  0

  0

  1

  Paper and Board

  *

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Printing

  *

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Road Haulage

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seafish

  *

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Security

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  *

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Tell Communications

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  *

  9

  7

  6

  3

  Health and Social Care

  *

  0

  1

  2

  3

  Newspapers

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  *

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Museums

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rail

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  *

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  *

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  360 361

  Numbers and per cent.

  Westec

  Devon and Cornwall

  Dorset

  Gloucestershire

  Somerset

  Wiltshire

  Total number in training

  1,400

  2,200

  900

  700

  600

  400

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial

  Horticulture

  —

  4

  0

  2

  4

  4

  Business Administration

  15

  7

  3

  12

  9

  4

  Chemical Industry

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Childcare

  1

  1

  5

  4

  4

  6

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  7

  7

  3

  5

  3

  4

  Engineering Manufacturing

  19

  19

  15

  20

  34

  46

  Engineering Construction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Information Technology

  3

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  Marine Engineering

  1

  5

  1

  5

  —

  10

  Polymers Sector

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Retailing

  11

  3

  4

  5

  2

  6

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  1

  2

  1

  0

  1

  —

  Construction

  1

  21

  0

  4

  7

  0

  Plumbing

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  0

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  2

  4

  1

  3

  3

  —

  Air Transport

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Bakers

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Builders Merchants

  0

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Engineering Services

  1

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  Estate Agencies

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  —

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Glass

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  —

  Hairdressing

  13

  0

  13

  13

  11

  0

  Healthcare

  2

  3

  1

  —

  8

  1

  Horticulture (amenity)

  0

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  2

  4

  13

  2

  1

  3

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  2

  1

  0

  2

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Sports and Recreation

  1

  0

  4

  2

  —

  0

  Tell Communications

  0

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  14

  13

  22

  15

  7

  5

  Health and Social Care

  0

  1

  10

  0

  3

  8

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Operating Department Practice

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement

  Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden

  Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  362 363

  Modern apprenticeship England and Wales—trainees in each sector as at 5 January 1997

  Numbers and per cent.

  Essex

  Hampshire

  Heart of England

  Hertfordshire

  Kent

  Total number in training

  2,000

  1,700

  500

  900

  1,900

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  —

  —

  0

  —

  1

  Business Administration

  13

  6

  13

  9

  13

  Chemical Industry

  0

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Childcare

  4

  3

  0

  12

  0

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  9

  6

  15

  4

  7

  Engineering Manufacturing

  22

  17

  26

  21

  5

  Engineering Construction

  0

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Information Technology

  1

  1

  —

  1

  3

  Marine Engineering

  —

  7

  —

  —

  1

  Polymers Sector

  0

  —

  0

  —

  0

  Retailing

  7

  9

  8

  11

  13

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  2

  2

  4

  3

  1

  Construction

  3

  4

  1

  0

  2

  Plumbing

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  1

  2

  4

  0

  1

  Air Transport

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Builders Merchants

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  0

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Engineering Services

  0

  0

  2

  —

  —

  Estate Agencies

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Glass

  —

  —

  —

  —-

  —

  Hairdressing

  7

  12

  7

  3

  25

  Healthcare

  9

  0

  1

  —

  2

  Horticulture (amenity)

  1

  0

  —

  1

  Hotel and Catering

  12

  10

  7

  20

  6

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Printing

  1

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Road Haulage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  0

  0

  —

  0

  Tell Communications

  —

  —

  —

  1

  0

  Timber Trade

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  6

  14

  6

  11

  6

  Health and Social Care

  2

  3

  2

  —

  4

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  Horses

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -

  Plumbing

  —

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Rail

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  364 365

  Numbers and per cent.

  Milton Keynes

  Surrey

  Sussex

  Thames Valley

  Aztec

  Total number in training

  400

  800

  1,200

  1,400

  400

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial Horticulture

  —

  1

  0

  —

  —

  Business Administration

  32

  3

  10

  15

  17

  Chemical Industry

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Childcare

  —

  5

  6

  10

  4

  Electrical Installation Engineering

  1

  9

  7

  11

  10

  Engineering Manufacturing

  24

  12

  2

  8

  2

  Engineering Construction

  —

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Information Technology

  3

  —

  1

  2

  1

  Marine Engineering

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Polymers Sector

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retailing

  4

  8

  9

  25

  21

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  0

  4

  3

  3

  3

  Construction

  0

  2

  7

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  1

  3

  0

  2

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Welsh Manufacturing Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  14

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Air Transport

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  3

  0

  Builders Merchants

  —

  1

  0

  —

  0

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Engineering Services

  —

  —

  1

  0

  —

  Estate Agencies

  —

  —

  1

  —

  5

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glass

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Hairdressing

  1

  3

  7

  4

  16

  Healthcare

  —

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  4

  16

  14

  6

  4

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Man-made fibres

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Printing

  0

  1

  3

  5

  0

  Road Haulage

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  3

  —

  —

  3

  Sports and Recreation

  —

  J

  1

  1

  3

  Tell Communications

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Timber Trade

  —

  0

  0

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  13

  12

  10

  6

  6

  Health and Social Care

  —

  15

  11

  —

  —

  Newspapers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  0

  —

  0

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  366 367

  North London

  North West London

  Cilntec

  Central London

  London East

  Solotec

  West London

  Total number in training

  1,000

  500

  700

  400

  900

  900

  800

  Percentage in:

  Agriculture and Commercial

  Horticulture

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11

  Business Administration

  8

  2

  14

  13

  3

  13

  —

  Chemical Industry

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Childcare

  2

  7

  2

  4

  —

  4

  7

  Electrical Installation

  Engineering

  1

  5

  15

  16

  6

  12

  —

  Engineering Manufacturing

  0

  1

  4

  —

  86

  "

  13

  Engineering Construction

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Information Technology

  0

  —

  0

  1

  0

  o

  1

  Marine Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Polymers Sector

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Retailing

  13

  14

  8

  21

  —

  12

  1

  Steel Industry

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Steel Industry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Travel Service

  2

  1

  0

  5

  —

  7

  —

  Construction

  2

  —

  6

  1

  4

  2

  Plumbing

  0

  1

  1

  0

  —

  —

  —

  Wool Textiles

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Welsh Manufacturing

  Engineering

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Accounting

  3

  1

  1

  —

  —

  0

  —

  Air Transport

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arts and Entertainment

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Bakers

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Builders Merchants

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bus and Coach

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  0

  Carpet Manufacturing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Electricity

  0

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Engineering Services

  —

  13

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Estate Agencies

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Fire Services

  —

  —

  _

  —

  —

  Furniture Manufacturing

  16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Glass

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hairdressing

  1

  3

  11

  —

  10

  0

  Healthcare

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Horticulture (amenity)

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hotel and Catering

  36

  31

  2

  16

  0

  5

  55

  Knitting and lace

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Man-made fibres

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Meat training

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Paper and Board

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Printing

  0

  —

  19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Road Haulage

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  Seafish

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Security

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sports and Recreation

  4

  7

  0

  6

  —

  —

  0

  Tell Communications

  2

  —

  0

  1

  —

  —

  0

  Timber Trade

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Motor Industry

  7

  11

  13

  3

  —

  6

  2

  Health and Social Care

  1

  5

  —

  1

  —

  3

  2

  Newspapers

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Operating Department Practice

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Physiological Measurement

  Technicians

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Banking Services

  —

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Floristry

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Horses

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Insurance

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Museums

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Plumbing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Rail

  —

  —

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Agriculture and Garden

  Machinery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Farriery

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. As the information on the sector breakdown is from the MA Database, it is only possible to give percentages, not actual numbers.

  2. "—" = less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  MA Database; TEC Management Information.
  368 369

  Cash Limits
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she plans changes to cash limits and running cost limits on votes within her responsibility for 1996–97. [14254]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [pursuant to his reply, 31 January 1997, c. 397–98]: The cash limit for class I, vote 3: Employment Service will now be decreased by £19,553,000 rather than £20,303,000. Therefore, the new cash limit will be £1,269,42,000 not £1,268,674,000. This change has arisen because the funding of annual compensation payments for early departures between the Employment Service and the Cabinet Office will now be made by direct payment rather than a departmental transfer between votes.

  Service family quarters charge for last five years

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  1997–98 £

  Officers

  41.30

  43.12

  47.04

  53.48

  56.07

  Other ranks

  26.46

  27.74

  29.68

  34.02

  35.93

  Additionally, all service personnel pay a contribution in lieu of council tax. Some of the quarters are occupied by civilians and these charges are based on market rents which are assessed by local defence lands service offices.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what have been the percentage increases per annum in rents for service family quarters in each of the past five years; what are the planned increases in each year of the planning period; and if he will make a statement. [17936]

  Mr. Soames
  The average percentage increases recommended by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and accepted by the Government for service family quarters are as follows:

  1993–94: 1.5 percent.

  1994–95: 5 per cent.

  1995–96: 5–8 per cent.

  1996–97: 10–25 per cent.

  1997–98: 2.7–9.1 percent.

  Charges are recommended annually by the AFPRB, which has always followed the principle that charges levied on service personnel should compare fairly with the costs civilians have to incur for comparable housing. The higher percentage increases this year are for the largest, best-quality officer housing.

  Admissible Schools List
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the current version of the admissible schools list showing the number of pupils supported by his Department at each school. [17934]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 November 1996,Official Report, column 196.
  370
  The running costs provision for class IX, vote 3 will therefore be decreased by £2,243,000 rather than £2,993,000 to £907,908,000 and not £907,158,000. The gross running costs limit for the Department for Education and Employment is increased by £4,402,000 to £1,281,816,000.

DEFENCE

  Married Quarters (Rent)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current average rent per week in service married quarters; and what was the average in each of the last five years. [17935]

  Mr. Soames
  The average weekly charges for service family quarters are given in the table, and are based on furnished accommodation in England, Scotland and Wales and of the most commonly occupied type of accommodation.

  Proof and Experimental Work
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on proof and experimental work carried out overseas, broken down by the countries in which this work takes place, in each of the last five years; and what estimate he has made of the proportion of this work which could be carried out at range facilities in the United Kingdom. [17673]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A preliminary survey, however, indicates that in the past five years more than £8 million has been spent on proof and experimental work in a range of overseas countries. Such work is conducted overseas when it provides better value for money, or when no suitable range is available in the UK, or when extreme climate conditions are required.

  Eskmeal and Shoeburyness Ranges
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency study on the future of the Eskmeals and Shoeburyness ranges; and if he will make arrangements for the report to be made publicly available. [17674]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  An interim report was completed by DERA at the end of January. It did not make firm recommendations for the closure of either Eskmeals or Shoeburyness but suggested further detailed work into how the costs of the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation land ranges might be reduced. Given the report's interim nature, I do not believe it appropriate for publication at present, but as soon as DERA has completed consultations with its MOD customers on the implications of the proposals, DERA intends to publish a
  371
  consultative document setting out the options and proposing a way ahead. This will be circulated to DERA staff, trade unions and those with an interest. I expect to approve the release of this document within the next few weeks.

  Guards (Hours)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent changes his Department has made to the hours and shifts worked by service personnel acting as guards on(a) HMS Raleigh, (b) HMS Drake and (c) Stonehouse barracks. [17939]

  Mr. Soames
  There have been no recent changes to the hours and shifts for service personnel on guard duty at Stonehouse barracks or HMS Drake. At HMS Raleigh, the usual five-week shift pattern was replaced on 2 January 1997 by a four-week pattern to overcome a temporary manpower shortage. This will not increase the length of the normal 12-hour shifts—including stand-by time—and personnel will receive approximately two weeks' leave in every four weeks.

  BSE
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 20 February(Official Report column 715, if he will list the BSE-related material which (a) is and (b) has been stored at RAF Quedgely. [17835]

  Mr. Soames
  There is currently no BSE-related material stored at RAF Quedgely. BSE pelleted material was stored between May and August 1996 until removed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Equipment and Furniture
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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 his Department and its agencies during the past 12 months, listing by name any such items valued at £5,000 or more, and showing information technology material separately. [17073]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A central record is not kept of individual items unaccounted for. All such cases are thoroughly investigated with a view to establishing the facts and preventing a recurrence. Where a loss has occurred and recovery proves impracticable, the items in question are written off, and the relevant appropriation account noted accordingly. Items over £100,000 value are reported and noted individually.

  Twenty items of equipment have been reported as stolen in the past 12 months, with an estimated value of £75,300. Two thermal imagers and related items valued together at £69,589 were the only items valued at more than £5,000.

  In addition, 29 items of information technology equipment have been reported as stolen in the past 12 months, with an estimated value of £31,043. None of these had an individual value of £5,000 or more.

  No thefts of furniture have been reported.
  372
  This information does not include any losses from defence agencies, I have asked the chief executives to write direct to the hon. Member with relevant information.

  Letter from J. A. Trewby to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been (a) stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for during the past 12 months insofar as it applies to the Naval Bases and Supply Agency (NBSA) as this matter falls within my area of responsibility.
  The NBSA launched in December 1996 and is formed from a number of different management areas within the MOD. The exact information you have requested is not readily available due to system changes, but the following information is available for this financial year:

  (a) Three items have been stolen with a total value of £7,937.48 (VAT inclusive). None of these were information technology items. No single item involved was valued in excess of £5,000.

  (b) Material losses authorised this financial year amount to 907 items with a total value of £2,709,597.09 (VAT inclusive). This figure includes losses caused by damage to equipment. There were no losses of information technology equipment. Eleven of these cases involved items with an individual item value in excess of £5,000; these are listed below.

  Item description

  Value £ (VAT inclusive)

  Fixed probe assembly

  9,839.45

  Gyro and card set kit

  14,414.90

  Rudder servo (quantity 2)

  20,201.77

  Fan centrifugal (quantity 2)

  11,376.35

  Filter module

  5,254.60

  Actuator rotary

  9,770.13

  Regulator assembly

  8,328.40

  Lifting/load

  7,032.38

  Vector voltmeter

  5,876.18

  Transmitter

  10,250.00

  Radar platform

  6,164.69

  Letter from R. H. Kyle to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  Items of equipment and furniture that have either been stolen or otherwise unaccounted for in the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen, lost or unaccounted for during the past 12 months because this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Maintenance Group Defence Agency. A list of all such items with an individual value exceeding £5,000 is given at Annex A. Actual losses are rare; when compared with the amount of equipment issued (more than 1 million items), the figure of 29 represents only 0.003% of the total number. There have been no losses of information technology equipment.

  Annex A: RAF MGDA equipment and furniture losses

  Serial number

  Item

  Value of the item £

  Stolen yes/no

  1

  Flight compass 1081706

  7,925

  No

  2

  Value 118 7884

  7,407

  No

  3

  Transformer receiver 10D 9550582

  9,666

  No

  4

  Fairing assembly 1560 99 6131360

  6,462

  No

  5

  Screwjack assembly 1680 1591069

  5,202

  No

  6

  Pole assembly 26LX 6414634

  6,487

  No

  373

  Annex A: RAF MGDA equipment and furniture losses

  Serial number

  Item

  Value of the item £

  Stolen yes/no

  7

  Box assembly 26VC 23304

  7,166

  No

  8

  Coupling port 36DE 7752541

  7,597

  No

  9

  Leading edge 1560 99 6120145

  6,221

  No

  10

  Skin panel 26VC 8705542

  11,005

  No

  11

  Emruno 22MK2 11A 6345911

  14,699

  No

  12

  Nose cone 1560 01 2951228

  35,849

  No

  13

  Airbrakes Pt 1560 14 0416316

  5,686

  No

  14

  Housing 2915 14 419517

  7,782

  No

  15

  Nozzle port 26VN 7775986

  6,035

  No

  16

  Rodsighting 26DL 6011375

  6,389

  No

  17

  Brake unit 27G 1501909

  5,948

  No

  18

  Fan 5UD 4390830

  5,695

  No

  19

  Inverter 4F 513039

  10,446

  No

  20

  Jack airbrake 1650 99 733 9589

  9,392

  No

  21

  Fairing starboard 26VA 6057455

  10,680

  No

  22

  Standcocking 12A 9635240

  6,130

  No

  23

  Pump37S 11568

  18,495

  No

  24

  Indicator B 110Q 6274221

  8,187

  No

  25

  Shaft assembly port 26VA 6049508

  6,213

  No

  26

  HPU fuel pump 4320 12 1931468

  6,905

  No

  27

  Case 136MG 379347

  14,141

  No

  28

  Batteries and transmitter

  7,969

  Yes

  29

  Message processor and video receiver 1195 01 255823

  21,900

  Under investigation

  Letter from W. E. E. Boreham to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about stolen and unaccounted equipment and furniture, as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence police Agency.
  During the last twelve months I have identified the theft of one laptop computer, ten expandable batons, and one pair of handcuffs complete with pouch. The total value of the stolen equipment was some £2,290,00.

  Letter from P. R. Wildman to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or otherwise unaccounted for by his Department and its agencies as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Military Survey Defence Agency.
  One item of IT equipment has been stolen in the past twelve months with an estimated value of £500. No IT equipment was lost.
  A small number of miscellaneous items were lost during the past twelve months. All cases were investigated and where recovery was impracticable the items were written off. No item was valued at £5,000 or more.
  No thefts of furniture have been reported.
  This information is exclusive to Military Survey Defence Agency.

  Letter from A. J. Stables to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:

  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or otherwise unaccounted for during the past 12 months, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency.
  There have been 30 items of equipment and furniture stolen during the period, for which the total estimated value was £20,048. This includes a vehicle and its contents valued at £14,851.
  374
  Four items of information technology material valued at a total of £993 were unaccounted for, as were 378 other items of equipment and furniture valued at a total of £13,610. In addition, a number of low cost cutlery items with a total estimated value of £1,032 were also unaccounted for.

  Letter from W. H. J. Kelly to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) to reply to your Parliamentary Question, about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture stolen or otherwise unaccounted for during the past 12 months within the NRTA. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive in his absence.
  18 items of equipment have been reported as stolen in the past 12 months with an estimated total value of £2,896.84. Two of these items were furniture and one item was IT equipment. 101 items of equipment with an estimated value of £67,169.83 are unaccounted for, however, none of these had an individual value of £5,000 or more.
  I hope that this is helpful.

  Letter from David G. Wadsworth to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence seeking information about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that (a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for during the past 12 months, insofar as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Service Children's Schools Agency.
  During the past 12 months there have been 3 separate reported incidents of theft of equipment from schools within British Forces Germany. The stolen equipment comprised of 8 individual items of classroom based Information Technology equipment at a total estimated value of £5,400 and 3 individual items of classroom based audio visual aids at a total estimated value of £500. These incidents were investigated by the Royal Military Police; however none of these items have since been recovered.
  There has been no unaccounted losses to report against your point (b).

  Letter from M. I. Laurie to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning lost or stolen equipment as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as the Chief Executive of the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre.
  During the previous 12 months, three items of equipment have been stolen, with a total value of £3670. Two of these items were laptop computers valued at £1736 each.

  Letter from G. Jones to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the cost and numbers of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or otherwise unaccounted for from his Department and agencies during the past 12 months, as these matters fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency. Specifically, you asked for a listing, by name, of any such items valued at £5000 or more, with information technology material shown separately.
  During the last 12 months, 7 items, with a total value of £2848.10, have been unaccounted for at the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment. None of the items were information technology material.
  375
  Letter from R. V. Babington to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying in part to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about equipment and furniture that has been stolen or unaccounted for, in relation to my area of responsibility as the Chief Executive of the Ships Support Agency.
  In the last twelve months there have been four items of information technology material stolen, at a value of £800. Two items of information technology material have also been lost or damaged during an attempted theft, at a value of £900.

  Letter from John R. Prince to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about stolen and unaccounted items of equipment and furniture, as this matters falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Technical Support Agency (ATSA).
  From a capital asset base of approximately 10,000 lines, we have still to account for 2 items as follows:

  Item

  Value

  1 video camera

  1,000

  1 notebook computer

  1,000

  These are currently the subject of Ministry of Defence Police investigations. The asset base excludes furniture, which we do not generally account for as it tends to be of low value.

  Letter from P. D. Foxton to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on office equipment and furniture that has been stolen or otherwise unaccounted for during the last twelve months, for those areas that fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA).
  To the best of my knowledge, following enquiries throughout the whole of ABSDA, office equipment to the value of £305 remains unaccounted for, made up in the main of minor items such as calculators and mains adapters. There is no proof of theft and there have therefore, been no criminal prosecutions. There have been no instances of information technology material going missing.
  As a whole, office equipment in ABSDA, including information technology material, is well documented, highly visible and as a result, appropriately safeguarded.
  I hope this fully answers your query.

  Letter from J. R. Drew to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture stolen from, or unaccounted for by, his department and its agencies over the past 12 months. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Base Repair Organisation (ABRO), I am replying in respect of this agency.
  Thirteen items of IT equipment valued at £14,595 were written off in FY96/97. These were stolen in one incident at one of our Contract Repair Offices. This included a PC Server which originally cost £9,178. A full investigation by the police failed to shed any light on the burglary or the perpetrators and gave no prospect of recovery.
  There is no consolidated figure yet available for all stores losses in FY 96/97. The total amount written off in FY 95/96 for all reasons was £24,545 covering 211 individual items.
  376
  Letter from C. A. Gordon to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about losses and thefts of equipment and furniture form this Agency over the last 12 months, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Deputy Chief Executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation.
  Records are maintained of all equipment and furniture stolen, irreparably damaged or unaccounted for, but they do no invariably distinguish between these losses where the sums involved are small. Within these limits, the information you have requested is shown below. You may, however, like to note that a large number of the items included in the Damaged or Unaccounted For column are small items of cutlery etc of little intrinsic value.

  Numbers of items:

  Total

  Individual items valued at

  Stolen

  Damaged or unaccounted for

  value

  over £5000

  79

  1,960

  149,448

  (1) Victaulic pipe (£41,049)

  (2) 110v power tools (£10,143)

  (3) Night vision Goggles (£13,438

  (4) Digital master unit (£9,151)

  Included in the above are three items of IT equipment with a total value of £5243, which have all been stolen.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Letter from I. G. Mclntyre to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence/Her Majesty's Government about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or are otherwise unaccounted for during the last 12 months, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Dental Agency.
  Equipment and furniture lost or unaccounted for with the Defence Dental Agency is listed below:

  (a) Miscellaneous Medical/Dental Equipment items x 32 = £2561.87

  (b) Information Technology Material = £ NIL

  I hope this is of help.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I have been asked to reply, on behalf of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA), to your question asking for information about property stolen or otherwise unaccounted for during the last twelve months.
  DERA procedures identify two categories of equipment, items valued at more than £10,000 and items valued at less than £10,000. The responsibility for maintaining registers, safeguarding equipment and investigating any losses relating to items valued at less than £10,000 is devolved to a working level. There are more than 600 such registers kept within DERA. Items valued at more than £10,000 are recorded centrally, are routinely checked and any loss or damage investigation is notified centrally.
  No items valued at £10,000 or more have been reported centrally as lost, stolen or damaged during the past twelve months. Because of the devolved nature of the records held on equipment valued at less than £10,000 it has not been possible to collect this information in the time available.
  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful on this occasion.
  377
  Letter from Ron Smith to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the loss of equipment and furniture by Defence Agencies as this matter, in respect of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA), falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the DSCA.
  In the DSCA there were, in the last twelve months, 355 items unaccounted for to a total value of £11,644; of these, it is believed none were stolen. In addition, there were three items of IT equipment unaccounted for (total value £2,200) and six IT items which we believe were individually valued at £5K or over.

  Letter from W. E. Speadbury to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  In the absence on duty of the Chief Executive, I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen and are otherwise unaccounted for during the past 12 months.
  I am pleased to report that during this period no equipment or furniture has been stolen or is otherwise unaccounted for.

  Letter from F. A. Bush to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, about stolen and unaccounted for equipment and furniture, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Acting Chief Executive of the Defence Transport and Movements Executive Agency.
  During the last 12 months, we have identified the loss of 97 International Standards Organisation (ISO) containers, which are missing following operations over the past 4 years in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. Their value is approximately £174K and within this total there are 7 refrigerated containers, each valued at £5000 or more.

  Letter from B. E. Nimick to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have either been stolen or otherwise unaccounted for as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Medical Supplies Agency.
  No such equipment or furniture has been reported stolen or unaccounted for over the past 12 months.

  Letter from J. C R. Hunt to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that have been stolen or unaccounted for during the last 12 months, as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office.
  The type and value of equipment and furniture stolen from the Meteorological Office in the last year is as follows:

  Dell Pentium PC and network card valued at £2,000

  HP Laserjet 5 printer valued at £3,000

  Dell PC valued at £1,500

  Laptop stolen from employees' care valued at £2,000.

  No other items are unaccounted for.

  I hope this gives you the information you need.

  378
  Letter from Mr. S. R. Hill to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 27 February 1997:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost and number of items of equipment and furniture that (a) have been stolen and (b) are otherwise unaccounted for during the past 12 months, as this matter falls within my area of repsonsibility as Chief Executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO).

  2. Four items only have been stolen, amounting to a total value of £294.23.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in each of the past five years the royal yacht has been used for private journeys; where and by whom these journeys were made; and what payment for each voyage was received. [16911]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: During the past five years, Her Majesty's yacht Britannia has been used for private journeys on the following occasions:

  Dates

  Embarked

  From/to

  6–18 August 1992

  The Queen

  Portsmouth/Aberdeen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Duke of York

  The Princess Royal

  The Prince Edward

  5–16 August 1993

  The Queen

  Portsmouth/Aberdeen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Duke of York

  The Princess Royal

  The Prince Edward

  1994

  nil

  3–14 August 1995

  The Queen

  Portsmouth/Aberdeen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Prince Edward

  7– 17 August 1996

  The Queen

  Portsmouth/Aberdeen

  The Duke of Edinburgh

  The Princess Royal

  Captain Timothy

  Laurence

  The voyage in August 1995 included an official visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Oban. The voyage in August 1996 included an official visit by Her Majesty the Queen to Stranraer. Provision for HMY Britannia is currently made from defence votes, and payments are not made by individual users. Following the Government's decision to commission a replacement for Britannia, the Queen has indicated that she and other members of the royal family wish to make repayment on a basis to be agreed for any personal use made of the new royal yacht.

  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern whether a voyage made by the royal yacht is official or private. [16890]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 20 February 1997]: Official voyages by HMY Britannia include public duties, both royal and commercial, and her regular activities such as training. Private voyages are any that do not include public duties.

HEALTH

  Waiting Times
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each quarter since March 1988 the mean

  Estimated mean and median waiting times of patients on waiting lists for elective admission

  NHS hospitals, England

  Figures shown in days

  Ordinary admissions

  Day cases

  All cases

  Financial year

  Position on last day of

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  Mean

  Median

  1987–88

  March 1988

  295

  164

  219

  96

  281

  153

  1988–89

  June 1988

  300

  168

  217

  101

  285

  156

  September 1988

  302

  171

  219

  103

  287

  158

  December 1988

  298

  169

  218

  98

  283

  156

  March 1989

  300

  217

  97

  284

  156

  1989–90

  June 1989

  294

  166

  217

  96

  278

  152

  September 1989

  294

  166

  214

  98

  277

  153

  December 1989

  285

  212

  95

  269

  147

  March 1990

  279

  159

  205

  90

  263

  144

  1990–91

  June 1990

  276

  159

  202

  94

  260

  145

  September 1990

  273

  160

  196

  91

  256

  145

  December 1990

  257

  152

  189

  87

  242

  137

  March 1991

  248

  151

  172

  85

  230

  135

  1991–92

  June 1991

  247

  151

  173

  85

  229

  133

  September 1991

  237

  145

  178

  84

  222

  128

  December 1991

  211

  131

  150

  80

  195

  114

  March 1992

  170

  116

  119

  75

  197

  97

  1992–93

  June 1992

  166

  122

  121

  79

  153

  105

  September 1992

  163

  121

  121

  80

  151

  104

  December 1992

  157

  116

  119

  78

  145

  99

  March 1993

  149

  114

  115

  79

  138

  97

  1993–94

  June 1993

  156

  122

  120

  82

  144

  105

  September 1993

  158

  123

  124

  82

  146

  105

  December 1993

  158

  122

  125

  82

  146

  104

  March 1994

  151

  116

  122

  82

  140

  98

  1994–95

  June 1994

  154

  120

  122

  83

  141

  102

  September 1994

  152

  119

  121

  82

  139

  99

  December 1994

  147

  112

  117

  80

  134

  92

  March 1995

  134

  101

  108

  76

  122

  86

  1995–96

  June 1995

  136

  107

  110

  79

  124

  90

  September 1995

  134

  104

  107

  77

  122

  87

  December 1995

  130

  98

  104

  76

  118

  85

  March 1996

  122

  94

  99

  74

  111

  83

  1996–97

  June 1996

  127

  100

  105

  78

  116

  86

  September 1996

  130

  100

  106

  78

  118

  86

  Note:

  Ordinary cases are those involving an overnight stay.

  Source:

  Korner aggregate returns submitted from providers of hospital services in the NHS.

  Lariam
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, column 284, what research trials of Lariam have been carried out by (a) drug companies and (b) other bodies since 1990; and if the Medicines Control Agency has reviewed the results of those trials since that date. [17207]
  380
  and median waiting times for (a) in-patient admission to hospital, (b) day case treatment and (c) all admissions from waiting lists to hospital in England. [15446]

  Mr. Horam
  Estimated mean and median waiting times for patients waiting for treatment on an in-patient or day case basis and for all patients waiting at the end of each quarter since March 1988 are given in the table.

  Mr. Malone
  As stated in my reply of 13 February, information on research trials held by the Licensing Authority is confidential. The Medicines Control Agency evaluates the results of studies and other relevant data.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the contracts awarded by his
  381
  Department to (a) EDS, (b) Andersens, (c) BMI, (d) Capita and (e) Sema since 1992, and the broad function to be carried out by the contractor and the value of the contract in each case. [17613]

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  1996–97 £

  EDS

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  13,029.21

  Andersens

  nil

  nil

  nil

  36,783.87

  293.75

  BMI

  nil

  78.40

  246.75

  nil

  4.389.50

  Capita

  37,653.81

  62,971.10

  29,789.51

  1,815.38

  71,468.26

  Sema

  nil

  9,213.18

  52,628.25

  27,927.40

  nil

  Figures for 1991–92 can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Authority Social Services
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria he uses to assess the performance of local authority social services departments; if he will publish a list of social services departments ranked by their performance according to these criteria; and if he will make a statement. [17671]

  Mr. Burns
  We recently published "Better Value For Money in Social Services", a national overview of trends and costs in social services in England over the last decade or so. Copies are available in the Library. This report, together with other published data, should assist local authorities to assess their own efficiency to ensure their services give value for money. We do not define centrally criteria which would form a basis for the performance of individual social services departments to be measured and ranked. Performance indicators for all services provided by local authorities are published annually by the Audit Commission.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy in respect of public inquiries into the actions of social services departments in alleged cases of child neglect; and if he will make a statement. [17663]

  Mr. Burns
  Section 81 of the Children Act 1989 provides that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held into any matter connected with the social services committee of a local authority, in so far as those functions relate to children. Section 84 of the Children Act provides that if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that a local authority has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with any of the duties imposed under the Children Act, he may make an order declaring the authority to be in default with respect to that duty. The order may contain directions for the purpose of ensuring that the duty is complied with. It is unlikely that it would be appropriate to use section 84 to investigate an individual's case.

  Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 requires local authorities to act under the general guidance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the exercise of their social services functions. The guidance called "Working Together under the Children Act 1989" was issued under section 7. Part 8 of that guidance requires that, whenever an individual case involves an incident leading to the death of a child where child abuse is confirmed or suspected, or a child protection issue likely to be of major public concern
  382
  Mr. Horam
  Information regarding the numbers and nature of contracts awarded by this Department could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The total sums paid to those suppliers listed are as follows:

  arises, there should be an individual review by each agency and a composite review by the area child protection committee.

  Dental Services (Wandsworth)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified dentists provide national health service dental treatment in the London borough of Wandsworth. [17590]

  Mr. Malone
  One hundred and sixty-three dentists with practices in the London borough of Wandsworth were on the health authority list at 31 December 1996. This covers principal dentists, their assistants and vocational trainees.

  District Health Authorities (Purchasing)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the purchasing plans of district health authorities for 1997–98. [17680]

  Mr. Malone
  Regional offices of the national health service executive assess the purchasing plans of health authorities for consistency with national policies and priorities for the NHS, in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring his Department has undertaken of the purchasing policies of district health authorities. [17681]

  Mr. Malone
  Regional offices of the national health service executive manage health authorities' performance to ensure progress against national policies and priorities for the NHS, in the light of local circumstances.

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to lift the ban on relatives of CJD victims being blood donors. [17543]

  Mr. Horam
  There are no plans to alter the national blood service guidelines which exclude relatives of people who have suffered from Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease from giving blood. This exclusion is in line with Council of Europe guidelines. I should emphasise, however, that this is a precautionary measure only. There is no epidemiological evidence of transmission of CJD through blood or blood products.

  Influenza Immunisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report,

  383
  columns 73–74, (1) what percentage of those suffering from (a) chronic respiratory disease, (b) chronic heart disease, (c) kidney failure, (d) diabetes and (e) diseases and treatment suppressing the immune system were immunised against influenza in the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [17925]

  (2) what percentage of those in long-term residential care were vaccinated against influenza in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [17927]

  (3) what percentage of (a) nursing homes and (b) residential homes had their residents immunized against influenza in each of the last years for which figures are available. [17922]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally. The recommendations for influenza immunisation broadly outline the underlying diseases which put people at risk of serious illness should they develop influenza. However, it is ultimately for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned whether to offer vaccine to an individual patient. The doctor will take into account the likelihood of that patient developing a complication of influenza such as pneumonia, or of their underlying disease being aggravated, as in asthma. They will vary between patients. General practitioners are recommended to identify their patients who are likely to need influenza immunisation and order the vaccine as necessary; they are encouraged to increase the uptake of immunisation in their areas each year. Immunisation requirements for people in long-term residential care and nursing homes are determined locally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) general practitioners as a whole, (b) general practitioner fundholders, (c) general practitioner non-fundholders, (d) equity partners, (e) non-equity partners, (f) salaried assistants and (g) general practitioner registrars in vocational training were (i) male and (ii) female in each of the last five years. [17929]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. Information is not available on equity and non-equity partners.

  Hospital Travel Costs Scheme
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the number of claims received anc (b) the average fare reimbursed per claim under the hospital travel costs scheme in the most recent year for which figures are available. [17913]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Elderly Care Costs
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the costs to local authorities of(a) care assessment and (b) care management for services for elderly people for each year since 1989–90 for which information is available. [17824]
  384
  Mr. Burns
  For 1994–95, the latest year for which information is available, the figures of total local authority expenditure on care assessment/care management for elderly people may be found in table 6 of the statistical bulletin "Personal Social Services current and capital expenditure in England: 1994–95", copies of which are available in the Library. Separate data on care assessment and care management, and expenditure data for these services for elderly people in earlier years are not available.

  Food Poisoning
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many laboratory reports of salmonella in foodstuffs were provided to the public health laboratory service in England and Wales in each year since the introduction of the new reporting system; what is the number to date in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [17653]

  Mr. Horam
  The figures are given in the following table.

  Salmonella

  England and Wales annual totals—human food isolates

  Year

  Total

  1991

  1,937

  1992

  1,098

  1993

  859

  1994

  2,076

  1995

  981

  1996

  1,002

  19971

  69

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service—Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens.

  Notes:

  1 Up to 21 February.

  1. Salmonella figures encompass the identification of salmonellas from samples taken by environmental health officers as part of their routine inspection and sampling procedures and salmonellas found in foodstuffs sampled in structured food surveys and also salmonellas identified in foodstuffs investigated following an outbreak of clinical illness.

  2. The new reporting system was introduced in January 1992 when data from the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre and the Central Public Health Laboratory were combined to produce the PHLS Salmonella Common Data Set and also when the new outbreak reporting system for gastro-intestinal disease commenced. Neither of these could have changed practices in relation to laboratory reports on Salmonella in foodstuffs.

  3. The figures cover isolates referred to the Laboratory of Enteric Pathogens by both PHLS and non-PHLS laboratories for confirmation and typing.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many laboratory reports of(a) E. coli and (b) listeria in foodstuffs were provided to the public health laboratory service in England and Wales in each year since 1979. [17654]

  Mr. Horam
  The figures are given in the following table:
  385

  Listeria monocytogenes and escherichia coli 0157 England and Wales annual totals Human food isolates

  Year

  Listeria monocytogenes1

  VT producing E. coli 0157

  1979

  0

  —

  1980

  0

  —

  1981

  0

  —

  1982

  0

  —

  1983

  0

  —

  1984

  0

  —

  1985

  0

  —

  1986

  2

  —

  1987

  473

  —

  1988

  639

  —

  1989

  1,405

  —

  1990

  1,193

  —

  1991

  1,621

  0

  1992

  445

  13

  1993

  467

  8

  1994

  507

  18

  1995

  350

  13

  1996

  349

  78

  19972

  3

  0

  Source:

  Public Health Laboratory Service.

  Notes:

  1 Figures include isolates referred to the PHLS by non-PHLS laboratories.

  2 Figures on Listeria monocytogenes are up to 24 February, figures on Verocytotoxin-producing E. coli 0157 are up to 21 February.

  1. Surveys of cheeses and pate were undertaken in the late 1980s and early 1990s to assess the problems of contamination and have been repeated in more recent years to assess the improvements in the microbiological quality of such foodstuffs.

  2. The first human isolation of E. coli 0157 in England and Wales was made in 1982 and no food isolation was made by the PHLS until 1992.

  Hospitals (Military Personnel)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent medically qualified military personnel are used in NHS hospitals. [16230]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Secondary Care Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  General Government expenditure in Wales and the UK, 1994–95

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  Wales as percentage

  £ billion

  Percentage share of GGE

  £ billion

  Percentage share of GGE

  of UK

  (i) Identifiable

  12.3

  78.7

  219.6

  74.3

  5.6

  of which:

  Welsh Office

  6.4

  41.1

  Social Security

  5.1

  32.9

  89.2

  30.2

  (ii) Non-identifiable (estimated)

  1.7

  11.2

  40.2

  13.6

  4.4

  (iii) Other (estimated)

  1.6

  10.1

  35.7

  12.1

  4.4

  of which:

  Debt interest

  1.0

  6.3

  22.5

  7.6

  Total GGE (excluding privatisation

  proceeds)

  15.6

  100.0

  295.5

  100.0

  5.3

  Privatisation proceeds

  -0.3

  -6.3

  4.2

  Total GGE (including privatisation

  proceeds)

  15.3

  289.2

  5.3

  GDP (1994)

  4.2

  Population (1994)

  5.0

  Source:

  Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales, 1994–95.
  386
  Letter from Mr. Ron Smith to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 27 February 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the extent to which medically qualified military personnel are used in the NHS as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA).
  Amongst the hospitals which comprise the DSCA, three Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs) at Peterborough, Frimley Park near Camberley and Derriford, Plymouth are situated in NHS Trust hospitals. The MDHUs and their military staff are not separate from the civilian hospitals but fully integrated in the day-to-day business of patient care. A total of 504 medically qualified staff work in the MDHUs. In addition, a further 90 military medical personnel from the DSCA and other parts of the Defence Medical Services are currently seconded to NHS hospitals for specialist training.

WALES

  Fiscal Deficit and Government Expenditure
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what was the fiscal deficit in Wales for the most recent year available; [17866]

  (2) what was the gross Government expenditure in Wales broken down into (a) identifiable, (b) unidentifiable and (c) other expenditure in the last year for which figures are available. [17872]

  Mr. Hague
  The latest available information for Wales is shown in the tables:

  The "fiscal deficit" in Wales and the UK, 1994–95

  Wales

  United Kingdom

  Wales as percentage of UK

  General Government

  expenditure (£ billion)

  15.6

  295.5

  5.3

  General Government

  revenue (£ billion)

  9.9

  247.6

  4.0

  General Government

  borrowing requirement

  (£ billion)

  5.7

  47.9

  11.9

  GGBR as percentage of

  GDP

  20

  7

  Source:

  Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales, 1994–95.

  Tax
  Mr. Richards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much tax was raised in Wales broken down by(a) income tax, (b) VAT, (c) corporation tax and (d) other tax in the last year for which figures are available.[17873]

  Mr. Hague
  The latest available information for Wales is shown in the table:

  The estimate for corporation tax, which is not shown separately in the table, is £924 million.

  Estimated General Government Receipts in Wales 1994–95

  United Kingdom £ billion

  Welsh estimates £ billion

  Estimated share of UK Per cent.

  Income tax

  63.1

  2.2

  3.5

  Social security

  contributions

  42.1

  1.8

  4.2

  Value added tax

  41.8

  1.7

  4.1

  Local authority

  revenues

  22.4

  0.6

  2.9

  All other revenues

  78.2

  3.5

  4.5

  Total

  247.6

  9.9

  4.0

  Source:

  Government Expenditure and Revenue—Wales, 1994–95.

  Motorways
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many kilometres of motorway are currently(a) open, (b) under construction, (c) planned in Wales, (i) as new motorway or (ii) as existing motorway being widened. [17275]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Some 126 km of M4 motorway is open; no new motorway is under construction; The M4 Magor-Coldra widening has been completed, although final surfacing is to be carried out in April; 24.2 km of new motorway is planned; 12.7 km of existing motorway is to be widened.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been raised from the sale of council houses in Wales since 1979; what percentage of this money is still held in reserve by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [17132]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  At 31 March 1996, the total amount raised by local authorities from the sale of council houses since the inception of the right to buy scheme in 1981 was £993 million. It is not possible from local authority returns to separate the amounts held in reserve from the sale of council houses from other capital receipts held in the housing revenue account. Capital receipts held in the housing revenue account at 31 March 1996, both set aside against credit liabilities and usable-as defined in section 60 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989—totalled £246 million.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the recent outbreak of meningitis C in Nefyn, Gwynedd. [17592]
  388
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the two cases of meningococcal septicaemia in Nefyn Gwynedd, whether appropriate control measures have been adopted by North Wales health authority to prevent the further spread of infection.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 February,Official Report, columns 91–92, how many investigations are currently proceeding in each health authority into allegations of transfer by multiple pharmacies from one pharmacy for processing in another health authority to maximize payments of professional allowances. [17921]

  Mr. Hague
  Inquiries made of health authorities in Wales indicate that one such investigation is under way.

  Influenza Immunisation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what percentage of(a) nursing homes and (b) residential homes had their residents immunized against influenza in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [17923]

  (2) what percentage of those suffering from (a) chronic respiratory disease, (b) chronic heart disease, (c) kidney failure, (d) diabetes and (e) diseases and treatment suppressing the immune system were immunised against influenza in the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [17924]

  (3) what percentage of those in long-term residential care were vaccinated against influenza in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [17926]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sole practitioner GPs there were in the Welsh NHS in each of the last five years; and what proportion they constituted of the aggregate GP work force in Wales. [17914]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is shown in the table:

  Single handed practitioners

  Percentage of unrestricted principles who are single handed

  October 1992

  126

  7.5

  October 1993

  129

  7.6

  October 1994

  130

  7.6

  October 1995

  130

  7.6

  March 1996

  129

  7.5

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the relative outcomes of treatments carried out by GPs in group practice who (i) have and (ii) do not have personal lists. [17917]
  389
  Mr. Hague
  While there are a number of research projects in primary care, there are none which address this topic.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of(a) general practitioners as a whole, (b) general practitioner fundholders, (c) general practitioner non-fundholders, (d) equity partners,

  Total GPs1

  Equity partners

  Non-equity partners

  Assistants

  Trainees

  Male

  align="right">Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  October 1992

  77.4

  22.6

  79.4

  20.6

  60.0

  40.0

  54.2

  45.8

  57.9

  42.1

  October 1993

  76.3

  23.7

  78.5

  21.5

  36.4

  63.6

  50.0

  50.0

  55.6

  44.4

  October 1994

  74.4

  25.6

  76.7

  23.3

  55.6

  44.4

  45.0

  55.0

  47.5

  52.5

  October 1995

  74.4

  25.6

  75.9

  24.1

  58.3

  41.7

  60.0

  40.0

  54.8

  45.2

  March 1996

  73.1

  26.9

  75.3

  24.7

  70.0

  30.0

  40.7

  59.3

  43.6

  56.4

  1Unrestricted principals, restricted principals, assistants and trainees.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of general practitioners in group practices maintained personal lists in each of the last five years; and what proportion this was of the aggregate general practitioner work force. [17918]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  European Summit (Cardiff)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State of Wales what arrangements he has made with the Cardiff county council for assistance with refurbishment works at(a) Cardiff city hall, (b) Cardiff Central station and (c) other areas of essential infrastructure in preparation for the European summit conference in June 1998; and if he will make a statement. [17915]

  Mr. Hague
  I have allocated under the Welsh capital challenge scheme £1.5 million to Cardiff county council for the refurbishment of the city hall as well as a further £2 million for improvements to Cardiff central square. My officials are in discussions with the county council about these and other projects which will improve the city centre for the European Council in June 1998.

SCOTLAND

  Data Collection (Postcodes)
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what use his Department and its agencies make of postcode areas for the collection of data and in formulas for the distribution of grants and awards; and when such usages were last reviewed. [14807]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:
  390
  (e) non-equity partners, (f) salaried assistants and (g) general practitioner registrars in vocational training were (i) male and (ii) female in each of the last five years. [17928]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is shown in the table. Data for general practitioner fundholders and non-fundholders are not centrally available by gender.

  Collection of data:

  Postcodes are used for collating data in the following cases:
  compilation of the Scottish Register of Employment, a register of manufacturing units in Scotland with 11 or more employees;
  analysis of further education college students by geographical origin—eg Scottish, rest of UK;
  as a building block by general register office in the collection of statistics on vital events and in the census of population.

  In general, statistical surveys conducted by the Scottish Office will incorporate post code units as a geographic indicator. These will be used primarily to aggregate the data into higher order statistics—eg local authorities.

  Distribution of grants:

  For the purpose of rural grant schemes, the definition of rural Scotland relies to some extent on post code sectors. The definition is used with the proviso that people can still apply for grants if their locality is distinctly rural even if, by the arbitrary application of post codes, their area is classed as urban. Rural grants schemes are currently under review.

  Although support to local authorities is not distributed on the basis of postcode areas, some limited data, originally collected by other departments and agencies by postcode area and then aggregated to local authority units by the Scottish Office, are used in the calculation of certain grant-aided expenditure assessments. Such processes are continually reviewed by the Department and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

  Motorways
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many kilometres of motorway are currently(a) open, (b) under construction and (c) planned in Scotland (i) as new motorway and (ii) as existing motorway being widened. [17267]
  391
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, 449 kilometres of motorway are open, 2 kilometres are under construction, 79 kilometres of new motorway are planned and 2 kilometres of existing motorway are planned to be widened.

  Road Markings and Signposting
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to improve road markings and signposting; and if he will make a statement. [17362]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The placing and maintenance of road signs and markings is the responsibility of the traffic authority—in Scotland, the local traffic authority for local roads, and the Scottish Office Development Department on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland for trunk roads and motorways. The signs and markings used are required to conform with regulations, principally the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions—TSRGD—1994, made jointly by the Secretaries of State for Transport, for Scotland and for Wales, or to be specially authorised by the Secretary of State. The Department of Transport is currently preparing a statutory instrument to amend the TSRGD to include new sign designs in response to changing traffic management needs and techniques. Work is also in hand to update the joint guidance published by the three Departments on the correct design and use of signs.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the financial memorandums which govern the payments made to owners and occupiers of SSSFs who have notified Scottish Natural Heritage of intent to damage an SSSI, to ensure greater value for money. [17489]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government plan to issue a consultation paper on a Great Britain basis later this year on possible changes to the financial guidelines for management agreements in SSSIs.

  Electronic Tagging
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the expenditure on electronic tagging in Scotland to date. [17692]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There has been no expenditure on electronic tagging in Scotland. Expenditure on pilot projects will not commence until such time as the relevant provisions of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill have been enacted.
  392

  Holocaust Denial
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the policy of the Lord Advocate in respect of the prosecution of holocaust denial material. [17540]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that he has no policy specifically directed to the prosecution of holocaust denial material. In relation to any police reports containing allegations of holocaust denial, the Crown will follow the same approach as it does with other allegations of criminal conduct. The decision whether to take proceedings, and the nature of any proceedings, will be determined by an assessment of the available evidence and the public interest, having regard to the whole circumstances of the offence. Proceedings could be taken only where there is sufficient evidence that (1) the person who published or distributed the "holocaust denial material" intended thereby to stir up racial hatred or, having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred was likely to be stirred up thereby, and (2) the material was threatening, abusive or insulting.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many prosecutions relating to holocaust denial material there have been in Scotland in each year since 1979; [17541]

  (2) how many prosecutions there have been for incitement to racial hatred in Scotland since 1979. [17542]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate informs me that the information requested is not available.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Written Questions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1), pursuant to his answer of 18 February,Official Report, columns 535–36, if he will list the reasons for the records on the costs of answering parliamentary questions not being retained; and if he will make a statement; [17593]

  (2), pursuant to his oral answer of 20 February, Official Report, column 1054, if he will list the 10 questions which cost the most to answer since 1989; which hon. Members asked them; and what was the cost. [17594]

  Mr. Newton
  There is no arrangement for systematically estimating the cost of answering every individual parliamentary question.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chichester.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Guardsmen Wright and Fisher: Sentences
Lord Westbury Lord Westbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they intend to consider further the case for releasing Guardsman M. Wright and Guardsman J. Fisher, both of whom are at present in prison in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, the terms of Mr. Justice Girvan's recent judgment require the cases of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright to be looked at afresh and for new information to be obtained and taken into account. The necessary information for the review is being gathered. Once it is received the cases will be considered as expeditiously as possible consistent with the terms of the judgment.
Lord Westbury: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, is she aware that those two soldiers have now been in prison for four-and-a-half years?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that I am aware of that. I well understand the sentiments that induced him to table the Question; but it would be wrong of me to comment on the detail of the cases before the fresh review has been completed.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness and her department have considerable sympathy with the view that if a soldier goes on duty to aid the civil power in all good faith, with no malice aforethought, but commits a split-second error of judgment with tragic consequences—even if the act of pointing a rifle under intense pressure legally constitutes intent—at the end of the day he should serve a sentence more commensurate with unlawful killing or manslaughter than the ghastly crime of murder? Is it not clear that such a sentence has already been served by Guardsmen Fisher and Wright?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the guardsmen were tried by an independent prosecuting authority. The facts of the case were carefully and independently considered and then adjudicated upon by the court. The court held that the soldiers had no lawful justification for firing at the deceased. In those circumstances there is no alternative but to impose a
1272
mandatory sentence. The law does not permit a court to impose a discretionary sentence for someone convicted of murder.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, are not the facts these? The deceased was aged 18 and unarmed; the two soldiers were convicted in February 1995; the application for judicial review was upheld as recently as last December. Is not the proper course as the Minister indicated; namely, that the Life Sentence Review Board should be asked to do its work as the lawfully constituted authority?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that it is important that the law runs its course. The review will be completed as expeditiously as possible.
Lord Rees: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that two soldiers previously convicted in similar circumstances were released within four years? Will she recognise also—I know she must feel slightly inhibited today—that the country will require clear points of distinction if the guardsmen are not given an expeditious hearing? As my noble friend said, they have already served four-and-a-half years in confinement.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, every case is reviewed individually and there will be an outcome to the review as soon as possible.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does not this case provide yet another example of how undesirable the mandatory life sentence is? Does it not indicate that it is high time we made the life sentence a discretionary one so that it might be tailored to the gravity of a specific offence?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will be as aware as I am—if not more—that as a result of a House of Lords judgment in the case of Private Clegg the Home Secretary announced a review of the law of murder. It was concluded that the case against change outweighed that in favour.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is not the Minister aware that, following the early stages of the police initiative, some people in southern and Northern Ireland who have committed cold blooded, premeditated murder against the security forces and in many cases of civilians are now walking free? Why has not the same policy been extended to the two guardsmen who nobody can prove acted with any malice?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, the Government are well aware that finding a peaceful solution to the situation in Northern Ireland is the key to a resolution of all these issues. But that should not he outside the law.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, can the noble Baroness be more specific in relation to the two guardsmen? The fact is that Privates Thain and Clegg were released after three years' imprisonment; Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, whose cases are similar, have been confined for more than four years. We all know the awkwardness of pursuing soldiering duties. The soldiers should surely be given the same treatment as the first two privates.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, we aim to ensure that the law and its protection is extended to all citizens. Again, I stress that it is wrong to comment on the detail before the review is completed. The law will run its course.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, when Private Clegg was released in July 1995 my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place said that it was a judicial matter and must remain so. Can my noble friend give the House assurances that the same will apply in these two instances?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I am pleased to reassure my noble friend and the House that the Government accept the rule of law and that judicial matters are judicial matters.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, in view of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, said, and truly said, about the state of the law and in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, and truly said, when will something be done about the state of the law?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: My Lords, I bear many responsibilities in my post but that I would willingly delegate to others.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. Perhaps we ought to move on.

Mental Health Services
3.10 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the time needed to implement any of the options for changes to the mental health services as outlined in the Green Paper, what measures they
1274
intend in response to the concerns expressed in the reports by Sir David Goldberg and the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, published in January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, the report's findings do not come as a surprise, as many of the concerns raised had already been addressed through policy initiatives such as the publication of Spectrum of Care which advised health authorities on a range of services needed to provide a comprehensive mental health service.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. But is she not aware that situation is causing grave concern to a number of organisations specifically involved in this area, notably the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, to which I am indebted for the briefing? It has informed me that, despite being a priority service, funding is inadequate and staff shortages and recruitment problems are rife in the service and that steps could be taken without waiting for the results of the Green Paper, which I gather we are expecting in due course.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I appreciate the concern. London tends to attract mentally ill people in larger numbers. We have specifically ensured that London has an increase in funding to deal with this problem. Overall in the current year we have allocated an additional £95 million to the whole of the country. Some of that will go to London. We have reorganised the allocation system so that it is weighted towards London. We have also seen an increase in the number of community psychiatric nurses, psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, does the Minister accept that a bad situation in London has been made worse by the closure of 2,000 acute sector beds since 1992? I must declare an interest as a member of the London commission which published one of the reports referred to in the Question. Surely the Department of Health could take short-term measures, partly in allowing there to be a moratorium on the closure of more acute beds and also on building on some of the good practice which is referred to in the NAHAT report, particularly about the formation of community mental health teams.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I appreciate the points the noble Baroness has made. We are seeing an increase in the number of beds staffed by nurses on a 24-hour basis. Two hundred have been introduced in the current year and there is more funding for next year. The noble Baroness is right. We need more mental health teams. Five new ones have been established in London in the past year or so. The position is well under control. When the Green Paper is put into action, I am sure that will also improve the services.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, is the noble Baroness prepared to consider the proposal of the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts that the mental health component of the allocation of funds to local authorities should be ring-fenced to stop them being drained away into other uses?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, that is the position with the homeless mentally ill initiative, which goes to local authorities. Indeed, £23 million has gone into London. That has supported the outreach teams. Ten hostels and 180 units of permanent move-on accommodation have also been developed.

Israel: Oslo Agreements
3.14 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are their views on the implementation of the Oslo Agreements, in particular on access to and freedom of movement between the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and Israel.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we continue to press for the full implementation of all existing agreements. I hope that the parties will make swift and concrete progress in tackling outstanding issues from the interim agreement, including safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank for Palestinian workers and goods.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and I welcome the visit to London of President Weizman. But what are Her Majesty's Government doing to prevent the fragmentation of the West Bank by Israeli roadblocks, the separation and division of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza and the hemming in of East Jerusalem by a ring of illegal settlements, of which Har Homa is the latest?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have made representations over many months on each and all of these points. At our suggestion the European Union special envoy, Ambassador Moratinos, is carrying out with the Israeli authorities and the Palestinians a rapid study of the problems facing the Palestinians, particularly with regard to their economy. It is urgent that this is done. A constructive dialogue is going on on how to lift the barriers while safeguarding Israel's need for security. These matters have also been mentioned in discussions with President Weizman during what has been a happy and successful State visit this week to this country.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following the totally unacceptable decision by the Israeli Government yesterday to extend Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem, thereby jeopardising the peace process, can the Minister tell the House what use the Government and our European Union partners now intend to make
1276
of the association agreement, which went through this House last week, to put pressure on the Israeli Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the fact that we now have an association agreement is a very good further vehicle besides the work that Ambassador Moratinos has started. The noble Baroness may have noticed that the Foreign Secretary made a Statement about Har Homa yesterday in which we made the Government's view absolutely clear—that all settlement building in the occupied territories remains against international law. That is particularly true in the sensitive case of Jerusalem. I agree with the noble Baroness. It risks damaging the peace process by pre-empting the final stages of negotiations.
But it is not enough to criticise. We have to use every avenue at our disposal to persuade the Israeli Government not to proceed with these plans. They will only detract from the positive atmosphere that was established by the Hebron agreement and the Israeli Government will, if they go ahead with these plans, undermine the establishment of that vital trust which will be necessary for the further negotiations with the Palestinians to be concluded successfully. We hope that the Israeli authorities will take account of the views, genuinely meant, of their friends and suspend this decision.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any difficulties in getting ODA humanitarian assistance into Gaza, as has happened in the past?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we had problems at the end of last year and at the beginning of this year. However, I am glad to say that, following a meeting I had with senior Israeli officials and with UNRWA on my visit to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority in January this year, we now have a system of taking up with the Israeli authorities any of the impediments to the passage of goods or staff seeking to help bring about peace, which is so urgently needed in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned requests made to the Government of Israel and she herself has had conversations with them. Can she tell the House whether any assurances have been obtained following those requests?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is difficult to turn round quickly decisions taken by the Government of another sovereign country. What I see is a change in the attitude of the authorities on some of the issues which we have raised with them. By no means have we solved all the problems we encounter—and the Palestinians certainly encounter major problems—but there is now a willingness and a method of working which frankly did not exist before the Foreign Secretary made his visit to Israel and to the Palestinian Authority in November last year.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, Part I
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu Baroness Mallalieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the Carl Bridgewater murder appeal, they will review Part I of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, limiting disclosure of material by prosecution and defence, before it comes into effect.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): No, my Lords. We consider that the provisions of Part I of the Act are sufficient to ensure that material which points away from the accused is disclosed to him. In particular, although I cannot comment on the substance of the appeal in the Carl Bridgewater case, we consider that the material relating to the disputed confession, together with the material relating to the fingerprint evidence, would have been required to have been disclosed under Part I of the Act.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she confirm the report in today's press that her colleague in another place, the Home Secretary, has agreed to alter the requirement under the Act that material should only be retained for a period of three years and that it should now be retained for the full period of somebody's sentence? Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. In view of serious concerns, both public and within the legal profession, that once the provisions of the Act are implemented we shall be taking a step back to the bad old days when the prosecution alone determined what material the defence would see, will she consider at the very least not bringing that part of the Act into force until after the hearing of the Carl Bridgewater appeal and any judgment that the court may give in it, so that any lessons from what seems to be yet another serious miscarriage of justice can at least be taken into account before we change the law and put the clock back?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may take the second point first. There is no question of returning to what the noble Baroness referred to as "the bad old days". There is also no question that the prosecutor alone is going to be the determinant of what shall be disclosed. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that Section 3 of Part I of the Act provides that the prosecutor must disclose to the accused any prosecution material which the prosecutor thinks might undermine the prosecution case and at the same time must give the accused a schedule listing all prosecution material which is not sensitive contained within Section 4. But in response—and this is the important point—the accused must disclose the general nature of the case, the matters on which he takes issue with the prosecution and the reasons for that defence. The defence disclosure is mandatory in the Crown Court, but voluntary, of course, in the magistrates' court. That is covered by Sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
1278
In response to a defence disclosure, the prosecutor must disclose any additional prosecution material which might reasonably assist the defence that has been disclosed. That is Section 7. Material which does not undermine the prosecution case or assist the defence as disclosed in the defence statement does not need to be disclosed. Between the schedule and what must be disclosed, everything is made available to the defence.
As regards the first point that the noble Baroness made, she is right. In fact, a Parliamentary Question has been put down to the effect that my right honourable friend is minded to change the code of practice and will bring it to Parliament before too long. The police will be required to retain material at least until the end of the trial and then, in the event of a conviction, either until the convicted person is released from custody or discharged from hospital (if the court imposes a custodial sentence or a hospital order) or until six months from the date of conviction if the court imposes a non-custodial sentence.
Where a convicted person is given a short custodial sentence and would be released within six months of conviction, material would still have to be retained for at least six months. If an appeal is in progress at the end of one of these periods or an application is being considered by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the period will be extended until the appeal is concluded or the commission makes a decision on the application.
It is worth recording for the purposes of this Question that all the material was kept by the police in this particular case and it will be material to the appeal which is yet to be heard. In some of the more high profile and celebrated cases of recent times, again the police kept all the material and evidence to be available to the appeal court.

Delay in the Criminal Justice System: Review
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I wish to make a Statement about improving the speed of justice in England and Wales. The Home Secretary is making a similar Statement in another place.
Confidence in any criminal justice system relies on its ability to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent and to do so quickly. Over the past three years the Government have taken action to even up the scales of justice. At the same time, we have taken action to speed up our criminal justice process. And progress has been made. In the Crown Court waiting lists fell by one-fifth last year, and the number of cases outstanding has been reduced by a quarter. At magistrates' courts the proportion of summary only cases completed at first appearance reached 76 per cent. last year—10 per cent. more than 1995.
But more needs to be done. Although the number of indictable cases coming before the magistrates' courts fell by 11 per cent. between 1985 and 1995, the average number of days taken to complete a case

1279
from the date of offence increased by 36 per cent. from 98 to 132 days and the number of adjournments increased by 44 per cent. Entirely proper safeguards for defendants, such as advance information and the reforms introduced in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, have made the process more complex. But on top of this an adjournment culture has developed.
That is why, last autumn, my right honourable friends the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and I decided to set up a fundamental review of the speed of justice. The review has now been concluded and today we are publishing its report and placing copies in the Library. The Government see merit in it and propose to invite interested parties to express their views. They will reach decisions in due course having considered those views. The report makes 33 recommendations. One of them is now largely superfluous, the four senior designated judges and I having yesterday approved—subject to certain restrictions—the Law Society application for rights of audience for employed solicitors in the higher courts. This meets the review's proposal that employed solicitors in the CPS should be granted rights of audience for plea and directions hearings at the Crown Court.
The report's remaining recommendations fall into five main areas. The first deals with bringing alleged offenders to court. Considerable improvements have been made in recent years in the relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Abbreviated files for guilty pleas dramatically reduce police paperwork. Joint performance management and CPS lawyer surgeries in police stations are delivering improvements. But the business of getting cases ready for court still falls into two distinct halves: police preparation of the file and the review of the file by the Crown Prosecution Service. The report recommends that these two halves should be brought together. Some CPS staff should be brought into police stations on a permanent basis to work with the police in what would visibly be a joint effort in bringing offenders to justice. The independence of the CPS would still be preserved, but independence does not require isolation.
The decision to prosecute would still be subject to two tests: whether the evidence was sufficient, and whether prosecution was in the public interest. But the report recommends a change to the CPS public interest test, which currently allows a case to be discontinued if the alleged offence is minor or the likely penalty trivial. This change would assist chief constables to target particular crimes, often of an anti-social nature, which in themselves would not necessarily be regarded as serious but which can make life a misery for innocent people, creating conditions which encourage more serious crime to flourish.
One significant cause of delay at present is that the time taken by defendants to obtain legal aid means that cases cannot be brought to court immediately after charge. The report recommends that all those defendants who intend pleading guilty should obtain legal advice and representation from the duty solicitor at court. This would be free of charge. It would also be extremely prompt, being given on the morning of the day on which
1280
the court appearance takes place. This would mean that defendants who pleaded guilty would be dealt with the day after they were charged. The effect would be dramatic: for more than half of all defendants charged the proceedings could now be completed the next day compared with under 3 per cent. now.
Where a defendant pleads not guilty, an application for legal aid would be made in the normal way, but it would have to be made promptly. The report recommends that courts should insist that defendants who fail to take adequate steps to secure representation or legal aid should have to use the duty solicitor in court that day unless they decide not to be represented.
Next, the report recommends that those pleading not guilty should also appear in court the day after charge at an early administrative hearing, to be conducted by the Clerk to the Justices. At this hearing the defendant would be told what the court needs in order to consider eligibility for legal aid and also about the nature of the forthcoming proceedings. These hearings have been shown substantially to reduce adjournments.
The report also recommends that clerks to the justices should hold pre-trial reviews and be given additional administrative powers very similar to those they already have in family proceedings. Pre-trial reviews would focus issues of dispute between the parties, so that cases are fully prepared for trial before they are put to magistrates. The principle should be that a case should not go before magistrates until it is ready to proceed and should then proceed without unnecessary adjournment. No one reading the report could fail to be impressed by the evidence from one pre-trial review, completed in one morning and observed by the reviewer, which obviated the need for no fewer than 15 police officers to attend future hearings. But I want to stress that the intention behind extending clerks' powers would be to reinforce the lay magistracy which has been described, quite rightly, as a cornerstone of our system of justice. There has been some speculation in the press about stripping magistrates of some of their current powers. The reviewer makes no such recommendation and had he done so, we would have rejected it.
The next area concerns the Youth Court. The proposals I have already described for joint working between the police and the CPS and for legal aid reform would in themselves bring offenders to justice at the Youth Court much more quickly. In addition, the report makes recommendations specific to the Youth Court. The most important of these is that 17 year-olds should be returned to the jurisdiction of the adult court leaving the Youth Court to deal more promptly with offenders of school-leaving age and below. It was the near unanimous verdict of all those interviewed by the reviewer that 17 year-old offenders are too sophisticated for the Youth Court where they account for about a third of all cases. They tend to be more experienced offenders and are often disruptive and unco-operative. The second recommendation is that the police should make the decision whether to caution or to charge an offender immediately, rather than (as frequently happens now) refer the case for advice to a multi-agency panel. If there is any doubt, the case should go to the Youth Court. If the court decides that a caution might be appropriate

1281
it should be able to give one and, where it sees fit, attach conditions to the caution, such as compensation or reparation to the victim. Young offenders would then be in court within days of being caught, rather than, as is frequently the case now, many weeks later.
Finally, the review makes recommendations about cases which go to the Crown Court. About 20 per cent. of all those tried in the Crown Court—about 24,000 defendants each year—insist on being tried there despite magistrates having previously decided the case was more suitable for them to deal with. About two-thirds of those defendants then plead guilty at the Crown Court. About three-quarters are found guilty. The reviewer recommends that it should be for magistrates to take the decision as to which cases triable either in magistrates' courts or the Crown Court, such as theft, handling stolen goods or burglary, need to be committed to the higher court. Those seeking Crown Court trial without good reason, perhaps simply to delay proceedings, would no longer be able to overrule the magistrates' view that they should try the case. On the other hand, defendants with a good reason for jury trial—because of the complexity of the case, because they were defending an unblemished reputation or because of the potential effect of a conviction on the individual—would be able to present those reasons to magistrates who would be free to commit the case. This is not a new idea. It builds on a very similar recommendation made in 1993 by the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice. It recognised the need for a more rational basis for distributing cases between the courts; and it noted that in Scotland the decision on whether a defendant should be entitled to jury trial is made by the prosecutor.
I recognise that that recommendation is especially sensitive since any proposal to restrict the availability of jury trial is bound to arouse strong feelings. Jury trial is a central feature of our system of justice and one to which the Government are entirely committed. We would not wish to restrict it without very careful thought. On the other hand, the report's recommendation offers substantial advantages. It would divert from the Crown Court cases—often of a petty nature—which do not need to be there. It would also make it easier to pursue another of the report's recommendations, also favoured by the Royal Commission, under which the most serious offences, those triable only at the Crown Court, could be handled more effectively and more speedily, by starting there from the outset rather than spending about half their life in magistrates' courts awaiting committal. We will want to consider both these recommendations particularly carefully in the light of views expressed. If other avenues of approach are suggested, we will of course consider them. There may, for example, need to be a right of appeal against the magistrates' decision not to allow a case to go to the Crown Court. And of course anyone convicted by magistrates would, as now, have a right of appeal against conviction or sentence to a judge (but not a jury) at the Crown Court.
1282
These are important proposals. More work needs to be done on the extent of the financial implications and the Government want to listen to the views of those who work in the criminal justice system on both the principles and the practicality of the recommendations before making decisions. But I am confident that, taken together, they could dramatically speed up the prosecution process, bringing the guilty to justice and acquitting the innocent more quickly and at lower cost.
Let me remind your Lordships what these proposals would achieve if implemented. First, all defendants would appear in court the day after they were charged. Fewer than one in five do so now. Secondly, a pilot study has indicated that at least 50 per cent. of those defendants, those who indicate they would plead guilty, would be convicted the day after they were charged. That happens in only 3 per cent. of cases now. Thirdly, the time taken to bring a young offender to court from the date of his offence, currently 10 weeks, would be no more than a few days. This would save the valuable time of all those engaged in the criminal justice process, including witnesses and victims. It would help to ensure that the energies of police officers could be spent protecting the public, rather than going backwards and forwards to magistrates' courts.
Justice delayed is justice denied. These proposals have the potential, by drastically reducing delay and restoring the direct and speedy link between detection and conviction, to afford justice more speedily and in much greater measure to victims, to witnesses and to the general public alike.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Statement. As he said, these are important proposals—well almost. It is clearly an important review, covering areas which have been a matter of public and political concern over a number of years.
What is not clear is the status of the Lord Chancellor's Statement. The noble and learned Lord says—I gather that the Home Secretary has said the same thing—that there will now be a period of consultation, after which and where necessary proposals for primary legislation will be placed before Parliament and, where that is not necessary, the proposals will be implemented by administrative means.
I have to ask why such a document—a review presented in the first person singular by a reviewer who is an official within the Home Office—should be presented to Parliament in such a way and at such a high level by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary without any clear indication of which parts of the review and which of its many recommendations have the support of the Government and to what extent the Government are prepared to be guided by the consultation process upon which they are now to embark. I have to ask whether it is purely accidental that these Statements are being made to Parliament in the last weeks of this Government and shortly before the dissolution of this Parliament.

1283
The review contains many recommendations. It is a well written and clearly thought out document with which we agree. Many of the matters raised in it have been the subject of intense work by the Labour Party. Indeed, they have been the subject matter of policy documents which we have produced, not least within the past year. The whole issue of youth justice was discussed at length in a document entitled Reforming Youth Justice, which was produced by Jack Straw in June 1996. As I read the section on youth justice and youth courts in the review, I recognise many of its proposals as those which we made in June last year. Again, in April of last year, we published a document entitled Justice Delayed. When I look at the recommendations on the management of cases before they go to the magistrates' court or the Crown Court and on the distribution of responsibility between the Crown Prosecution Service and the police, I recognise many of the recommendations and proposals that we made in our document in April last year.
Clearly, we are not approaching the review in a spirit of antagonism. However, when we come to what the Lord Chancellor admitted was the most controversial issue, the question of election for trial, I have to ask whether what the Government are now proposing, first, coincides with a proper analysis of the need and, secondly, reflects what has been the government position over a number of years.
The Statement says that last year in the Crown Court waiting lists fell by one-fifth and the number of cases reduced by one-quarter. It goes on to say that in magistrates' courts the proportion of summary only cases reached 76 per cent. Is it not the case that in many parts of the country the congestion is greater in magistrates' courts than in Crown Courts? Therefore, proposals that may result in a risk to civil liberties—we will have to consider that in a moment—and a greater number of cases remaining with magistrates' courts rather than going to the Crown Courts would not directly affect delay and congestion in the courts.
In July 1995 in a consultation paper on the mode of trial (Command Paper 2980) the Home Secretary said:
"Since currently two thirds of committals to the Crown Court are the result of magistrates refusing jurisdiction"—
that is a very much larger number than the 20 per cent. quoted by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—
"this has the potential to retain a larger amount of business than by limiting the defendants' right to elect for jury trial".
Therefore, the Government rejected restricting the right to jury trial in favour of this proposal which is now Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. I remind the House that Section 49 has not yet been brought into force. Should we not try that first before we move on to a different and conflicting recommendation? It is conflicting not only in the light of what the Home Secretary said in July 1995 but in
1284
the light of the final response to the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice made only in July last year. The Secretary of State said in his final response:
"The Government … consider that such a fundamental change"—
I acknowledge that the Royal Commission said very much the same as the noble and learned Lord is saying now—
"to the right to jury trial … should not be undertaken unless it is clear that would he the only possible way of achieving the objective".
The Home Secretary went on to say that the effect of Section 49,
"will be monitored and the Royal Commission's recommendations reconsidered in the light of that monitoring exercise".
Since Section 49 has not been implemented, how can it be said that these proposals are consistent with what the Home Secretary was saying in only July of last year?
The noble and learned Lord has referred to the recommendations about right of audience. He says that he has already implemented the review's proposal that employed solicitors in the CPS should be granted a right of audience for plea and directions hearings at the Crown Court. That is not the same as allowing them representation at the actual trial. Whatever may be the rights and wrongs of that case—I make no judgment on that issue at the moment—the noble and learned Lord will recall that the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice were that when plea and directions hearings were introduced, the same counsel and legal representatives should be responsible for the case both at the plea and directions hearing and at the actual trial. If there are different conditions for representation in those two, how can we achieve the recommendations of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice?
The second major issue to which the noble and learned Lord has referred is the bringing of offenders to court. Clearly, the recommendations about the Crown Prosecution Service must be considered with great care. But the abolition of the public interest test which allows a case to be discontinued if the alleged offence is minor, or if the likely penalty is trivial, is perhaps a suitable response to any initiatives for zero tolerance policing which may be a proper policing objective. However, that returns power to the police and raises again the possibility of conflict between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service and thus the possibility of power being in two places, with the consequent danger of confusion, disagreement and delay.
We welcome what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said about the availability of legal representation from the duty solicitor at court free of charge and the possibility of a very large increase in the number of cases that will be dealt with within 24 hours. Perhaps we should be a little more cautious about the suggested role of justices' clerks. I am not instinctively opposed to that. I welcome the assurances of the Lord Chancellor that such a change will not be at the expense of magistrates' powers. But these issues require far greater consultation than has taken place so far. I have already referred to the issue of youth courts and the fact that many of the recommendations reflect those that the Labour Party made in the course of last year.

1285
I return to the issue of election for trial by jury and the distribution of cases between magistrates' courts and Crown Courts. I repeat that although 20 per cent. of all cases tried in the Crown Courts result from defendants' elections, two-thirds of all referrals are by magistrates themselves. We must be sure that there is no possibility of two standards of justice: one for those with previously unblemished reputations, and another for those who have criminal convictions. The Statement is quite open about it. It speaks about the complexity of cases or the defence of an unblemished reputation. We must ask ourselves what we in the position of a defendant faced with this choice would do. Would we make that choice in the interests of justice, or in the interests of a fair trial, or in the interests of a lighter sentence or avoiding delay? It is by no means certain that those with resources and good legal advice would make the same decision as those who did not find themselves in that fortunate position. It is that which we must consider before we come to a final conclusion. My instinct is in favour of retaining election for trial by jury unless much better reasons to the contrary are produced than have been produced so far.
I end as I began. These are important proposals. It is not clear whether they are the Government's proposals or the proposals of the official in the Home Office who produced this important and valuable review. But when we come to implement these matters, we will ensure that there is a proper division of responsibility between making recommendations and making decisions on which we shall ask Parliament to act.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his introduction to this review. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, I welcome the reference in the conclusion of the Statement to the Government seeking consultation and wishing to listen to the views of those who work in the criminal justice system. I also share the cynicism displayed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as to the reasons why the Statement is made at this particular point in the Parliament. I refer to what the noble Lord said a moment ago. If it should ever fall to the noble Lord to implement these proposals, or anything like them, we shall be as critical of his proposals as we are of these.
The beginning of the Statement refers to the fall in the Crown Court waiting list. That is true. I noted on Friday last in Birmingham Crown Court that some five courts out of 12 were empty. I also noted the long faces of junior counsel who were standing around at the time. But that has been achieved because of the plea and directions hearings implemented over a number of months which have proved successful. It is easier to get into the Crown Court today to have a case heard than it is to get into the magistrates' court and have the matter completed.
Some parts of the report are much to be welcomed. I welcome the concept of CPS staff being involved with the police at a very early stage. It is enormously helpful to the police to have the guidance and assistance of the
1286
CPS in the preparation of the case. If that means that CPS staff work in a police station, so be it. I am sure that the CPS will not lose its independence when it does so.
However, the proposal that employed solicitors in the CPS should be granted anything more than rights of audience for plea and directions hearings in the Crown Court would not be a useful addition to the powers of the CPS. It is important that we maintain an independent Bar to prosecute and to defend. It is important and desirable that those who prosecute should also have experience of defending. If the day comes that the prosecution is represented by professional prosecutors who do nothing other than prosecute and people are defended by people who do nothing more than defend, then the quality of criminal justice in this country will suffer.
The concept that the duty solicitor should be accessible to give instant and early advice, and that the person who appears in the magistrates' court should have the benefit of that service, is to be welcomed. One hopes that the necessary funds will be put into the system to pay for the additional work that will be involved.
With regard to pre-trial reviews and administrative powers being given to clerks to the justices, I consider that that is potentially an excellent reform, but it needs to be looked at with considerable care because in certain magistrates' courts half the morning can be taken up by adjournments. If that is replaced by hours and hours spent in unnecessary pre-trial reviews which are not conducted with the rigour that is required, then the system will suffer. As I say, today the delays are more in the magistrates' court than in the Crown Court.
I welcome the recommendations in relation to the youth court. It would be a considerable reform that if cautions are introduced for young offenders it should be possible to attach conditions such as compensation and reparation to the victims. A caution is not enough. If compensation can be given as well, that is highly desirable.
Where I look with great askance, however, is at the proposal to restrict, because that is what it amounts to, the right to trial by jury. The Statement says that 20 per cent. of those tried in the Crown Court insist on being tried there. It would be better phrasing to say that they exercised their right. It is an important part of the freedom of the people of this country to be tried in the Crown Court. The circumstances in which people seek trial in the Crown Court vary enormously. It is not appropriate that magistrates should make the decision as to which way the sheep go and which way the goats go. It is a person's right to have a trial by jury. It is that right which he, and no one else, should exercise. I do not believe that it leads to abuse on a large scale; it leads these days to the swift dispatch of cases.
The matter is in the hands of the professional judges of the Crown Court who ensure that trials are brought on speedily—within weeks, as they are at present. I think that I have said enough to indicate that we consider that the Statement contains many good things, but we look at any suggestion that the right to trial by jury should be restricted with considerable reserve.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Thomas of Gresford, for what they said about the report. The report was commissioned, as I said, in the autumn of last year. For my part—my colleagues share this point of view—I believe it right that both Houses of Parliament should have the report put before them at the earliest opportunity. It would not be right for the Government to take a concluded view on these matters at this stage; rather we should set out the proposals, indicate the basis upon which they have been made, and their possible effect, and then invite consultation on them. That is what we are seeking to do.
I do not know that I should go into the detail much more at present. I know that proposals have been made by the Labour Party to deal with some of these matters. There are concerns which have been expressed from time to time. This is the reviewer's work, as a result of the task that he was set.
There are important distinctions between what the reviewer has proposed and what is proposed in the document to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred; for example, about the lay magistrates' jurisdiction to try cases in the youth court and other such differences. This is an important document upon which it is right that we should make full disclosure as soon as possible to your Lordships and to the other place, and then consult upon it.
A good deal has been said, in particular by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the present right in either-way cases, which I think was introduced when such a class of case was introduced for the first time in 1855, or so, to elect for trial at the Crown Court.
The reviewer's proposal is that the decision in that connection should be made by the magistrates with the possibility, as we say in the Statement—I do not believe that the reviewer raises this possibility—of an appeal. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that that should not be committed to the magistrates. That is an important question, but the magistrates do have the responsibility of deciding guilt or innocence in a large number of important cases. Those who are qualified to decide guilt or innocence would, I think, have a claim at least to be able to distinguish a good case for going to the Crown Court from a case that was not a good one for going to the Crown Court.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred to the Government's response to the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice which made a proposal similar to the one the reviewer has proposed. This report of course followed from that. It is right for the Government to be prepared to reconsider those matters in the light of this further report. As has been said, this is an important report, which is well written. I am glad to accept that compliment on behalf of the reviewer. It is one with which I happen to agree. It is clear and well written. It forms a good basis for consultation upon these matters, all of which are vitally important in the desire which we all share, I think, to make our system of criminal justice as good as we possibly can make it, not only in achieving justice but in achieving justice with reasonable expedition.
4 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, when this House is asked to consider radical proposals, should it not be informed whether there is significant material in existence which points the other way, why the Government have sought to go contrary to that material and whether it is based on research, investigation or what?
Without repeating it, we have raised the point on the Crime (Sentences) Bill that the Government White Paper of 1990 was totally inconsistent with the philosophy put forward in support of the Bill. We have drawn attention to how 20 years ago the Home Office committee under Lord Butler produced proposals for reviewable sentences and turned down the suggestion of life sentences.
There has been no mention in the context of the abolition of the right of election—I am dealing only with that—of a report of the interdepartmental committee under the right honourable Lord Justice James, again some 20-odd years ago. It relates to the distribution of criminal business between the Crown Court and the magistrates' court and it dealt in considerable depth with the question with which we are dealing. I refer only to one observation which appears at the end of paragraph 61. It states:
"The existing right to elect trial by jury is so long established in our criminal justice system and valued so highly that its total abrogation requires very compelling reasons. We doubt whether such a radical change would be sufficiently acceptable to public and professional opinion to enable it to be implemented. We would go further. In our view there is a real danger that the total removal of the present right of election would undermine the trust and support which the criminal justice system at present commands among the general public. However that may be, on the evidence submitted to us we have reached the firm conclusion that the defendant's present right of election should not he replaced by a decision either by the prosecution or by the court".
The report deals in great detail with why it would be wrong for the court to make the decision. It opted for what the Royal Commission referred to in the course of its consideration of the subject; namely, altering the categories of cases which might feature in the either-way lists. Paragraph 16 of the Royal Commission's report states:
"One way of removing cases from the ambit of the Crown Court would be to reclassify the less serious offences as triable summarily only. We have not regarded the task of identifying the offences concerned as falling within our remit".
There is a footnote which states:
"Allowing relatively minor offences to be tried by magistrates would have a considerable impact on the workflow of the Crown Court. The major burden is caused by minor offences of theft (including shoplifting) and handling stolen goods".
Thus it goes on. I therefore ask that particular consideration should be given to re-evaluating that very detailed report of the interdepartmental committee presided over by Lord Justice James.
I wish to raise only one other matter on which I should like my noble and learned friend to comment. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to rights of audience and expressed his anxiety about those rights being given to the Crown Prosecution Service in trials. I understand that the Law Society, under the Courts and

1289
Legal Services Act, put in an application for such rights to be achieved by employed solicitors. Of course, that will rub off on to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Approximately 18 months ago, the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee delivered its decision, which was adverse to granting those increased rights of audience on the ground that it would be against the public interest. I have asked in Written Questions, "When is the Lord Chancellor going to decide one way or another whether he accepts that report?". If he accepts the report, that is the end of the matter. If he does not accept the report, it will then go before the designated judges. It may be that I am out of date and that that has already occurred, but since rights of audience have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I thought that I ought to raise the matter.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards the second matter, yesterday I intimated a decision on the point with the concurrence of the designated judges; that is, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. Without going into detail, it would be fair to say that we agreed the application of the Law Society in part, with considerable conditions attached. The principle condition is that in substantial hearings the employed solicitor could not be the sole or leading advocate.
As regards the James Committee Report, my noble and learned friend will find that in the review by Mr. Narey the James Committee Report is dealt with and referred to in detail. Therefore, the report deals with the matter and indicates the situation in which the James Report was given. Of course, the Royal Commission, which also considered the issue most carefully, had full regard to the detailed work of the committee chaired by Lord Justice James. However, as my noble and learned friend said, that was some considerable time ago and there have been a number of changes in the criminal justice system since then.
There has been a good deal of support for reclassification of some offences, but it has always been difficult to see how that can be done. For example, my noble and learned friend Lord Lane forcefully supported an amendment to take petty theft out of the either-way category on the very day that I was invited to become the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, it is engraved on my memory by that particular coincidence. That issue has been raised a number of times and has been found difficult. It has the disadvantage that everyone knows is attached to such an offence. If you make it summary you will not land in the Crown Court, whereas if the judgment is with the magistrates and they consider that the case is sufficiently serious, it could arrive in the Crown Court if the proposal made by Mr. Narey were accepted. Those disadvantages must be considered, but I agree that this is a most important matter and it is right that it should be carefully considered. This is the opportunity to do that and I hope to do so without any cynicism whatever.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a very short question in the context of the appeal to which the noble and learned Lord referred as
1290
regards the right to elect being removed in favour of the decision to be taken. In circumstances in which identity or the rectitude of a confession or the conduct of the police or Crown witnesses is in issue and is in some way to be challenged, it would be, would it not, assuredly wrong to deprive the subject of a right to trial by jury?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one cannot enumerate all the circumstances one way or the other. That is why it seems reasonable to consider the proposal that it should be decided by a judicial tribunal; namely, the magistrates who are charged with deciding guilt or innocence in a very high proportion of the total number of cases decided in England and Wales.
Earl Russell: My Lords, first, I thank the noble and learned Lord for repeating the Statement. He will have listened many times to the case developed in this House by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and most particularly developed by the late Lord Rippon of Hexham in his Hansard Society report Making the Law, against bringing forward too much legislation. Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House how many Bills within the area of the Home Office's departmental responsibilities are at present before Parliament? Should we come back and find another major Bill from the Home Office before us, is he aware that there is a risk that someone may say that its rash, fierce blaze of riot cannot last?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think, technically, I made the Statement as well as the Home Secretary. As regards the situation of legislation, there are certainly a number of Home Office Bills presently before both Houses of Parliament. Quite a lot of people think that, for example, the Offences Against the Person Bill, which the Law Commission prepared some time ago, would be extremely suitable for legislation.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Chancellor: I think I pick up some assent to that. The mere fact that there are a number of Bills before Parliament does not mean that it would not be wise to have any more such Bills. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would agree that it is right that we should do everything we can to promote as efficient and rapid a system of justice as possible. This review makes proposals and, subject to whatever views emerge, it may be necessary to take legislative action. Surely that is a wise way in which to act. The decision whether or not to promote legislation must be taken in the light of all the circumstances and is certainly not to be taken at this moment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I am sure rightly, pointed out the implications as regards the changes in the way that it is decided whether a case should be tried in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court. He said that that would mean an increase in the number of cases tried in the magistrates'

1291
court. That is a matter of interest to lay people. What effect will that have on the workload of solicitors and barristers?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, judging from the reaction which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, found in Birmingham on Friday, it looks as though perhaps the barristers would welcome more work. I am not sure. I am not in the business of creating that work but where the work exists, I am in favour of it being done economically and efficiently.
The primary problem in the magistrates' courts is bringing cases to trial. It is not that the trials take a long time. That is where I differ quite fundamentally on a proposal in the youth justice paper to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, referred. Once a case comes to trial, it is disposed of extremely expeditiously. In the magistrates' courts the difficulty is the number of adjournments before a case is ready for trial. When speaking to magistrates from time to time, as I have pleasure in doing, they tell me that many cases are adjourned and there is not enough work to do. That is a real and serious problem.
The report makes proposals to deal with that. If those proposals work, then the scope for bringing more cases to trial would thereby be increased. Obviously, the review believes that the magistrates' courts could well accommodate such cases. As was pointed out, a high proportion of those cases are resolved ultimately by pleas of guilty and such pleas of guilty might come earlier if it were not for the remit to the Crown Court.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware of the widespread disappointment expressed today within the government legal services and the Crown Prosecution Service about the restrictions on rights of audience that are implicit in the Statement which he made? Is the noble and learned Lord able to tell the House how much taxpayers' money is spent each year in instructing barristers from private practice?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, obviously the amount spent is important but the question is whether the interests of justice are served in the circumstances. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner mentioned, the committee set up by statute to advise me on those matters considered that issue and came down by a majority of one against the grant of any right of audience on these matters in the higher courts to employed solicitors beyond what they have at present. That was based on the view that their relationship of employment had an effect prejudicial to justice.
Having considered those matters with my colleagues—the designated judges—we took the view that the problem could be dealt with in the way that we have proposed. That is quite a considerable enlargement of the rights of audience of employed solicitors in the Crown Prosecution Service. A way has been found to avoid the possibility of the kind of damage to justice which has been suggested. Obviously, such matters do not stand still completely. As my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner said, we have
1292
not rushed the matter. I have discussed it very fully with the designated judges. We thought that that was the best balance, and I believe that it is a good decision.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that some of us are rather concerned about the use of the term "petty crime"? A woman charged with shoplifting, who has a blameless reputation, does not regard the charge against her as a petty matter. Many of us would fight very rigorously any possible deprivation of the right to a jury trial for such a person.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I feel certain that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, would have confidence that the magistrates share the values he has expressed. A number of magistrates do so expressly on their declarations on becoming magistrates when we try to preserve a balance in those matters on appointment. Surely, if people are trusted to decide the issue of guilt or innocence, they should be able to decide whether or not a particular case is one in which the right to go to the Crown Court should be affirmed.

Contract (Scotland) Bill
4.19 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Scottish Legal Services Ombudsman and Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Policyholders Protection Bill
Viscount Chelmsford: 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.—(Viscount Chelmsford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

United Nations Personnel Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
4.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The page and line refer to Bill (59) as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Page 3, line 20, after 'fund)—' insert—
'( ) after paragraph 4 there is inserted—
"Remuneration
4A. There may be paid out of the Fund to a trustee such remuneration, on such terms and conditions, as the Secretary of State may approve.",'.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment. The extension of the role of the National Heritage Memorial Fund to include the distribution of lottery proceeds has inevitably resulted in a very substantial increase in the time commitment required from the chairman of the National Heritage Memorial Fund and his fellow trustees. The powers conferred by the Bill are likely to increase the demand still further. The upshot is that we might be approaching the point at which it is no longer reasonable to expect trustees to serve on an unpaid basis as has hitherto always been the case.
The issue is partly one of fairness to those who are willing to serve as trustees, but we also need to bear in mind the possibility that it may become increasingly difficult to persuade high calibre candidates to accept appointment, especially as regards the time-intensive post of chairman, if remuneration is not available. The Government do not propose to take any immediate decisions on the matter; indeed, the current chairman of the NHMF Trustees, the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has made it clear that he has no wish to serve other than on the existing unpaid basis. Nonetheless, the NHMF is virtually alone among lottery distributors in that its trustees are currently precluded by statute from being paid.
Under the terms of the present legislation, which of course predates the advent of the lottery, the trustees can be offered only expenses and allowances. Legal advice is that allowances must be interpreted very restrictively and that amendment to the law is needed to enable the trustees to be paid in the usual sense of the word. We have therefore concluded that we should take the opportunity of the Bill to remove the current statutory bar on remuneration. That is the purpose of the amendment made in another place. It inserts an additional provision into Clause 2 to enable remuneration to be paid to trustees out of the NHMF's
1294
own proceeds, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State as regards the amount concerned and any terms and conditions.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their amendment.—(Lord Inglewood.)
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps I may say that, in general, we are pleased that this very useful Bill is completing its course. The amendment has our support and we are delighted to hear that it will not be implemented before the general election. There is a wider problem that I should just like to mention; namely, that of compensating people in the cultural quangos, many of whom work very hard without proper compensation. The amendment would usefully correct that position in a small area.
However, there is one particular point of concern about the Bill and that is the question of clawback—the provision to recover grants which have been made should the beneficiary subsequently sell at a capital profit with the help of the amendment. Can the Minister confirm that the arrangements for clawback are indeed satisfactorily in place and that they will normally be applied?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am gratefully reassured by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in support of the proposed amendment. The noble Lord raised the matter of clawback which is important. I hope that it might be helpful to your Lordships to put the matter on the record. The legislation gives the NHMF Trustees a power to attach such conditions as they think fit in making a grant. Such conditions may relate, among other things, to disposal of the heritage asset concerned and repayment of that grant.
So far as concerns actual practice, the NHMF will continue to monitor all projects after payments have been made and, where appropriate, it will clawback the grant paid under the terms of the grant agreement. Clawback can include a proportionate share of any capital appreciation in value resulting from the grant, should the heritage asset concerned be sold. That applies where the NHMF permits the sale of a heritage asset or where the conditions of grant are breached. I hope that that response will reassure the noble Lord.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question. I know that the Government will not implement the grants immediately, but can the noble Lord give me some idea as to how much the remuneration will be for the trustees? On this side of the House, we accept that the work of the trustees has increased enormously and that there was a great omission in the Bill, until now, in that they were supposed to work for nothing. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild, has generously said that he will continue; but, if the Government are to attract trustees of the right calibre, it will be necessary to make it worth their while so that they are not out of pocket. Can the Minister give me some idea of the position in that respect?

1295
There is a further point. A certain disparity has arisen between the quangos of other parts of our national life and those relating to the cultural heritage. I believe that those which relate to the cultural heritage are at a great disadvantage compared with some of the other quangos where the trustees are very handsomely rewarded. Can the Minister give me some idea as to the Government's thinking in that area?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I explained in my opening remarks, we have no immediate plans to implement the changes proposed. It was a matter of putting the provisions on the statute book and then deciding, in the circumstances of some future case, what the appropriate level of remuneration might be. As no decision has been taken to implement the proposals, it would be premature to assess what might be the appropriate going rate for the job at the time. I hope that that answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
4.28 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 (Baroness Turner of Camden) in the Chair.]
Clause 36 [Fine defaulters]:
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 26, line 45, after ("period") insert ("not exceeding 56 days").
The noble Viscount said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 101. We have already spoken at considerable length on the subject of driving disqualification as a disposal for non-motoring offences. In view of what is listed today on the Marshalled List after my amendment, I suspect that we are not yet out of this particular wood.
Clause 36 makes available to the court such disqualification where there has been wilful refusal to pay a fine or fines. I confess to having some reservations about the implications of using disqualification for anything other than a motoring or an associated offence. Let me say now that I understand fully the points made in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on the third day of Committee.
There is justifiable worry that loss of mobility will obstruct those seeking jobs. After all, it is often loss of employment which makes some fine offenders get behind in their payments in the first place. Of course, the unpalatable fact, which many refuse to accept, is that a low income is not a solid basis for car ownership in the first place—a home truth which becomes only too
1296
apparent in many driving without insurances cases. In any event, there are many non-payers who are perfectly able to pay but who choose not to. Somehow the money has to be prised from their reluctant fingers. The courts need as many tools as possible for this, otherwise they may seek more draconian measures than fines in the first instance.
Having voiced these reservations, however, I have to weigh them against the fact that I, like so many others, have been seeking alternatives to custody for such fine evaders. Almost any initiative which seeks to do that ought to be given a try. In this I believe I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I make two points only on this. First, there is to be a pilot scheme. Presumably if this shows that the proposal is unworkable or there is solid—I stress the word "solid"—evidence that it is proving inequitable, the provision will presumably be withdrawn. No doubt the Minister will confirm this.
I emphasise my second point in relation to the fears expressed on this subject earlier by some Members of the Committee. Magistrates will have complete discretion to use this sanction, or another more appropriate one. If a person's job is in jeopardy, the magistrates will not wish to use it as that will make the ultimate objective of paying the fine in question even more unattainable. I should have thought that was fairly obvious. I must assure the Committee that most magistrates are sensitive to these concerns and think long and hard before passing sentence. They endeavour to make that sentence as practical and constructive as possible.
I apologise to the Committee for the somewhat extended preamble. I now turn to the first of my amendments. The point about limiting the period of disqualification to 56 days is that after that time a driving licence has to be sent to the DVLA at Swansea and consequently existing penalty points will be automatically erased. These points will have been imposed as the result of driving offences of varying degrees of seriousness. It seems inappropriate that they can be wiped out by a sentence for a totally unrelated matter. Accordingly, it would surely make sense to keep the confiscated licence at the local court to which the offender could be listed to return on an appropriate date in the future.
I now turn to Amendment No. 101. Driving while disqualified is rightly seen as a serious offence which can attract a custodial sentence. Nevertheless, there are many who regrettably take that risk, as I am sure my magistrate colleagues in this place will confirm. On the whole, however, the police are able to keep tabs locally on such reckless and irresponsible drivers because most of them are known to them. In future they will have to deal with an added complication; namely, someone driving while disqualified whom they will have no reason to believe may be disqualified. This problem will be exacerbated if proportional reduction in the disqualification period is permitted as the full or part payment of the outstanding fine. A pilot scheme should surely above all be simple. The more complicated it is,

1297
the more likely it is to fail. Those of us who want to find alternatives to custodial sentences do not want it to fail.
These provisions will make it much more difficult for the police to catch disqualified drivers and that, in turn, will increase the risk to ordinary members of the public from disqualified drivers. I invite the Minister to grapple with the following at two in the morning in driving rain:
"And the total number is reduced if it is reduced by such number of complete weeks or months as bears to the total number the proportion most nearly approximating to, without exceeding, the proportion which the part paid bears to the whole sum".
Quite frankly, I pass on that, and if a traffic cop has any sense, he will too.
I appreciate that it may well be thought by some to be inequitable that an offender may be able to cancel a community service order early through settlement of a fine when that right may be denied to a disqualified driver. I suppose I could argue that one disposal is negative while the other—putting something back into the community through work—is positive, but I do not have high hopes that such sophistry would gain agreement on all sides of this Chamber.
To summarise, these amendments seek to make the provisions as simple as possible. They seek to remove the administrative and operational complications inherent in permitting offenders to buy their licence back through early repayment. I ask the Minister even at this stage to look at these provisions again and, if need be, consult other interested parties before Report. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I apologise if this question has already been raised and answered earlier in the Committee stage at a time when I happened to be out of the Chamber. When she replies, will the noble Baroness clarify the position regarding insurance if these amendments, and indeed these clauses, are ultimately accepted? When an individual is disqualified from driving for one, two, three or four years, or longer—as is usually the case when disqualification is imposed—the insurance cover automatically lapses. But if an individual is disqualified only for a matter of a few weeks, presumably the insurance policy normally remains in force. If, despite being disqualified, an individual nevertheless drives during the disqualification period, is the insurance cover—both the third party cover and, for example, the cover against injury to passengers—automatically invalidated? If so, it is the innocent who will suffer.
Baroness Blatch: The first amendment of the noble Viscount would restrict to a maximum of 56 days the period of disqualification from driving a court could impose for fine default. This Committee's debate on Clause 35 last week highlighted the fact that disqualification from driving can affect different offenders in different ways. For example, the person who lives in the country will feel a greater degree of punishment by being deprived of the freedom to drive than the person who lives in the town and has ready access to public transport.
1298
It is not our intention that those who default on small fines should be disqualified for years and years. Nor would it be right for the person who defaulted on a small fine to end up losing his job as a result of disqualification. But we do not doubt that magistrates will use this power responsibly. As the noble Viscount said, magistrates are sensible, sensitive and wise, and they will take such factors into account when determining an appropriate disposal of the court. I think the noble Viscount said that if a person's job was in jeopardy and he lived in a part of the country where it was simply not possible to get to and from work without driving, magistrates would be sufficiently sensible to take into account whether they were imposing a disproportionate sentence. That would, of course, be a matter for the magistrates.
I also take seriously the point the noble Viscount made about the pilot scheme. He asked what would be considered in the process of evaluating pilot schemes. I believe he mentioned solid evidence of a pilot scheme being unworkable. If there was evidence it was unworkable, or that it was not a practical disposal, or was not having the effect we believed it would have, there is nothing we shall not be prepared to consider in the course of looking at the pilot scheme. We would wish to consider carefully all the points raised by the noble Viscount and the many other aspects that will arise as the provision rolls out in the courts.
Magistrates will be able to decide in each individual case whether disqualification from driving is appropriate and, if so, for how long. We do not anticipate that magistrates will have any need for a power to disqualify fine defaulters for longer than a year. There is no reason not to make that clear on the face of the Bill. I propose, therefore, to bring forward amendments at Report stage to provide for an upper limit of 12 months. I note that the reasons given by the noble Viscount for 56 days are rather different, but addressing the principle of whether there should be a maximum is important, and we would wish to bring forward an amendment which would put the 12 months upper limit on the period of disqualification from driving which could be imposed for fine default.
The much shorter maximum period of 56 days proposed in the amendment would in my view be too short to be an effective means of enforcing anything but the smallest fine. Magistrates need a wider discretion so that they can reflect properly the amount of the fine in the penalty for default.
The pilot projects will provide an opportunity to judge whether 12 months gives magistrates a wide enough discretion in practice. It could be that even 12 months is too short a period for the effective enforcement of many fines. It would therefore be sensible to allow for this 12-month limit to be varied subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This mirrors what we have already provided in the Bill in respect of the community service hours and curfew days that can be imposed for fine default.
Perhaps I may accept the spirit of what the noble Viscount said: we have to continue to be imaginative about balancing effective punishment but keeping

1299
people as far as possible out of prison cells. This is at least one more step down that road. Even though the noble Viscount has expressed reservations, I think that he is sufficiently open-minded to accept that this is an attempt to deal with fine defaulters in a way that would be effective. Without such a provision there would be no incentive for an offender to repay either in part or in whole.
I now deal with Amendment No. 101. We have already debated a similar amendment in relation to Clause 31. As I said on that occasion, the main purpose of provisions dealing with fine default is to make the offender pay the fine or other financial penalty imposed upon him by the court. That is why we have provided under subsection (4) of this clause for an offender who has been disqualified from driving for fine default to reduce the period of disqualification either fully, if he repays the total amount of fine outstanding, or in proportion to the amount of the outstanding fine repaid.
Perhaps I may respond to the point about the poor policeman in the middle of the night—I believe that 2 a.m. was mentioned—dealing with the complicated formula set out in Clause 36(4). I hope that that would not be the intention in the practical working out of the provision. I suspect that there would be some form of codifying the adjusted date so that the policeman's concern would be whether the person was or was not disqualified on the day that he was caught driving at 2 a.m. It would not be for the policeman to have to do that calculation but for the courts to make the adjustment in sentencing. I hope that that is helpful.
As regards the other points raised by the noble Viscount, buying back provisions would be complicated. It would be a matter for the courts to deal with, as I said. That is where the payment of the fine is made. We believe that the Bill's provisions will be clear to court staff who will have training in the matter. However, the noble Viscount did not want, nor do we want, policemen having to make those complicated arithmetical calculations in the middle of the night when their business is arresting someone who is driving while disqualified.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about insurance. We think it unlikely in principle that insurance cover will continue to apply to any person disqualified from driving for however short a period. I do not think that an insurance company would wish to carry that responsibility. It would be normally a condition of the insurance policy that it covers only a driver with a licence. However, that is a matter that we would wish to consider when working out the details of the provision. I believe that insurance companies would take that view.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Viscount that we shall consider all the points raised by him in speaking to the amendment, and will be extremely mindful of his reservations when evaluating the exercise.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may refer to the question of insurance. Are
1300
not a large number of private motor vehicles stored on the public highway? Would they not have to be insured whether or not the driver was disqualified?
Baroness Blatch: The property would be insured. We are talking about the driver who may be involved in or cause an accident while driving and the degree to which the insurance company would consider itself liable for compensation. I cannot believe that there is an insurance company—if there is one, I should like to know where it is—which would meet a liability if the driver was disqualified.
Lord Ackner: Might I suggest that the Minister looks into the position about the motor insurance bureau and the extent to which it carries the risk where a third party ceases to be covered? I cannot tell the noble Baroness the position offhand, but I believe that it is a relevant matter to look into.
Baroness Blatch: I have given an assurance that we shall consider these matters. I have answered the question intuitively at present, but I should like to come back with a more reasoned reply, perhaps in writing, to the noble Lord.
Viscount Tenby: I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply to some of the concerns expressed. I am encouraged by some of the remarks she made. Perhaps I may leave one question hanging in the air, so to speak. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that people who have had endorsed points on their driving licence for motoring offences should have those points wiped off when their disqualification is the result of something totally unconnected with motoring? I have to confess to dramatised polemics in my illustration of the policeman. I also have to confess to an omission as regards the policeman. The incident took place in Cambridgeshire.
Perhaps I may leave the question with the Minister. On the grounds that she has been kind enough to express, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 102:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
DISCLOSURE OF PRE-SENTENCE REPORTS
(" .—(1) This section applies where a court obtains a pre-sentence report within the meaning of Part I of the 1991 Act.
(2) Subject to subsections (3) and (4) below, the court shall give a copy of the report

(a) to the offender or his counsel or solicitor; and

(b) to the prosecutor, that is to say, the person having the conduct of the proceedings in respect of the offence.

(3) If the offender is under 17 and is not represented by counsel or a solicitor, a copy of the report need not be given to him but shall be given to his parent or guardian if present in court.
(4) If the prosecutor is not of a description prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State, a copy of the report need not he given to the prosecutor if the court considers that it would be inappropriate for him to be given it.
(5) No information obtained by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above shall be used or disclosed otherwise than for the purpose of—
(a) determining whether representations as to matters contained in the report need to be made to the court; or
(b) making such representations to the court.
(6) The power to make order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: The proposed new clause requires courts to give a copy of a pre-sentence report to prosecutors. At present, when a court obtains a pre-sentence report, the defence are given a copy but the prosecution are not, even though they are present at the time of sentence. This inhibits the prosecution from fulfilling their responsibility to correct any misleading or inaccurate information put before the court. It also inhibits the prosecution from challenging any assertions contained in a pre-sentence report about witnesses which may not be warranted according to the prosecutor's knowledge, or which may be detrimental to the defendant. The Government can see no justification, in the vast majority of cases, for denying the prosecution access to a report commissioned by the court. Indeed, the Crown Prosecution Service has for some time sought access to pre-sentence reports.
The proposal to allow prosecutors to see pre-sentence reports was included in the White Paper Protecting the Public which was published in April last year. It received overwhelming support from prosecuting agencies. Responses from probation services, probation committees and their representative bodies were mixed: there was much support, but also some concern expressed about which prosecutors would get a copy of the pre-sentence report and what use they could make of it. In drafting this clause we have taken account of those concerns and have built in the following safeguards.
First, pre-sentence reports will only be given to prosecutors in proceedings which are prescribed in an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument and so will be subject to parliamentary approval. We envisage that such an order will include the main prosecuting agencies, like the Crown Prosecution Service, but that it will exclude private prosecutors. Where a prosecutor conducts proceedings who is not automatically entitled to receive a copy of the pre-sentence report, the court will have the discretion not to disclose, if it thinks it inappropriate to do so.
Secondly, prosecutors will only be able to use or disclose information obtained from a pre-sentence report when determining whether to make representations to the court about matters contained in the report, or when making such representations.
This clause strikes a good balance. It will enable the prosecution to perform its role more effectively but it will be subject to necessary statutory and judicial safeguards. We will be consulting with the Lord Chancellor's Department, the main prosecuting agencies, Probation Service representatives and other interested bodies about the details of implementation to
1302
ensure that the new arrangements operate to best effect. I hope that for those reasons noble Lords will accept this new clause as part of the Bill.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: As the Minister knows, there is some disquiet about this proposal. I am sure she will accept that courts regard the pre-sentence report as being their property. They have asked for it to assist in helping them determine the most suitable method of dealing with a convicted offender. If the facts of the offence outlined in the PSR are materially different to those of the prosecution case, and if that difference could affect the sentencing process, then a Newton hearing can be held in order to determine the facts in dispute.
Subsection (5)(a), as currently worded, has the potential to give the prosecution power to comment on any aspect of the pre-sentence report including the probation officer's assessment of an offender's response to a particular sentence. That may not have been the intention, but that is the power which the clause would give to the prosecution. I do not believe that provision will be welcomed by the Crown Prosecution Service.
There is a danger that convicted defendants, knowing that the PSR is to be routinely given to the CPS—a number of defendants still regard the CPS and the police as being part of the same organisation—would be inhibited and less co-operative with the Probation Service. That could mean that the pre-sentence report would be a less valuable document for use by the courts.
After 28 years' experience as a magistrate, my perception is that, eight times out of 10, when considering what used to be the "social inquiry report", now the pre-sentence report, the author of that report is not present in court. So if a prosecutor wants to comment on the pre-sentence report, an adjournment is inevitable. That increases the cost and means further delay.
I question the need for this change. When a Bench decides that it needs a pre-sentence report there has been a conviction. The job of the prosecution is finished. It should not be involved in the sentencing process. If, in the interests of justice and the protection of the public it was felt that a pre-sentence report should be shown to the prosecution, then that should be a decision for the court in each case. A pre-sentence report should not routinely be handed to the prosecution in every case. I therefore hope that the Minister will re-examine this proposal.
Earl Russell: I have some misgivings about the wording of the amendment. Subsection (3), dealing with offenders under 17, states that,
"a copy of the report need not be given to him but shall be given to his parent or guardian if present in court".
If the word "may" had been used, I should not have raised this point. But, as the Minister knows, there are cases of young offenders where a great deal is likely to come out in the pre-sentence report in cases of estrangement, for example, which may be extremely prejudicial to the parent. Indeed, on occasion the parent may wish to argue with it. There will be great difficulty in getting frank statements, say, in cases of alleged but

1303
disputed child abuse if it is known when the statement is being put together that it will be shown to the parent. I should find it very helpful if the Minister will agree that at the next stage of the Bill we can change the word to "may". As it is, the wording of the subsection really will not do.
Subsection (4) begins with the words,
If the prosecutor is not of a description prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State".
I thought that the Government were hostile to over-prescribing. I understand the intention behind this as the noble Baroness stated it; namely, to exclude private prosecutors. I have no quarrel with that intention, but the power to prescribe, once it is there, may be used for all sorts of purposes by future governments other than the one for which it is intended. So far as I can see, there is nothing but our hybrid instruments procedure which stops this power from being used to say that it shall be disclosed to the prosecutor provided he is not Mr. Mike Mansfield, QC.
A much more serious concern is that I simply do not see what the prosecution has to do with the business of sentencing. The prosecution's job is to attempt to establish guilt. There is here a real separation of powers. When the prosecution has established guilt, then it is for the court, not the prosecutor, to establish the sentence. If people make disclosures in a pre-sentence report which may perhaps involve some other offending behaviour and that will come into the hands of the prosecution, there is a real risk of self-incrimination, and that really does worry me.
When I was a boy, I used to read in the papers reports of trials from Eastern Europe. I used to read that the prosecutor "asked for the death penalty". It always used to give me a great sense of shock. I used to think: what business is it of the prosecution to have these statements? I do not understand that.
Viscount Tenby: I am not entirely clear about the purpose of this amendment despite the Minister's concise statement. There seem to be two principal objections to it. They have been admirably identified—the first by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee. He is probably at least two years senior to me on the Bench (I have not quite worked it out yet). Anyone with experience of a magistrates' court knows that the duty probation officer on any given day may well not be the author of the PSR being considered by the court. Accordingly, if the Crown Prosecution Service wishes to question the author, unless he or she is on the premises (often they are not; they are out looking after their charges) there may have to be an adjournment. All that adds to the cost and to the delay in justice. We all know that delayed justice is justice denied.
The other reservation expressed in particular by the probation services is that offenders may be reluctant to unburden themselves freely to the person compiling the report if they feel that it will be seen by the prosecution. I can understand that. I do not say that it will happen on every occasion, but that feeling may well be there. I have not felt that any particular disadvantage was
1304
suffered by the prosecution to date in not being aware of the details of the PSR. I have yet to be convinced that the amendment is necessary.
5 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I am not a magistrate, but I have misgivings about the amendment. I take particularly seriously the criticism made by the Inner London Youth Court Panel of magistrates. The panel stated:
"We believe the inhibiting effect upon those preparing PSRs of knowing that material which is disclosed in the report … could fall into the hands of the prosecution will be deleterious to the interest of defendants, without in any way enhancing the need of the court to have a fair presentation of the Crown's case".
In her introductory remarks, the noble Baroness mentioned that certain safeguards were contained in the amendment, but I am not convinced that the safeguards deal with the point.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I wish to raise a small drafting point supplementary to the point on subsection (3) made by the noble Earl. I shall be glad to hear whether I have misread it, but as I understand it, if the offender is under age and is not represented, the report need not be shown to him but shall be shown to a parent or guardian if the parent or guardian is present in court. But if there is no parent or guardian present in court, it seems to me that there is no obligation for the report to be shown to the offender or anyone connected with him at any stage. I cannot believe that that is the intention.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am not keen on the amendment. I feel that it threatens the integrity of report-writers. It may be helpful to the Committee to say that a pre-sentence report is not a plea in mitigation; it is a report about the offender's background and the possibility of disposal.
As other Members of the Committee have said, it threatens the co-operation of the subject and there is already a problem with deciding exactly how much to put into the social background aspect of a pre-sentence report. I think the amendment will not be helpful because it will cause reports to be minimised rather than maximised.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I have been seeking to identify the problem that has caused the Government to put down the amendment. It seems to me that the Government are concerned that a court may be misled in some way by a pre-sentence report and therefore that they want to have the matters contained in the report checked by the Crown Prosecution Service. I can think of no other reason for the amendment.
However, one must consider what happens in practice. Many Members of the Committee have talked about the magistrates' courts, perhaps I may refer to what happens in the Crown Courts. If a defendant pleads not guilty and is found guilty, that is the end of the matter. The case as put forward by the Crown has been accepted by the jury and therefore the sentencer proceeds to sentence on the basis of those facts. He is

1305
helped in that by looking at personal information relating to the offender, to which I shall return in a moment.
If, on the other hand, the offender pleads guilty and then a speech of mitigation is made on his behalf, there are two ways of dealing with any differences that may arise between what is said on the facts by the defence counsel and what is said by the Crown. One possibility is to hold the Newton hearing whereby evidence is called and the judge decides what happens. Another way recently approved in the Court of Appeal is that the facts should be agreed between prosecution and defence before the plea is tendered. Whichever of the two options is adopted, the court has a firm basis of fact on which to sentence.
If in the course of mitigation counsel for the defence puts forward another basis of fact which is in dispute, then it is open to the prosecutor who hears that speech in mitigation to intervene and ask for a Newton hearing or for some other way of dealing with the matter. It is not necessary that he should be given access to pre-sentence reports. Those are reports which may perhaps refer to the defendant's version of events, but it is more helpful if they are concerned with issues such as drugs, alcohol, family crises, the physical or mental health of the defender, his attitude towards the victim and his attitude towards the crime, whether he is remorseful. There will be references to his past record and how successfully he may have completed non-custodial sentences in the past. His attitudes and characteristics set out in that report are there to assist the sentencer to judge various matters: first, what kind of a risk is the defendant to the public; secondly, what is his attitude to re-offending likely to be in the future? That has nothing whatever to do with the function of prosecuting.
If it were merely a question of handing over a copy of the report to the prosecution to check the facts and there were no knock-on effects, perhaps nothing particularly serious would have occurred. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, emphasised and as was repeated by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, inhibitions will be placed upon the offender which will prevent him from being as frank and open about the personal issues which I have outlined in discussing the matter with the probation officer who prepares the report. If those matters are not set out fully, if the prisoner has no confidence in the person who is trying to help him, then the recommendations of that person will be affected. It will be a less useful report to the court and nothing has been gained.
I repeat, if the purpose of the amendment is simply to check the facts, the prosecutor can hear them when mitigation is advanced in court.
Baroness Blotch: I am astonished at the support for a lack of openness in the court. I am also astonished that the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, should say what he did when he has wide knowledge of the Scottish system where there is exceeding openness in court,
1306
where the prosecutor and the defence see the report. That has happened for years and years and there has been no problem.
I listened carefully to what Members of the Committee said. It seems to me that they have been making the case that no one should see the pre-sentence report other than the magistrate or judge. If there is a case for the defence seeing it, then in the interests of openness, there must be a case for the prosecution seeing it.
Experience has shown that it is possible for the courts to be misled by a pre-sentence report, even one carefully and diligently prepared in accordance with national standards. The purpose of the Government's new clause is to enable the prosecution to discharge its responsibility to ensure that the courts are not misled in this way.
What kind of cases are we talking about? It may assist the Committee if I offer some examples. The probation officer who prepares a PSR does so on the basis of information principally received from the prosecution and the offender. At the time the author prepares the report, the material supplied earlier by the CPS may no longer accurately reflect the current position. For example, there may have been a trial at which other evidence emerged or certain evidence was not accepted by the court. For many reasons the circumstances may well have changed.
It is also easy to see how an offender might succeed in giving the report writer a misleading account, for example, of the relationship between him and the victim of the offence. An offender may give the false impression that he had been bullied by the victim in the case over a long period. That may affect the writing of the section of the report which analyses the offence and assesses the degree of premeditation.
The PSR should also include information about the context in which the offence occurred, including information about relevant associated offences. Material supplied by the CPS and the offender's account may not give the full picture; it may not even give an accurate picture. If the CPS had the opportunity to see the report it could raise the matter with the defence in advance of the hearing. If the issue were not resolved, it could make appropriate representations to the court. The prosecution can already comment on matters raised orally. If it were to comment inappropriately the court would deal with that accordingly. There is no real difference between that situation and the proposed situation in which the prosecution is to have sight of written matters.
Matters upon which the prosecution can currently comment would include, for example, where the defence says in mitigation that there has been a history of provocation by the victim (a vendetta over several months) and that this was the last straw and the defendant snapped. If the prosecution information was significantly different from that, it might comment accordingly. Why should the situation be different because the defendant's version is included in a PSR rather than in a speech in mitigation? Though it is not a fact in the case, it is a matter upon which prosecution comment could be relevant.

1307
I looked again at the White Paper and came across another example. The defence may refer in mitigation to some aspect of the defendant's circumstances which either conflicts with or is not mentioned in the PSR and which it may be necessary to challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, referred to Newton hearings. The advance disclosure of a PSR to the prosecution will not preclude the holding of a Newton hearing where factual matters are not agreed. Advance notice of possible disputes may reduce the number of such hearings and therefore save time and costs on sentencing.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, referred also to the need for adjournments if there is a dispute about the PSR—a point made also by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. We envisage that the prosecution will have a copy of the PSR at the same time as the defence and therefore the issue can be addressed before the court at the time of sentence without the need for an adjournment.
The question was also posed that if offenders know that the prosecution is to see the pre-sentence report it may make them less frank when being interviewed by the report writer and so mean less effective supervision. It is already the case that prosecutors may obtain a copy of the pre-sentence report if they are appealing against an unduly lenient sentence—rather late in the day for the prosecutor. Offenders know that. Furthermore, where the court decides to impose a custodial sentence, a copy of the pre-sentence report is sent to the custodial institution. Offenders know that too. I do not envisage therefore offenders being any less candid as a result of this clause than they already are.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to decisions in relation to private prosecutors that may be for the discretion of the court. There is no power to say who will not receive the PSR. However, I shall continue looking at the wording of the clause and keep the whole of the Bill under consideration while it passes through this Chamber.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, posed a question concerning the juvenile under the age of 17 where the intention would be that the PSR should go to a guardian or parent. The point is an important one. However, I do not have an answer for the noble and learned Lord. I shall go away and consider whether, in the absence of a parent or guardian, the pre-sentence report should be given to the juvenile and whether there is a distinction between a 17 year-old and a much younger person.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, referred also to the disclosure of reports to parents of juveniles. As I said, I shall look at that.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to an offender's reluctance to disclose information. It is still in the offender's interest to co-operate; that is the whole purpose. The dialogue between the probation officer, who is the report writer for the purposes of putting the PSR before the court, and co-operation by the individual is extremely important. Frankness on the part of the report
1308
writer is also important. It is primarily inaccuracies that will be corrected; for example, misleading versions of a relationship, to which I have already referred.
Perhaps I may refer to a point raised by the noble Earl in relation to subsection (3), and refer him to subsection (5), which states:
"No information obtained by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above shall be used or disclosed otherwise than for the purpose of—(a) determining whether representations as to matters contained in the report need to be made to the court; or (b) making such representations to the court".
The purposes for which the information can he used therefore will be properly prescribed in law.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may raise this matter. The noble Baroness said that there would be a saving of time and cost. That turns the practical position upside down. Where is the inquiry to end?
A sentencer receives a report from an independent person—the person who writes the report; he is not a defence advocate; he or she is neither working for nor instructed by the defendant; they are there to give an objective report to the court. If that objective report is to be handed in every instance to the Crown Prosecution Service dealing with the personal circumstances of the individual, what is the Crown Prosecution Service then supposed to do? The person in the CPS is unlikely to know anything about the background of the defendant and therefore the police will have to be brought in to investigate what the independent writer of the report has discovered. All of that will then be the subject of some sort of hearing, some dispute, which goes back to the judge to determine.
The whole thing escalates further and further. All that one can reasonably require, within reasonable cost and practicality—a matter which might appeal to the Minister—is to have the assistance of an independent report without having to take the nitty-gritty even further. That is in addition to the down-side of the preparation of that report, to which I have already referred.
Baroness Blatch: I have to ask the noble Lord what good reason he believes there is for the sentencer to see the report, for the defence to see the report and not for the prosecution to see the report. The noble Lord is vocal on many of these subjects; but if, as he is suggesting, something may be so wrong as to need to be challenged by the police in order for it to be resolved, is he really saying that reports that could contain that degree of inaccuracy—that degree of challengeable information—should be seen only by the sentencer and the defence and kept secret from the prosecution? There is no case whatever for that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I apologise to the Minister for being vocal; I thought that is what we were here for.

1309
The prosecutor has no business becoming involved in the sentencing process. The Government always fail to understand that the public must retain confidence in the criminal justice system; they have to feel that it is fair and impartial. There is a place for the prosecution and a place for the defence.
Pre-sentence reports are not held in great secrecy, delivered under plain envelope to the defence; they are freely thrown around the bench and reference is made to them throughout by the defence counsel. But the prosecutor is not interested. He knows instinctively that it is not a matter about which he should become vocal.
Baroness Blatch: The prosecutor represents the public interest in these affairs, and it is as much in the interests of the prosecution and the public that the sentencer does not proceed on the basis of possibly inaccurate information. Given that there is no one to challenge it other than the prosecution, there can be no reason for keeping the information from the prosecution.
I know the noble Lord is aware that not infrequently one finds the defence using PSR information in mitigation to the sentencer, influencing the sentencer when it comes to awarding a sentence. All I am saying is that, for the sake of openness, it must be right that the prosecution as well as the defence is privy to that information.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I thank the Minister for what she has said. She is right. The procurator fiscal in Scotland is always given the report. But I have never known a procurator fiscal to comment on or challenge what is in a report. Therefore, it is subsection (5)(b) that I find difficult.
5.20 p.m
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 102) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 57.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Campbell of Cray, L.

Addison, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Carnock, L.

Balfour, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Beloff, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Berners, B.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Biddulph, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Birdwood, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Blatch, B.

Clinton, L.

Bowness, L

Coleridge, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Courtown, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Bridgeman, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Cross, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Burnham, L.

Davidson, V.

Byford, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Cadman, L.

Denbigh, E.

1310

Denham, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Donegall, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Dundee, E.

Nelson, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Newall,L.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Northesk, E.

Gainford, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Geddes, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Goschen, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Pender, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Plumb, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Harlech, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henyhoe, L

Renwick, L.

Henely, L.

Romney, E.

Holderness, L.

Rotherwick, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rowallan, L.

Hood, V.

St. Davids, V.

Hooper, B.

Seccombe, B.

Inglewood, L.

Selborne, E.

Keyes, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Liverpool, E.

Stewartby, L.

Long, V.

Strange, B.

Lucas, L.

Stranthclyde, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Childworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Luke, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Swinfen, L.

MacFarlane of Bearsden, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Teynham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Westbury, L.

Marlesford, L.

Wharton, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Merrivale, L.

Wilcox, B.

Mersey, V.

Wise, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Wynford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Alderdice, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jeger, B.

Berkeley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Borrie, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Calverley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carlisle, E.

Longford, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McNally, L.

Desai, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Dubs, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Eatwell, L.

Peston, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Fitt, L.

Geraint, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.].

Richard, L.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E.

Grenfell, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Tenby, V.

Haskel, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

White, B.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank moved Amendment No. 102A:
Before Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
LENGTH OE CUSTODIAL SENTENCES
(" . After subsection (2A) of section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(2B) A court shall not form such an opinion as is mentioned in subsection (2) above or subsection (4A) below unless it is of the opinion that the sentence or sentences which it will pass (including the length of any custodial sentence) will he the same whatever the content of any pre-sentence report.".").
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. He will now speak to it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The wording of the new clause is somewhat obscure because it refers to amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1991. It proposes that a court may dispense with a pre-sentence report before passing a custodial sentence only if its sentence, including the length of any custodial sentence, would be the same whatever the content of that report might be.
There may be a number of circumstances where a court might conclude that a pre-sentence report would not alter its sentence; for example, where the offender is already serving a prison sentence and the court's intended sentence would not increase the length of time the offender will spend in prison; where the sentence that is envisaged falls at the lower end of the range of sentences which are possible for the offence within guidelines laid by the Court of Appeal; or where the offender has been remanded in custody and the short custodial sentence that the court considers appropriate would result in immediate release. That is a means of disposal which very frequently happens after a defendant has been held on remand for a considerable period of time.
In all other cases it will be necessary for the court to obtain a pre-sentence report which could make a difference to the sentence. I have already indicated the nature of the information that would be contained in such a report about the personal circumstances of the offender and it is right that in every case the sentencer should have that before him. In its absence it is possible that the court will impose a sentence which might be a great deal harsher than is justified in all the circumstances or, alternatively, the mistake may be in the opposite direction because, without the assistance of a report, the judge might pass a sentence which is too short to protect the public. For all those reasons the amendment is put forward to ensure that, save in exceptional circumstances, the sentencer will have a pre-sentence report before him. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: This amendment would not merely amend the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994,
1312
which was of itself an amendment to the 1991 Act, but would abolish it completely and we would revert to the provision in the 1991 Act. The reason is that it would be impossible to know what would have been in a pre-sentence report, unless the court commissioned it and saw it. This amendment effectively removes the discretion to dispense with such a report provided by the 1994 Act.
We do not believe that this amendment is either practical or desirable. Requiring the court to be satisfied that any pre-sentence report could not in any measure or circumstances affect its decision as to sentence, is an impossibly high threshhold to meet. One can never totally rule out the theoretical possibility that the content of a report might have some impact on the outcome, however small. The effect would therefore be that the court would be required to obtain and consider a pre-sentence report in every case. That would effectively reverse the discretion given to the courts in this matter in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Our reason for giving the courts discretion at the time was that the previous arrangements were wholly inflexible, and imposed unnecessary fetters on the courts and unnecessary costs for the criminal justice system as a whole. These changes took account both of the views of judges and magistrates, and of the results of a review into the way the previous arrangements worked undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation. We would not wish to reverse these changes. Research evidence shows that the courts are using this discretion wisely and we see no reason to alter the position.
I can appreciate the sentiment behind the noble Lord's amendment that the decision to sentence a person to custody and for how long should be carefully weighed. The courts are already required to take account of a number of factors in taking that decision. However, it does not necessarily follow that a pre-sentence report will help in that decision. The primary purpose of a report is to help the court to consider matters such as the suitability of a community sentence, the need to protect the public from further offending and the seriousness of the offence. A court that decides that a pre-sentence report is unnecessary will have made that decision on the basis that the probation service is unlikely to be able to offer anything further that could influence the outcome. Given the practical choices that have to be made in a limited time, the sentencing process has to be constructed on the basis of judgments as to likelihood of relevance. While there is always a slight possibility that further information could be provided, which might make some difference in some cases, this is not a reason to take away the court's discretion.
The defence will of course have the opportunity to put facts before the court relevant to sentence and, if necessary, ask the court to consider requesting a pre-sentence report. And if the defence believes that a sentence is too harsh, it can appeal against it. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will not press his amendment.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Perhaps I may briefly support my noble friend on this matter and say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that surely this

1313
amendment is going back to the 1991 situation. Would he not agree that, particularly in the Crown Court, one of the problems of delay was the need always to obtain pre-sentence reports? I believe that amendment to the 1994 Act led to an improvement. In my experience in the courts it has meant that if the defence want a report I have never known a judge to refuse such a request and he will adjourn the case for that purpose. If the judge feels that a pre-sentence report is necessary he can get one himself.
However, if it is apparent that, because of the nature of the offence, after the trial there will inevitably be a custodial sentence and the defence, recognising that, do not ask for a report, surely it is in everyone's interest that the man should be sentenced straightaway rather than the case having to be adjourned for a pre-sentence report. It seems to me that the words of the amendment will mean that there should be a report in every case. Since one could not be absolutely 100 per cent. sure what was in the report, the court would be bound to ask for one.
The other point I raise is purely one of practicality and it is an important one. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and myself both sit as part-time judges in the Crown Court from time to time. One knows of situations where, having listened to a trial, and having come to the end of the judge's two-week sitting, suddenly, although the defence is not asking for a report, under the 1991 Act one had to put the case over to obtain one. That meant that the case had to be fixed for a day when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas or myself, or whoever the Recorder was, was available to come back to that town, resulting in considerable delay, additional expense and very little advantage. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that I draw a different conclusion from the one he does as regards the present situation under the 1994 Act.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I always pay the highest respect and regard to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. All I shall add to what he said is that, in my experience these days, there is a certain resistance and reluctance shown occasionally by judges and Recorders in asking for a report at all or in granting an application for a report. Very frequently queries are raised as to whether that is really necessary. With some humility, sitting as a sentencer, one perhaps gets the bit between the teeth at the end of a trial. It is an advantage, even if one does not think so at the time, to have a pre-sentence report. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, agrees that it is helpful to have time to reflect and to have an independent report from someone who is not part of the defence team who has investigated the circumstances and can give perhaps a range of options, which may be other than those that one has immediately in mind sitting as a sentencer. However, as I say, I always pay great regard to the noble Lord's views and with that in mind I shall not press the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Committals for sentence]:
Viscount Tenby Viscount Tenby moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 27, line 24, leave out ("triable either way").
The noble Viscount said: This is a simple amendment which would be beneficial to the administration of the lower courts and equitable in the execution of justice. To the relief of all, I promise to be brief because the matter is simple.
Clause 37 extends the circumstances in a magistrates' court in which an offender who has been convicted of an either way offence may be committed to Crown Court for sentence. The amendment seeks to include in the package, so to speak, any related summary offences to which the offender has pleaded, or been found to be, guilty. Some of those offences might not in the usual way of things be passed to the Crown Court. I refer, for example, to some motoring offences, such as driving while disqualified or without insurance, which can attract a custodial sentence. Others, such as construction and use offences or not having a vehicle excise licence do not attract such a sentence. No matter, let them be passed up together. This simple proposal will reduce administrative costs and ensure that the offender, having served whatever sentence the Crown Court imposes, will not have to return to a magistrates' court at a later date and have all the related matters brought up again. It will also enable the Crown Court to have a more complete picture when it comes to sentencing.
This is such an unexceptionable and common sense proposal that I can only assume that the drafting team left it out of the final version of the Bill by mischance. Perhaps I may invite the Minister, with her usual robust common sense, to put the matter right. Indeed, to paraphrase her last week, the sky may not fall in if this amendment is agreed to, but I nevertheless fear that counsel will inevitably have something of an uncompromising nature to say on the subject. On this common sense proposal, however, can counsel for once be overruled? I beg to move.
Baroness Seccombe: I have the greatest sympathy with the thrust of this amendment and I am sure that fellow magistrates will have experienced the frustration of having to separate offences before the court, sending the substantive offences to the Crown Court while withholding the more minor ones. It seems to me that if the Crown Court can on one occasion pass sentence for all offences that occurred at the same time, that would lead to a much more just outcome.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): I am sorry to have to inform the noble Viscount that my noble friend Lady Blatch and her robust common sense are taking a rest on this amendment. It has been left to me to seek to explain our response to it. The Government certainly share the spirit behind the amendment.
This amendment seeks to extend the application of Clause 37 to all classes of offence, rather than to offences triable either way only. The effect of the clause as it stands is to extend the circumstances in which a magistrates' court may commit a person convicted of a triable either way offence to the Crown Court for sentence. If he pleads guilty in a magistrates' court, and is convicted, and if he is also being committed for trial

1315
for a related offence or offences, he may be committed to the Crown Court for sentence in relation to the offence of which he has already been convicted.
The effect of the amendment would be to widen magistrates' existing powers to commit for sentence in respect of any offence in cases where there are related offences that are to be dealt with by the Crown Court. We share the concern that, where appropriate, sentencing for related offences, of whatever class, should not be split between the courts. However, the view of the parliamentary draftsman is that the necessary powers already exist to enable this to take place.
I shall now seek to explain why that is and why there is at least one technical objection to the amendment. However, in view of the fact that this is a matter of practical importance, I shall certainly reflect further on what the noble Viscount has said.
Clause 37 as currently drafted is not concerned with the general powers of a magistrates' court. It is included in the Bill to remedy a specific practical difficulty which may arise when Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 is implemented—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Aha!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am glad to hear that I have woken up the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I was already awake.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: That provision invites defendants charged with offences triable either way to indicate their plea before the mode of trial decision is taken. A magistrates' court must then either sentence or commit for sentence any defendant who indicates a guilty plea. This procedure enables those wishing to plead guilty to do so at the earliest opportunity and to be dealt with by the magistrates' court rather than be committed for trial to the Crown Court. Research has shown that many defendants so committed would have been willing to be dealt with finally by the magistrates' court. The effect of the provision, when implemented, will be to spare victims, witnesses and defendants the further delay of awaiting a Crown Court trial, and to retain appropriate business in the magistrates' court and thereby save the expense of remitting the matter to the Crown Court.
However, the provisions in the 1996 Act do not take into account any other offences with which a defendant might have been charged and on which he is anyway to be tried at the Crown Court. In certain circumstances, that might lead to the undesirable outcome that he would have to be sentenced by different tribunals at different times. Sentencing anomalies would be inevitable, resulting on the one hand in potential unfairness to the defendant and the possibility of appeal and on the other to the imposition of a sentence in the Crown Court which could well be too lenient.
As I have said, the purpose of Clause 37 is to seek to remedy that potential difficulty. As I have also said, it is believed that there are already sufficient general
1316
powers to enable the Crown Court to deal with all matters outstanding against an offender, including summary offences. Section 56 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, as amended, allows the magistrates' court to commit an offender for sentence to the Crown Court for certain summary offences if the court is also committing him for sentence under other enactments, which will include Section 38A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, as it will be inserted by Clause 37. In addition, Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 enables counts for certain summary offences to be included in an indictment where they are related to an indictable offence for which the accused has been committed for trial. In such cases, the defendant will be tried at the Crown Court for both offences. Section 41 of the 1988 Act enables a magistrates' court, when committing a defendant for trial on a charge for an offence triable either way, to commit him to the Crown Court for any associated summary offence provided that such offence is punishable with imprisonment or carries disqualification.
The advice of counsel is that these existing general powers ensure that, where appropriate, the Crown Court can deal with all matters outstanding against an offender at the same time. As I said earlier, however, I shall reflect carefully on all the points made by the noble Viscount.
In conclusion, perhaps I may draw to the noble Viscount's attention the technical problem with his amendment as currently drafted. It arises because, as I have explained, Clause 37 as drafted is designed to remedy a specific difficulty with the existing plea before venue provision. That requires that two other conditions must also be satisfied for the provisions to apply. They will be met only where the magistrates' court has proceeded under Section 17A or Section 17B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, these having been inserted into the 1980 Act by Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. Sections 17A and 17B apply only to offences triable either way. That is why this technical problem has arisen. However, that is not why I oppose the amendment. I do so because it is believed to be unnecessary. With that assurance and with the undertaking that I have given, I hope that the noble Viscount will beg leave to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I said "Aha!", not because I had been asleep—I had been fanatically attentive to the words of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—but because when he spoke of Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act I was drawn back to the short debate on the Statement on the review of delay in the criminal justice system. He will recall that the proposals in the review which were referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor were in conflict with the undertaking given by the Government that they would not make changes to the election for trial by jury until they had completed their review of Section 49—the plea before venue clause—of the criminal procedure and investigations Act. I reminded the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as I now remind the noble and learned Lord

1317
the Lord Advocate, that Section 49 had not yet been brought into effect. It seems to me that in these matters the Government in their haste to show activity are tripping over their own feet.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: As a Scots lawyer who has been brought up in a jurisdiction that has never had the right to elect for jury trial and, to my knowledge, has never been criticised for its failure to do so, I am tempted to intervene in the discussion. Although the noble Lord now provides me with the opportunity to do so, I will resist the temptation for the moment. I take note of what the noble Lord has said about the position as explained by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Nothing that I have said in explaining to the noble Viscount Lord Tenby why his amendment is unnecessary in any way conflicts with the Statement of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor earlier today. However, as I am in a very accommodating mood, I shall draw the noble Lord's comments to the attention of my noble and learned friend.
Viscount Tenby: I shall strike while the iron is hot! I am grateful for the exchange of the robust common sense of the noble Baroness for the Scottish warmth of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I understood him to say that these powers already existed; for example, in Section 56. I hope that the forces of obfuscation have not triumphed yet again. I am encouraged by his kindness in saying that he will look at this matter. Accordingly, I will retire to a very quiet place with six tonnes of ice and, I hope, the advice of numerous people and reserve the right to come back to this matter perhaps at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Curfew orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am not keen on the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 40. The extension of curfew orders to children under 16 leaves a lot of questions unanswered. While I see the desirability of a curfew being imposed on youngsters who have committed many very annoying offences, I am still unsure and unconvinced about the efficiency of using electronic and remote monitoring for children on a stand-alone basis. If the monitoring is being done by a human monitor, perhaps in conjunction with an electronic tag, possibly there is some good in it, but I do not believe that the human monitoring element will be there. I assert that everything done with children must be backed up with human guidance. The Committee does not need to be told about the state of flux and disorganisation in which many young offenders tend to live.
My other concern is about the process of tagging and its effect on the usually low self-esteem of the young offender. I start from the basis that low self-esteem
1318
allows the young person to do bad things to others because the young offender already feels bad about himself or herself. In his or her eyes there is no reputation to defend. The social work task is to build up self-esteem so that the young offender does not want to lose his or her reputation, and hence does not want to do bad things to others. The presence of an electronic tag has all the marks of permanence and confirmation of outlaw status or a new offender identity. This argument concedes that electronic tags on a stand-alone basis could be used on high self-esteem individuals who would be ashamed of having to wear them and therefore would be reasonably happy to comply with a curfew. However, high self-esteem offenders are few and far between. For this reason, I oppose Clause 40.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As the Government know, I have not been as resistant to electronic tagging as some other noble Lords. My worries about electronic tagging for adults have been restricted largely to my concern about the cavalier attitude of the Government to the research that they themselves have commissioned into the effects of electronic tagging and their willingness to commit themselves to legislation before the results of that research are available. But my acceptance of electronic tagging for adults under certain circumstances arises from an overriding desire to have as wide a range of alternatives to prison as possible.
I am bound to say that I do not believe that that can be extended to children as is proposed here. I am sure that the noble Earl is right that the low self-esteem of offenders under the age of 16 would be enormously reduced if they had to carry electronic tags. For example, what would be the position of a girl whose school uniform required her to wear a skirt rather than trousers so therefore the tag was visible to everyone? What would be the position of a child who had to wear an electronic tag at school and participate in games and physical education? The mind boggles at the degree of humiliation to which children may be subjected by their fellows if they were carrying electronic tags. I cannot see the justification for it, particularly as the research evidence even in relation to adults is not yet available.
Earl Russell: My noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie has referred to cases where the young person feels a sense of disgrace and low self-esteem as a result of wearing a tag. Those cases happen. But the problem may be even worse if they do not. It is not only the noble Baroness who travels on buses. A couple of weeks ago I opened my local paper and read a letter from our PPC for the Regents Park constituency. She described an occasion when she was travelling on a bus and found two rather violently-spoken young men next to her. They were exchanging boasts about the gravity of their crimes and the severity of the sentences that they had earned. The more severe the sentence, the greater the prestige. Some cases will fit my noble friend's description; others will fit this. In either case I do not see that anything is gained.
I very much share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, about the indifference of the Home Office to research. It was only one week ago

1319
today that the Home Secretary commissioned extended trials—an extension of pre-existing trials—of the procedure for tagging. He might have waited for that. The Home Secretary's attitude to research increasingly reminds me of Sydney Smith's attitude to reviewing. He said that he never read a book before reviewing it because it prejudiced a man so.
I have here the report on the first instalment of those trials entitled Curfew orders with electronic monitoring (Home Office Research Study 163). To give it the most favourable gloss possible, it is not an entirely conclusive report. It also leads me to think again about the point made by my noble friend about the difficulty of using tagging as an exclusive way of dealing with the situation.
The economies proposed for tagging of course depend quite heavily on the idea that it can be used exclusively. I quote here from page 31 of the Home Office research report which states:
"The staff were keen on their work and took pride in it. They were rather surprised at the amount and type of help they had to give to offenders at times which had nothing to do with electronic monitoring itself; this was a probation service task as they saw it, but if no probation order was made alongside the curfew order probation officers had nothing to do with it".
That seems to suggest that if tagging was going to work it would work in conjunction with probation. That may be worth further thought, but it rather gets rid of the argument of immediate economy.
The argument of costs, too, should be causing us some concern. The average cost per type of order is probation orders £2,425, community service orders £1,773 and tagging orders £2,295. That of course is all right if you consider it per order, but the trouble is that you cannot do it that way because courts are imposing so few tagging orders.
We seem to have a problem here, as we have had in earlier stages of the Bill, of courts being asked to impose orders which they do not want to impose. That is part of a much wider problem in the relationship between the Government and all the professions—the Government wishing to get everyone to exercise their professional judgment as the Government wish. It is not that simple.
Of course, if courts are not going to impose tagging orders in large numbers, then their alleged virtues will be very much diminished. The more I listen to any debate on tagging, the more I am struck by the fact that everyone who does not know anything about it is strongly enthusiastic about it and, with the single exception of the Home Office, everyone who does know anything about it is extremely doubtful. This may be an idea which has something to show us in future, but I do not believe that its time has yet come.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The point the noble Earl made about young people boasting about their crime and the severity of the punishment made me wonder what
1320
message he intended to give. It seemed to me that it was a case for the admonition: no punishment on low punishment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may suggest an answer to that, if the noble Earl, Lord Russell, will allow me. If they are boasting about their crime, are they not going to boast about their electronic tags as well?
Baroness Blatch: They may well boast about their electronic tags, but what they may not boast about is the hours that they will have their liberty restricted from going about their wrongdoing in the evenings or playing with their friends. It is the period of restriction that is the punishment. That is the whole purpose of the curfew order. There are many young people on our streets out of control. Not only do I believe that it will be helpful to keep them in one place at one time; it helps also with some adjustment in the family. There are some parents who will be jolly relieved to know where their children are, even if it is an enforced period, because there are some parents who just put up their hands and say, "I just can't control him or her". I believe that this will be a pilot scheme worth piloting for that alone.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister. I think this underlines the point made earlier by my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford about the need to restore confidence in the criminal justice system. There is a lot of truth in the remark made by the first Earl of Strafford:
"A prince that loses the force and example of his punishment, loses with all the greatest part of his dominion".
Baroness Blatch: The point I am making almost makes the point that the noble Earl is just trying to make: the young people riding on buses and out in the streets among the public boasting about their crime and their punishment will not be boasting so much when they are tethered at home and curfewed at home by electronic tagging. It will at least ensure a period, determined by the courts, when they will need to be at home and not out on the streets boasting to anyone. It is that punishment that I hope the Committee will agree is at least worth trying in the pilot schemes.
The noble Earl made another point about reading the report. He referred to it as not being conclusive. It is not conclusive because the pilot scheme has not yet been concluded.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Exactly!
Baroness Blatch: Not only is it not conclusive, that report refers to the early part of the pilot. It is well advanced now. I believe that the subsequent report will be positive. There are many positive parts of that report, too.
The measures in the clause will operate initially on a trial basis. For instance, in our existing curfew pilot areas—greater Manchester, Norfolk and Berkshire—the present pilot schemes for offenders aged 16 and over which have been operating there are working extremely well. The research report which we published on

1321
30th December shows that curfew orders are becoming very effective. The research found that the tagging equipment consistently performed effectively and that 75 per cent. of offenders were tagged successfully. Tagging therefore looks likely to compare well with other community sentences in terms of completion and cost.
We now believe that there is also a role for curfew orders for young offenders enforced through electronic monitoring. They will be a means of keeping them at home, off the streets and away from shopping centres, clubs and other places where they may get into trouble. By keeping young people out of harm's way we believe that the curfew order should be able to help prevent young offenders from re-offending and help protect the public.
That links in with the point that the noble Earl made. It is about restoring public confidence in the judicial system, which is at a very low ebb at the moment. Young people are seen hanging around shopping centres and street corners. I am reminded of the words of my right honourable friend John Patten when he was Secretary of State for Education. He talked about street corner to prison cell—that awful downward cycle, when there is no early intervention with children. This is at least one opportunity to bring family and child together, enforced though that may be. There may well be positive aspects of that. We would at least like to see whether it will work.
Courts already have a power to impose a night restriction order on a young offender as part of a supervision order—the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—but those night restriction orders are more limited in scope than the curfew order. They can be imposed only as part of a supervision order and can operate only during the evening and the night. What is more, they are difficult to enforce. A curfew order is more flexible. Because it is monitored electronically, it is properly and strictly enforced. Its virtue so far has been that any movement of the individual who is subject to electronic tagging outside of the area is detected immediately and dealt with.
That is what gives the courts confidence that the order that they will make will be carried out. The curfew order will apply in the same way as it does for offenders over 16, but with modifications to reflect the younger age of the offenders. First, the order will be for a maximum length of three months and not six months; secondly, we have provided that in the case of offenders under the age of 16 one of the penalties for a breach should be an attendance centre order, which again I believe will answer one of the noble Earl's concerns which is one which I share—I believe that human contact is an important part of this.
Under existing powers, the courts may deal with the breach of curfew order by re-sentencing the offender for the original offence or varying or continuing the order and imposing a fine or community service order. As a community service order is available for those 16 and over only, we have filled that gap by giving courts the power to impose an attendance centre order on breach where the offender is under 16.
1322
Thirdly, as with the proposals for community sentences in the Bill, there will be no need for the offender to consent to the order. However, we will require the courts to obtain and to consider, before making a curfew order, information about the family circumstances and the effect that it will have on the family. That procedure should enable the courts to apply the new order appropriately. As with older offenders, a curfew order will be available for any offence as well as on breach of a release supervision order, as provided for in Clause 14.
I was asked whether or not it is irresponsible to extend tagging to juveniles before the trials finish in March next year and before the scheme is fully assessed. We do not believe that it is. I need to make the powers available to the courts so that pilot trials running in parallel with the main trials can take place. Given that they will be pilot schemes, decisions will not be taken about whether to make the sentence available nationally until there has been a fuller evaluation of the effectiveness and value for money of electronically monitored curfew orders. However, we need to have the powers in place if we are to be in a position to obtain the necessary information from appropriate pilot schemes. The noble Earl, Lord Mar, referred to the report that is already in the public domain.
I was also asked whether or not the tag will be worn as a badge of honour. Again, there will always be some young offenders who see a trip to court as something to boast about. However, that is not a reason for refusing to proceed with any action. Even if some young offenders wear their tags with pride they will still have to comply with the curfew orders imposed on them. What is important is the restriction of their liberty not to roam the streets and not to hang around the areas where they have been getting up to no good. We believe that the scheme is at least worth trying.
The night restriction order can be imposed as a condition of a supervision order, which is a longstanding provision. A night restriction order cannot be combined with electronic monitoring. A curfew order is separate from a supervision order, but the court can impose both a curfew and a supervision order. It must be for the court to determine which is appropriate. If the court regards close supervision as important it can impose such an order to run in conjunction with a curfew order. I share the point which the noble Earl made and I believe that we have covered it for the purpose of the pilot scheme.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Again, the Minister prays in aid the research which she acknowledges is incomplete, but she does not answer my question about how such schemes can be applied to school children. Do the trials show that any school children aged 16 or over have been sentenced to curfew orders? Do the trials show experience of older schoolchildren being given curfew sentences and the effect of those? I should have thought that that was at least relevant.
Baroness Blatch: I shall write to the noble Lord giving the statistics of all those who have been electronically tagged showing their ages, the sentences and the successful completion. However, perhaps I may

1323
apologise to him because I did not answer his concern about the visibility of the tag on young children. It is fair to say that for every-day wear the tag can be easily secreted. I have seen both tags which operate in the scheme in Manchester, which was repeated in Berkshire, and the scheme in Norfolk. Those tags can be easily secreted either under the sleeve or under the sock, and socks are worn by most school children.
The noble Lord is right in saying that if children were doing PE, or an activity for which they would strip away socks and/or sleeves, the tags would indeed be visible. We must judge the effect of that under the pilot scheme. However, we are talking about young people who have offended. They have come before the courts, been convicted and the courts believed that a curfew order was an appropriate sentence. The noble Earl has already given the Committee evidence of the fact that they are young people who go about boasting of their wrongdoing and of their sentences. Only recently I heard of a young person boasting to all his friends in school about his own personal social worker. That will continue for a long time, but some young people will not want to be seen with a tag. Those who appear before the courts and who must wear them may have a deterrent effect on those who do not want to wear them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That means that it is an extra, more severe punishment for those children than it is for adults who can successfully conceal their tags.
Baroness Blatch: The full impact of a sentence will be a matter for consideration by the courts. Any magistrate awarding a penalty to an offender before him will think through the impact of that and will make a judgment about the degree to which it is a punishment that fits the crime.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My noble friend mentioned the fact that the court must consider how the home will be affected and what the reaction will be of the family of the child being curfewed in the home. Can she assure the Committee about the thoroughness with which that will be evaluated in the pilot schemes? How will it be done? Perhaps a variety of ways can be examined.
It is of the greatest importance that the family life should not create a worse situation for the child. That has been drawn to my attention in relation to the Scottish Bill. It should not be imposed if the family life will be wrecked by the fact that the child is forced to be at home for many hours over a period of three months, which is a long time in the life of a young child.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend raises a very important point. I can give her an absolute assurance that those very aspects of the penalty will be evaluated. In view of my noble friend's concern about young people, I wish to mention another point with which she might agree. In addition to the penalty being effective, I believe that we should look to see whether it has a
1324
positive as opposed to a negative effect on a family. The point made by my noble friend will certainly be taken into account in evaluating the pilot scheme.
Earl Russell: I listened to the Minister with a great deal of interest on the need to restore respect for the criminal justice system. She made many good points, but does she see any merit in the view that we can do more good for this problem by the example we set than by any legislation we pass in the Bill?
Sadly, our own reputation, our own legitimacy, rightly or wrongly—and I believe often wrongly—is rather low. Until we can put that right, is there any use in imposing more draconian punishments? Should we not be concerned with restoring our own sense of legitimacy? Would not that perhaps do rather more good?
Baroness Blatch: I am obviously missing a point. I am not aware of our illegitimacy. I am not aware of what the noble Earl means by not attending to our own legitimacy. He cannot be unaware of the public anxiety about too many young people who are not at home in the evenings, who are out after school, who are hanging around places where they ought not to be, who are indulging in behaviour which is socially very unacceptable, and who are sometimes breaking the law.
That is most disturbing and we are all concerned about it. A great deal is being done about early intervention, but where that has failed and young people begin to behave criminally we are evaluating ways of coping with that. We believe that this is one way of coping with it and that the pilot scheme is worthwhile. The public have expressed that anxiety very volubly. We are responding to that and believe that confidence will be restored. However, I do not know what the noble Earl means about our illegitimacy.
Earl Russell: I am sorry that I did not explain myself. We have a large body of evidence which shows that respect for politics as a profession—that is what I meant when I referred to us—has fallen lower than it has ever been since opinion surveys began. We have fallen below everybody except journalists. If the public believe, often wrongly, that we are all on the fiddle it is very hard to stop them being on the fiddle.
The noble Baroness may know St. Augustine's story of Alexander the Great and the pirate. The pirate caused great damage around the Eastern Mediterranean and was arrested by Alexander, who was about to execute him, when the pirate said, "Because you do it with a great army and a great fleet, you are called a great emperor. Because I do it with one ship, I am called a contemptible pirate". It is that reaction that we are getting from the public. It worries me very deeply and I do not see that this Bill goes anywhere near addressing the problem.
Baroness Blatch: In a few weeks' time, I shall have been in this House for 10 years. Throughout that time, there has not been a day when I have not been deeply impressed by the way in which this House sets about its business; the seriousness with which it takes all the work that comes before it; and the thoroughness of the

1325
work done in this House. I believe that the proof of the pudding is how we perform in this House. I cannot possibly agree with some of the things that the noble Earl said.
I am not accounting for other people. I am accounting for this House and the way that it does its business. I believe that the matter before us is important. It has been properly discussed and I hope now that the Committee will accept that the clause shall stand part of the Bill.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may very briefly clear my own honour. I do not disagree with anything that the noble Baroness said about this House; I think she knows that I do not disagree with her. But that is not the way that we are perceived outside and I do not believe that the noble Baroness disagrees with that either.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: First, the story that my noble friend told us about people boasting on top of the bus shows that there is a certain point in any offender's life when he is so basking in his outlaw status that no amount of encouragement will make him alter his ways. Clearly, we must intervene at the point at which the offender is beginning to doubt the wisdom of his outlaw status.
Here we are considering a form of house arrest which I contend should be backed up by human monitoring. However, it is proposed that the monitoring should be done electronically, remotely and without any social work contact and that the monitoring should be done on a stand-alone basis. I am not happy about that. I am very worried about the exemplary justice aspect of it; that is, the so-called deterrent effect of seeing someone else wearing a tag. We do not normally use exemplary justice as a part of the criminal justice system. It is more a characteristic of military justice.
I am unconvinced by this proposal. However, I recognise that we have debated the matter quite thoroughly. I am still not convinced about this clause, but I shall withdraw my opposition to it.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Publication of reports]:
On Question, Whether Clause 42 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I turn now to Clause 42 which, once again, I do not believe should stand part of the Bill. The clause deals with the publication of reports and the giving of names of those under the age of 16.
I see the provisions of this clause as being generally counter-productive to the social work task. Allowing the naming of a child is counter-productive to the task of behaviour modification and reintegration into the community. As I see it, the risk is that the child or young person will bathe in notoriety and enjoy the confirmation of his outlaw status, to which I referred earlier.
1326
The use of this measure must be the absolute last resort. It would be a deliberate decision to identify a child as an offender beyond redemption and in fact, to leave him at that point.
There may be a small number of children for whom that must be true. But I believe that only very few people are evil; many are extremely misguided. This measure must not be used except in the most extreme cases, as I believe is the practice at present. I hope that the Minister will tell me about the guidance which will be given as regards the use of Clause 42 in an attempt to persuade me that it may be efficient and not counter-productive.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Perhaps I may mention a neutral point which has occurred to me while listening to the noble Earl, although I may be quite wrong. I wonder whether the reference should be to Section 49 of the 1933 Act or, as I think it should be, to Section 39.
Baroness Blatch: I shall take advice and return to the noble and learned Lord on that matter.
Under Clause 42, the Youth Court and a court dealing with an appeal from a Youth Court will have a discretion, where a juvenile has been convicted of an offence and where the court judges it to be in the public interest, to dispense with the existing prohibition on identifying juveniles which applies where juveniles are concerned in proceedings before such a court.
Under the existing provisions, the prohibition on the identification of juveniles may be lifted only where either it is appropriate to do so for the purpose of avoiding injustice to the child or young person concerned or where a child or young person charged with or convicted of a serious offence is unlawfully at large, so as to apprehend him.
The existing prohibition on identification reflects the principle that in view of their age and vulnerability, juveniles should be offered greater protection in court. The protection which the existing legislation affords to victims, witnesses or those who are acquitted will rightly remain.
But there is a balance to be struck between protecting the interests and identity of juveniles involved in court proceedings and protecting the public. It is important that members of the public should be protected from young offenders and there are circumstances in which the public has a right to know when those youngsters have been convicted; for example, when they are released back into the community having committed a crime which has had a particular impact on that community. In such cases, public awareness may also help to prevent further offences from being committed.
There may also be instances where it is right that the public should be reassured that an offender has been caught; for example, when he has been responsible for a spate of local crimes. Moreover, the prospect of being identified publicly should prompt many young offenders and their families to think more carefully about their actions.

1327
Juveniles convicted of serious crimes in the Crown Court can already be identified. It cannot be right that offenders convicted in the Youth Court should automatically have their identity protected. Of course, there is a balance to be struck between protecting the interests of the juvenile offender and protecting the public. For example, the court may consider identification to be inappropriate in the case of a first-time offender convicted of a less serious offence. But the court should be able to decide where the balance lies between the interests of the public and the welfare of the child. This provision, which is permissive, will allow the court to do that.
I understand that the answer to the noble and learned Lord's question is that the reference is correct. Section 39 covers Crown Courts and adult magistrates' courts. Section 49 covers proceedings in Youth Courts.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: I am sorry. Next time I shall try to verify my references in advance.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: The noble Baroness has given an explanation. I still feel that children, however much of a nuisance, should not be placed in a situation in which they are beyond redemption. The maintenance of their status as offenders I continue to see as counter-productive. I wonder whether any offender has been helped by being named and by being seen by others as an identified offender. That is particularly true in rural areas. It is probably easier to be reintegrated into an urban social environment than it is in a rural area.
I believe that it conflicts with the welfare principle with which we normally approach young offenders. However, we have had a wee debate about this matter and I shall not oppose the inclusion of the clause at this stage.
Clause 42 agreed to.
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 104:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
ENDING OF REMAND OF JUVENILES TO ADULT PRISONS
(" . The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act a report containing an assessment of progress towards the implementation of sections 60 and 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and specifying the day which he will appoint for the coming into force of those sections.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to force the Government to do something about their intention, which has been expressed for a number of years, to keep juveniles on remand out of prison. I believe that we have all been in agreement on that objective; but, if we look back at the history, it is a sorry story of delay and one which ought no longer to be accepted. When I say that we have all been agreed about it, the Minister herself said in the debate on 10th January last year:
"We are committed also to ending the remand of juveniles to prison custody once sufficient local authority secure accommodation is available"—[Official Report, 10/1/96: col. 215.]
1328
That might be thought to be a restriction on the Minister's intention but, at the same time, and subsequently when we talked, for example, about secure training centres, the Government have boasted about the way in which additional local authority secure accommodation has indeed been provided and the extent to which the additional 100 places, which were required by the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, have been achieved.
As I said, this is a sorry history but there has been some progress. Between 1976 and 1981 we progressively excluded all girls under the age of 17 from custody of the Prison Service and we excluded 14 year-old boys from such custody in 1981. We have indeed made some progress in that time as regards the number of boys aged 15 and 16. The number of unsentenced juveniles entering prisons and remand centres fell from 4,812 in 1976 to 1,098 in 1992. The trouble is that that has gone up again and the most recent figure that I have is for 1995 when there were 1,899. This is true not only of that measure but also of the daily population of juveniles in Prison Service custody: the figure was 54 in 1992 but 319 at the latest count in 1997. To make it worse, the average number of days served by juveniles on remand in Prison Service custody increased from 36 in 1992 to 46 in 1997. Those are very disturbing figures.
We can all remember the public debate that took place at the time of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 when, I believe, many people were shocked by the suicide of a 15 year-old boy, Philip Knight, who hanged himself while on remand in Swansea prison in July 1990. That is why these provisions were placed in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 and that is why the opinion of the country was so strong that such detention should no longer be allowed.
In a number of annual reports, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons Judge Stephen Tumim pointed out the horrific effect of young boys of 15 and 16 being in the same prisons and remand centres as young men of 17 to 20. If ever there was a case for the opportunity for corruption and for becoming a university of crime, that is indeed what we have. Whether remand juveniles are held in local prisons or in remand centres, the inspections of those individual prisons and centres have produced very severe criticisms from the chief inspector of prisons.
In the report on Hull Prison of July 1995, Judge Tumim again made a recommendation that juveniles should be removed as soon as possible from that prison. That was the view of the governor, the board of visitors and the director of social services. The inspectorate said that the youngsters,
"were held together on a landing in a Victorian prison … This is totally unacceptable. We were appalled at the Dickensian picture of children in a Victorian prison who were there because of lack of provision in the community".
That is simply no longer acceptable in 1997
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within three months of the passing of this Act a report containing an assessment of progress—let us hope that it is not as gloomy as the assessment that I have just given the Committee—and

1329
specifying the day which he will appoint for the coming into force of the relevant sections of the 1991 Act. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: I should like to support the amendment. In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, did not mention the disruptive effect on the education of these young people while on remand in adult prisons.
Earl Russell: I also took part in the debate on the imprisonment of young offenders on 10th January 1996, as indeed did the Minister. I have just been checking through Hansard to ascertain what the noble Baroness actually said in that debate. She said:
"We"—
that is, the Government—
"are committed also to ending the remand of juveniles to prison custody once sufficient local authority secure accommodation is available"—[Official Report, 10/1/96; col. 215.]
Well, it does not seem to be so as yet. As I understand it, the numbers are actually increasing. The report from the Howard League that we debated on that occasion gave an extremely disturbing picture of what was going on. In fact, it cast a great deal of doubt on the claim that prison reduces crime because the amount of crime that is taking place inside prisons is so immense. For example, we find cases like a prisoner who was found in Doncaster prison wearing only a towel because all of his clothes had been "taxed" off him.
The problem at that prison seems very largely to be one of overcrowding. The numbers of staff are simply not sufficient to supervise the number of people who are in the gaol. Until we can put people into what can properly be described as "safe custody", I think that we should be careful about increasing the prison population. Where we have young offenders in adult institutions, that sort of trouble seems to arise with quite alarming frequency. The Minister has said that the Government mean to do something about it: I do wish that they would get on with it.
Baroness Blatch: I should be most grateful if the noble Earl would kindly complete the overcrowding details of Doncaster prison. My information is that that prison is not overcrowded. Therefore, I am slightly alarmed at the story that he has just given us. However, if the picture that he has just outlined is a true one, I share the noble Earl's horror. Of course that is very much a management issue for the prison. Nevertheless, I should like to look into the specific case raised by the noble Earl. I should certainly be interested to know his source for the cause being one of overcrowding.
The Criminal Justice Act 1991 makes the necessary provision for replacing prison remands for 15 and 16 year-old boys with court-ordered remands to local authority accommodation with a security requirement. It also provides for the court to direct that 15 and 16 year-old girls be held in secure local authority accommodation. Such secure remands would be subject to strict criteria so as to ensure that they are only used in appropriate cases where it is important to protect the
1330
public from such juveniles. But that can only realistically happen when there is enough local authority secure accommodation available to replace the existing prison custody. In addition, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides for the provision to be widened to include 12 to 14 year-olds.
With that aim, the Government are funding a 170-place expansion programme to provide more accommodation of this sort and, by the end of this building programme, we will have spent over £30 million. The first places came on stream at the end of 1995 and the vast majority should be in place by summer of this year. However, the Government would be failing in their public duty, and in their priority to protect the public, if they ended prison remands without making workable alternatives for the secure containment of such youngsters. As the noble Earl has already said, the fact of the matter is that the number of 15 and 16 year-old remands is increasing—270 15 and 16 year-old boys were remanded to prison custody on 30th June 1996, as compared to 211 on the same date in 1995. The latest figures show around 300 juveniles remanded to prison custody.
We have no single explanation for this increase. It may be that the courts are taking greater account than before of the need to protect the public; it may even be something else, for example, demographic reasons. Decisions about the use of remands to prison custody in individual cases are, of course, matters for the courts. But whatever the reasons for these increases it will be clear to the Committee that careful consideration must be given to the implications of this rising remand population for the implementation of the 1991 Act provisions. I can assure the Committee that we are doing just that, and that it is our intention to report to Parliament at the earliest possible opportunity on the implications for implementation. I believe I now know Members of this Chamber well and I know that they will not be reticent in making sure that pressure is maintained on the Government to give an explanation and progress reports.
The new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within three months of this Act being passed a report assessing progress towards implementing Sections 60 and 61 of the 1991 Act, and specifying an implementation day for these provisions. I understand the thinking behind the proposed new clause and its aim and I am sympathetic to that; indeed, I am extremely sympathetic. I know that there is a good deal of interest in these provisions within this Chamber and in another place. It is right that there should be. It is also right that Parliament should be informed of progress in moving towards implementation. However, I do not think that the new clause as proposed is either necessary or desirable. Certainly the achievement of the policy aim is desirable.
The amendment is technically flawed and on that ground alone it is difficult to invite the Committee to accept it today. The two sections to which the new clause refers are already in force, but as modified by Section 62 of the 1991 Act. Section 62 has the effect of preserving the use of prison remands for 15 and

1331
16 year-old boys until such time as an order made under Section 62(1) of the 1991 Act is laid. It does not therefore make sense to require a report on progress in implementing Sections 60 and 61.
What is more important, I believe that it would be quite wrong to include a provision in this Bill at this time which would in effect place a statutory requirement on a government of whatever complexion to provide Parliament with a report on progress and a specific implementation date for these provisions within what would be the first few weeks of a new Parliament. I remind the Committee that it would occur about six weeks after the new Parliament assembled, because if nothing untoward prevents this Bill from receiving Royal Assent that will occur during the month of March. Therefore, if one accepts this amendment, the clock starts ticking from that point. The measure would not affect the present situation to any significant or worthwhile extent. In addition, little of value would be achieved by requiring any Secretary of State to identify a specific implementation date for these provisions until the necessary accommodation is available. As I said, it would be difficult to give a specific implementation date until the additional expenditure—over and above the money that has been made available for the 170 places—has been approved to provide the additional accommodation that is needed to accommodate what appears at the moment to be an inexorable rise of young people remanded to custody and has been included in new spending programmes. The noble Lord will know much about new spending programmes because it is a current topic in his party. The public would not be properly served and nor would they be protected by bringing these provisions into effect before there is available sufficient secure accommodation. At this moment it is difficult to be specific about when these additional places—that is, additional to the 170 places—can be brought on stream.
I have said that I am sympathetic to the amendment. I am happy to put on record an assurance that a full report on progress should and will be made to Parliament. Today I have outlined progress in the planned building programme and explained the difficulties that we face in keeping pace with the rising demand for secure places for remanded juveniles. I have also indicated that we are looking closely at the situation and that we intend to report further to Parliament at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will not press the amendment. I say to those who have sympathy for this provision—I refer also to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—that we are as concerned as anyone that 15 or 16 year-olds remanded to prison should be kept in a separate wing as far as is practicable. If that cannot be accommodated, efforts should be made to ensure that they are kept as separate as possible from adult convicted prisoners. Special attention should be paid to their regime while they are in prison to ensure that their education and training needs are not neglected. We are concerned about that and we shall continue to examine ways to ensure those needs are met.
1332
With the assurance that we shall produce a progress report and that attempts will he made to provide a timescale for when this policy will be implemented—the noble Lord referred to my saying in January of last year that that remains the policy aim; namely, that these young people will not be remanded to prison but rather to properly secure homes of local authorities—
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness asked me my source for the incident at Doncaster. It was from the Howard League report Banged Up, Beaten Up, Cutting Up which we debated on 10th January last year. However, I was not making any specific statement about overcrowding at Doncaster. I said the problem was generally one of overcrowding. I stand by that, but I made no specific statement about overcrowding at Doncaster.
Lord Acton: I was not quite clear about something that the Minister said. We have been told about these 170 fresh local authority places for some years now. I think it has been three years. Is the Minister's department pressing for more places, and if so how many?
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The 170 places are almost all provided. They will all be in place later this year. I have already said that about 300 young people are remanded at this moment. It is a technical difficulty that we have at the moment. Those 170 places will be available, but at the moment the court remands to the local authority, and the local authority finds the places in secure accommodation. We want to give the courts the power to remand to custody direct from court. Until we can give some guarantee to the court that the provision will be there, it is difficult technically to give the courts that power because we would do so knowing there is a deficit at the moment of about 130 places. It is important that we ensure there is not a continuing rising curve of these young offenders and that we have some understanding of the eventual figure so that when we give this power to the courts we do so knowing the places will be available.
Viscount Tenby: I must take the noble Baroness up on this because it is a matter of great importance. How is it proposed that that power will be given to the courts? The courts desperately need to be able to send these people straight into secure local accommodation.
Baroness Blatch: The power is there in the Act; it is a question of commencing the provision in the Act. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants to know when we shall implement that provision of the Act. It had its birth in the 1991 Act and was amended in the 1994 Act. It is our intention to implement the provision by means of a commencement order. The power is there; it is a question of when the Government will implement it. What we want is a proper match between the courts having the power, and having the places available to enable the courts to exercise that power.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is impossible to avoid saying "We told you so". This undertaking was

1333
made six years ago in the 1991 Act. As has been said, the figure of 170 extra places has been referred to over a long period of time. As recently as last year the Government promised that they would be completed by the end of the year. The Minister is now saying that it will he later on this year. That is exactly why the amendment seeks to force the hand of Government, not merely to demand a report but to demand completion. However, instead of pushing ahead for local authority secure accommodation, as would have been required if the 1991 Act had been brought into force, the Government decided to spend far greater amounts of money per head on their publicity seeking initiative of secure training centres. The expenditure was £30 million for 200 places, not one of which exists after the 1994 Act. It was not just £30 million capital expenditure but £30 million a year to keep those centres going. Had the Government not used that diversionary tactic, we could now have had the places that we need in local authority secure accommodation and we would not have this problem and this quite unnecessary delay.
I recognise that the secure training centres are for younger people. But local authority secure accommodation is for a much wider range of ages. A further increase in local authority secure accommodation could have gone much further to solve the problem than the Government have done. They failed to anticipate the effects of their own propaganda resulting in increased remand in custody. As the review of delay in the criminal justice system published only today acknowledges, the delays in reaching decisions in the youth courts are totally unacceptable. I do not say that; the review, the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary say that.
Baroness Blatch: Is the noble Lord saying that he is absolutely against high quality secure training places with high quality education and training provision for 12 to 14 year-old very persistent offenders who appear in court having breached community service orders and having exhausted a number of convictions? What would the noble Lord propose should be done for that age group with that persistent level of offending?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We have always said that we were opposed to the initiative of secure training centres. We have always said that the same quality of training and education as well as security could be provided in local authority secure accommodation. There is no change in our attitude on that point. I said, "I told you so", and that is still the case. We have been proved right. Neither the secure training centres nor the necessary increase in local authority secure accommodation have been provided. In her speech the noble Baroness tacitly admitted that there is danger that the Bill will run up against the buffers; and she tacitly admitted that it would not be her party in Government to implement it. I suppose that should give me cause for concern.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, because commitments are commitments for the Government in
1334
power. If this Government have not made the provision, it will be for the next Government to deal with the commitments which the Government have failed to honour. That is a problem which faces us across the whole range of the criminal justice system.
The Minister says that the new clause is technically defective. I have no way of rebutting that claim. Therefore on that basis alone, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
McIntosh of Haringey McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 105:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—
BAIL SUPPORT SCHEMES
(" . Every local authority shall provide for the support and supervision of children and young persons granted bail after a conviction in criminal proceedings, either directly or by making arrangements for the provision of such services with such persons as appear to them appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: I believe that we are talking about something less controversial. I think that it has been generally agreed across party lines that bail support schemes have been extremely valuable in reducing the likelihood of those who are not locked up on remand offending again during the crucial period awaiting trial. It comes back to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, from his own experience. The schemes include regular reporting to probation officers, placements with volunteers in the evening and weekends, monitored attendance at youth activities, monitoring school attendance, reintroduction of truants to school, negotiation of specialist economic provision, assistance with employment, involvement in youth training schemes and many other services. In some cases they involve curfews and supervision throughout the day and regular daily reporting. This is a really sensible alternative to remand in custody and should be encouraged as far as possible.
The new clause places a duty on every local authority either itself to provide or to make arrangements with other persons—that could include the private sector or neighbouring local authorities—to provide the bail support schemes for the support and supervision of children and young persons granted bail in criminal proceedings. That will need financial support from the Treasury. However, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that bail support schemes cannot cost as much as remands in custody. If they become an effective alternative, there will be saving to the public purse as well as a reduction in the likelihood of reoffending. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is absolutely right. These are excellent schemes across the country. They were funded centrally for quite a long time but the Government then pushed the money down to the probation service areas for them to have control over both the money and the bail support schemes that they supported.
Bail must only be granted where it is safe to do so. Decisions about bail are, of course, a matter for the courts, but their decisions about granting bail will take

1335
into account the availability of bail support services locally which might help to prevent re-offending or breach of bail conditions.
The Government encourage the provision of bail support services where they can help to avoid the need for remands to custody. Bail support projects focusing mainly on juveniles are usually run by, or in partnership with, social services departments of local authorities; this may be in partnership with the Probation Service or voluntary organisations, of which there are some excellent ones. The Government believe that it should be for each local authority to decide on the whole range of services, including bail support, that it provides for young people in its area, in the light of local needs and priorities.
A recent research project funded by the Home Office and carried out by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders showed that various kinds of bail support schemes are already in place throughout the country, provided by local authorities, social services departments, probation services, or both. The grant to NACRO also funded the production of a directory of bail support projects, published in November 1995, which is useful for practitioners. Probation services have been empowered to fund, or otherwise support, bail support schemes, depending on local needs and priorities. The Home Office has over the past couple of years devolved some £18 million to the Probation Service for local grants to the private and voluntary sector working with offenders and those on bail in the community. The probation service has also been set a target of spending at least 5 per cent. of its revenue, by the end of 1996–97, on partnership projects which can include bail support schemes.
National standards for the supervision of offenders in the community include standards for the management of approved bail hostels. There are currently 101 approved hostels—92 probation/bail hostels and nine bail hostels—providing a total of 2,314 places. Funding for these hostels is provided by the Home Office, local authorities and residents. They provide a total residential service under 24-hour supervision and are intended as a base from which residents can take full advantage of community facilities for work, education, training, treatment and recreation.
I hope that the Committee will agree from what I have said that the Government are already doing much to encourage the development and use of bail support schemes. But, as I have also said, decisions about provision of this kind should be made by local authorities in the light of their assessment of local needs and priorities.
Moreover, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is limited to youngsters who have been convicted; that is, those awaiting sentence or pending appeal. My experience through contact with bail support schemes up and down the country is that they are of greatest value during the period when a person has been charged and is waiting for a case to be heard in court. That is the most vulnerable time for young people. A very high proportion of young people, once they have been in court and convicted, are very quickly sentenced, and the sentence is put into play. The numbers involved would be
1336
very small. For those very few people bail support schemes are available in many parts of the country. We expect local authorities to give priority to young people.
As I said, it is for local authorities to decide on the allocation of their resources in the light of local needs and circumstances. I do not think that it would be right for us at this point to place a statutory burden on local authorities, particularly in respect of such a specific group of offenders. The point will not have been missed by the noble Lord that, were we to place a statutory burden on local authorities, it would have to go hand in hand with the resources to fund it. We still believe that local authorities do a very good job in providing bail support schemes, and, unlike the proposal in this amendment, at a time when it is more fruitful; namely, the time between the person being charged with an offence and the case being heard in court.
7 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: Before the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, replies, I ask him to examine the words "Every local authority". I take the Minister's point about people awaiting trial as well as those who have already been convicted and who are awaiting sentence.
One of the difficulties in a large conurbation, of which we have a number (I operate in the London area), is that one does not want the local authority where the person normally lives to be providing that facility. It may only be possible to grant bail or await events if the person is away from the place where it all happened, where all the witnesses or all the victims are. "The" local authority is not the right organisation to organise this. A group of local authorities, and possibly a regional group, could very well provide exactly the sort of system we have been talking about. However, were it to be done on the basis of an individual local authority, the difficulty would merely be compounded.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Viscount is right; however, I hoped that I had covered that point in introducing the amendment. The amendment states that local authorities shall make provision,
"either directly or by making arrangements for the provision of such services with such persons as appear to them appropriate".
In moving the amendment, I said that that could be other neighbouring local authorities.
The noble Viscount is also right in saying that this should not be too far away, because of the availability of witnesses and the general desirability of children being close to their homes if at all possible. However, I believe that my introduction to the amendment met his point.
However, it did not meet the very valid point made by the Minister that the amendment is wrongly restricted to bail after conviction in criminal proceedings. From the figures to which I referred in moving the previous amendment regarding the length of time spent on remand in custody, it is clear that the time preceding conviction after the charge is too great. As we have already agreed, the review of delay in the criminal justice system relates to that problem and is in recognition of the fact that it has not been solved. To that extent, my amendment is defective.

1337
However, I do not believe it is defective in the way suggested by the Minister regarding the responsibility of local authorities. Her statement about local authorities having to make arrangements suitable for conditions in their area is music to my ears. That is subsidiarity as it should be. She and I, coming as we do from local government, will certainly agree on that point. Although the rubric of my amendment is "Bail support schemes", the amendment does not lay down the nature of the provision that shall be made. It says,
"provide for the support and supervision of children and young persons granted bail".
I began to list a whole range of measures that local authorities might take which could be covered by the general phrase "bail support schemes" but could, as the Minister suggests, vary from one local authority to another according to local need.
I acknowledge also that the Minister is right in saying that initiatives of local authorities and NACRO, often with financial support from central government, have been very valuable. However, that was the thrust of the amendment. The time has come to move on from pilot schemes, to build on the success of the schemes that the Minister described and try to make sure that they are available all over the country.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I now have a rather different understanding of what the amendment is about. I apologise if I spoke specifically about bail support schemes. The noble Lord referred to the range of support given to children on bail in local authority areas. There is not a local authority area in the country that does not have some provision for supporting children—the word "children" is used in the amendment—in one way or another. But if we are to put a statutory duty on local authorities, we need to have some view as to what the range should be and some specific prescription. I cannot think of a single local authority area, certainly a single Probation Service area within each local authority area, that does not provide some range of support for children on bail or awaiting a hearing of their case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Again it is no pain to me to say that we are reasonably close together on this matter. We want the provision to be all over the country, and we want it to be flexible. If there is to be a statutory duty I am doubtful as to whether it is necessary to prescribe too tightly the nature of the fulfilment of that statutory duty. But let us not pursue that issue. We want the same thing. We have to make sure that the money is available for it to be done everywhere and to keep young people, whenever possible, out of custody pending conviction and the application of their sentence. When I say "whenever possible", I mean also with due regard to the safety of the public. Bearing in mind the defects of the amendment that have been pointed out, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before ten minutes past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Royal Assent
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Horserace Totalisator Board Act,

Land Registration Act,

Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) (Amendment) Act,

Telecommunications (Fraud) Act,

Firearms (Amendment) Act,

Local Government (Gaelic Names) (Scotland) Act,

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act,

Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act,

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act,

Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Scotland) Act,

Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Act,

Civil Procedure Act,

United Nations Personnel Act,

National Heritage Act.

Excise Duties
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the Chancellor's Budget provisions with respect to excise duties, what impact these are having and will continue to have upon independent retailers and wider society.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my purpose in tabling this Question is to bring the attention of your Lordships to the issues of cross-border shopping and smuggling. Of course, these have an economic context. In 1995–96, UK revenue receipts from alcoholic product amounted to some £9.5 billion and from tobacco product some £9 billion. But it is an error to view these issues from the economic perspective alone. They have infinitely wider consequences than this. They have implications with respect to law and order, health and social cohesion. They have implications for the formulation of UK/European policy in so far as there may or may not be merit in obtaining harmonisation of excise duties within the Union. It is perhaps no accident that these threads are so topical at the moment and I look forward to the possibility of some of them being expounded in greater depth by others of your Lordships during this debate.
Let me begin with cross-border shopping. I can accept that this legitimate activity acts neutrally in pure terms upon the Treasury. Yes, it creates a diminution in revenue take, notably from alcohol and tobacco

1339
products, but this is compensated for by the desire of some of our continental neighbours to come to our shores to purchase other products, principally, as I understand it, a number of luxury items. Scandinavian expeditions to the north-east are a case in point. That said, while the Treasury may be relatively unaffected by this trade, I am less certain that the small retailer is similarly blessed. For example, it is worth noting that 9.5 per cent. of the UK market share for wine is currently accounted for by cross-border shopping. However, suffice it to say that relative to smuggling, I do not believe this to be a particularly acute problem.
So what of cross-border smuggling? Customs and Excise revealed the results of its survey on excise evasion through smuggling in a news release dated 19th September last. It revealed that:
"the total revenue—excise duty and VAT—evaded on alcoholic drinks and tobacco products smuggled from other European Union member states could amount to some £770 million a year".
It further states that:
"The amount evaded is substantial but nevertheless represents less than 5% of the annual excise duty and VAT collected on alcohol and tobacco".
The inference to be drawn is that while cross-border smuggling is, in the words of my honourable friend the Customs Minister, an,
"activity [which] damages legitimate UK businesses and defrauds the ordinary British taxpayer",
at least it remains under relative control. This perception is perhaps endorsed by the further observation from the news release that:
"some of the smuggling is likely to represent additional consumption, rather than substituting for similar goods bought in the UK".
The news release also provides an overview of some more specific detail. Thus:
"Of the £770 million total, £210 million is for alcoholic drinks … and £560 million for tobacco products".
Indeed, the survey's analysis of market share reveals that, whereas somewhere between 1.5 and 2.5 per cent. of UK beer, wine, spirit and cigarette consumption is represented by smuggled product, the corresponding figure for hand-rolled tobacco stands at 59 per cent.
Reading between the lines, it may be that the Customs and Excise survey understates the problem. For example,
"The estimate for smuggling does not include amounts for commercial fraud (where revenue is evaded by use of false documentation)."
Perhaps the Minister is in a position today to quantify the loss to the Exchequer arising from such activity. The survey covers only product smuggled from other European Union member states. What is the scale of smuggling from other territories throughout the world?
Furthermore, the survey gives no indication as to whether any discernible trend as to an increase or decrease in smuggling activity can be extrapolated from its figures. I am mindful here that in November of last year Customs staff uncovered their biggest ever excise duty fraud: a single haul of 20 containers of cigarettes and alcohol worth £65 million. Again, perhaps my noble friend the Minister may wish to comment on that aspect in due course.
I accept, of course, that my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget last November held excise duty for wines and beers at the previous year's levels. He even reduced the duty on whisky and he made allowance for the increased staffing levels at Customs points in the south-east. All these measures are, in my view, to be applauded. In addition, they are a tacit admission on the part of the Treasury that cross-border smuggling of dutiable product is a problem that requires redress.
More than this, Customs officers are the front line in our battle against drugs and pornography. The fight against the importation of these illegal materials to our shores should, of necessity, take precedence over that against dutiable product. By inference, without in any way understating the extremely valuable work of HMC and E in this area, addressing the problem of cross-border smuggling must, to a greater or lesser extent, play second fiddle to this priority.
What of the impact upon the small independent trader? The BRC has estimated that the lack of growth in the UK trade of alcoholic drinks against the pre-single market trend was £1.25 billion in 1995, directly attributable to cross-border shopping alone. Indeed, there is evidence that annual losses to individual shopkeepers may be running as high as £20,000 of turnover per annum. In addition, a national survey of 3,515 independent retailers has revealed that 89 per cent. of those surveyed believe that the situation with respect to cross-border smuggling will get worse.
In this context we should not lose sight of the fact that the small independent retailer, the corner shop, often provides the focus for a community's social cohesion. I should add at this point that the phenomenon of smuggling is also impacting very seriously upon the pub trade. Factors which act detrimentally upon the trade of such enterprises also seriously damage the community in which they operate. If such businesses cannot sustain themselves, the services they provide—the local post office, the National Lottery outlet, the focal point of their community—are then denied to that community.
I do not question the desirability of the competitive marketplace. That is an entirely worthy ambition. However, in this context the capacity of the multinationals to weather the storm of the smuggling phenomenon—it is salutary to reflect upon the selling presence of some of our major retailers in places such as Calais—is in stark contrast to the experience of the small independent trader. For these businesses, it is one thing to feel the cold competitive chill from the major supermarket operators. It is quite another to feel the weight of fiscal policy, albeit inadvertently, bearing down on them as well.
It is also salutary to reflect that the potential size of profit to be derived from the smuggled product, combined with an apparent minimal risk, is so great that it is a market that has attracted organised crime. We are not simply talking about individuals being somewhat over-generous with their duty-free allowances here. The problem is much bigger than that, as evidenced by, for example, the circumstantial evidence suggesting that

1341
some independent traders are being intimidated into accepting delivery of smuggled product. In effect, they are damned if they do participate in this illicit trade—in terms of the legality of so doing—and damned if they do not, not only in terms of compromising their viability but also in terms of incurring the wrath of the smugglers.
An article that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph on 15th December last year provides us with a snapshot of the current situation. It reported on HMC and E's Christmas blitz against cross-Channel bootleggers in these terms:
"There is concern … among some officers, at how many bootleggers continue to escape. One said: 'There is room for only eight vans in the examination area and at peak bootlegging time-4 to 5 a.m.—you see 30 to 40 vans rolling off those ferries—.
It may well be that there is much to commend the opinion expressed by my noble friend the Minister on 4th June last that he is,
"convinced, as are the Government, that the health reasons for imposing considerable duty on tobacco are unanswerable".
It is a moot point whether a similar argument could be applied to alcohol products. However right my noble friend's contention may be, the differentials created in excise duties between ourselves and our continental neighbours are now pitched at levels which are extremely difficult to justify—more so if we measure them against the scale of and damage being done by cross-border smuggling and shopping. I would go further. It is not unreasonable to suggest that those differentials are now beginning to act almost as an inducement to smuggling.
Nor would I wish to take issue with the Minister in his observations that,
"we should not get the size of the problem out of proportion".
It is interesting to note that VAT and excise duty raise around £80 billion a year—£10 billion more than income tax. Nonetheless, I trust that my comments today—based, as they are, upon the Government's figures—go some way towards persuading my noble friend that the proportionality of the problem is such that it requires further and more appropriate action to be taken to stem the tide of cross-border smuggling before it becomes a flood and before it does irreparable damage.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I am glad of the opportunity provided by the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, to discuss some of the consequences of high taxation of tobacco and alcohol. I am sorry to keep the Minister from his dinner; I had rather hoped that either the noble Viscount, Lord Long, or the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, would have been let loose on the Treasury Benches on this occasion—they being rather more smoker friendly.
Since I shall be speaking mainly about tobacco, I am pleased to declare a number of interests. I have been chairman of FOREST since 1989; I have been a pipe smoker for half a century, and a lifelong member of the "awkward squad". In all those capacities I am seriously outraged that the Government's rake-off from smokers
1342
alone now exceeds £10,000 million a year. That is equivalent to over £1 million during the short hour allotted to this debate. Smokers finance one-fifth of the entire cost of the National Health Service. Of the retail price of a packet of cigarettes, 80 per cent. is taxation. It is as though the Government help themselves to 16 cigarettes out of every packet of 20. It is the highest level of tax in Europe and, perversely, the Government are widening the gap with each Budget.
I must say at the outset that tobacco has become something of a fiscal racket. The attitude that politicians display is more than tinged with hypocrisy. They rely on this huge revenue to finance their bloated budgets, while parading their political correctness by boasting of a high-minded assault on the unfavoured smoker. Yet if they succeed in extinguishing the last cigarette and dousing the last pipe, the Exchequer stands to lose £10,000 million.
This is not a party matter. Politicians on both the Government and Opposition Benches are equally guilty. I say without meaning any personal offence that they are like pimps: living well off immoral earnings while protesting that their higher charges are only intended to reduce demand and spread virtue.
The Government rely on the demand for tobacco being relatively inelastic, thereby maintaining total revenue as consumption falls. So they pile on the agony in the sly expectation that most customers will go on paying those extortionate, regressive levies. In their zeal to punish smokers—who still make up 30 per cent. of the adult population—Labour should be more troubled than the Government that their victims are drawn disproportionately from social classes C2/DE who can least afford higher prices and have fewer other pleasures to fall back on. At the same time our persecutors have the audacity to boast that it is all for our own good. Tobacco duties are like the sumptuary taxes of a bygone age—imposed by religious bigotry as an alternative to torture and confession, all for the spiritual welfare of the wretched victim.
Predictably, extortion on this scale has provoked the corrective of avoidance and, alas, evasion. As a result of the Government raising taxes so much higher than in the rest of Europe, over 60 per cent. of hand-rolling tobacco is legally bought in Belgium and smuggled into Britain, with a loss of around £650 million in tax revenue. It is sold in pubs, clubs and boot sales, thereby bypassing the retail trade and contributing to the destruction of the corner shop. Hand-rolling tobacco is only 8 per cent. of the total market. But if smugglers were to shift their attention to the much larger cigarette market, it would be far more damaging to industry, employment and tax revenue. On my figures, the total present loss to the Exchequer, including cross-border shopping, is already approaching £1.6 billion.
What is the justification of this tax mayhem? Of course, we all know that tobacco is the greatest single cause of—statistics. But many of those statistics are misleading. One that is finding increasingly wide acceptance by the scientific community is that diet, not smoking, is the largest single cause of cancer. Let me therefore conclude with a question for the Minister and one for the Opposition.

1343
If I can persuade the World Cancer Research Fund to send the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, a list of the most dangerous foods, would the Government consider imposing taxes of 200 or 300 per cent. on the chief offending delicacies? If so, the resulting revenue could be used to reduce the wholly disproportionate tax discrimination against tobacco and alcoholic drinks. That would bring a number of advantages. It would not only strike a blow against smuggling and the decline of the corner shop; it would also help to check the danger of smuggling spreading from hand-rolling tobacco to regular cigarettes. Such a development could otherwise strike a devastating blow at one of the brand leaders of British industry struggling to maintain cigarette and tobacco exports of £1,125 million, earning a net trade surplus of £650 million, directly employing 8,000 people and supporting over 120,000 other jobs in manufacture, distribution and retailing.
Impartial as ever from the Cross-Benches, I direct a final question at the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It is simple. If a Labour Government harry smokers further towards extinction, how will Mr. Brown fill the increasing hole in his budget?
7.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Northesk for posing this Question and giving us the opportunity to think about the pure statistics involved. Although my noble friend said that the Customs and Excise states in its press release that the amount of money evaded amounts to less than 5 per cent. of the total taxes from alcohol and tobacco, that does not in any way minimize the seriousness of a much wider position.
In his speech, my noble friend referred briefly to the potential profit from smuggling, with minimal risk. He said that it is now so great that it has attracted some organised crime. The evidence available to us in this country is, of course, anecdotal, so far as I am aware. However, it is that aspect of organised crime that I should like to address this evening.
I should declare my interest in this matter in that I have been a member for some four or five years of the North Atlantic Assembly and have served on the Civilian Affairs Committee of that organisation. During 1995-96 the committee engaged upon an inquiry into the effect of smuggling on the stability of society in member countries. As my noble friend said in his opening remarks, this has implications with respect to law and order, health and social cohesion. During the course of the inquiry, five visits were made to seven countries. Indeed, I went on a number of visits during which we talked with law enforcement agencies and in some countries with government ministers.
In both New York and Chicago, law enforcement agencies emphasised the necessity to crack down on any misdemeanour so as to stifle petty crime growing to the greater proportions that both those cities had endured. In New York, new policies were introduced by police commissioner Bratton and are indeed continuing. It was
1344
claimed there that this has resulted in a 27 per cent. drop in seven major categories of crime compared with two years before.
In Chicago, city dwellers expressed greater concern about organised crime than New Yorkers because they see more directly the connection between the insecurity they feel personally and larger criminal organisations. In both those cities the growth of crime stems initially from the peddling of alcohol, tobacco and of course drugs by gangs who create territories. They take over one from the other until they are sufficiently large and wealthy to engage in larger-scale criminal activities. In Germany, tobacco smuggling, particularly from Poland and eastern countries, and car trafficking from the West to eastern Europe through Germany provided what was described to us as "nursery funding". We heard evidence that this leads to a greater evil, the trafficking in people—both migrant and immigrant—largely for prostitution in the West and for the trade in human organs.
What I am suggesting is that trafficking in profit-making goods such as tobacco generates the rolling stock on the back of which criminal gangs engage in other and more evil activities. In so doing they generate even greater wealth, and with it the clout to exercise political and economic influence in societies.
On Friday 14th February, the Financial Times carried a short report of a conference in Prague. The report stated:
"Mr. Bickford, a former legal adviser to UK intelligence agencies and the Foreign Office, said the US mafia grossed criminal profits which made it the 20th richest organisation in the world—'richer than 150 sovereign states'"
The report also stated:
"The 'gross criminal product' from global organised crime and drug trafficking reached $1,000 bn … last year".
From the figures given by my noble friend, the total revenue excise duty and VAT evaded on alcohol and tobacco products smuggled from other European Union member states could amount to £770 million a year. That figure may appear insignificant against a world total, but it is nevertheless sufficiently significant to warrant action before a much greater problem presents itself. Indeed, turning a blind eye on this aspect of crime can only encourage other and more pernicious criminal activities which we in this country have fortunately so far avoided. Nevertheless, the influence of the money generated by this crime is already evident in this country. I believe that the necessity to shield citizens from this influence is one that the Government cannot shirk.
7.35 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Northesk has placed the nature of the problem in context. I am grateful to him.
The numbers associated with the Government's revenue are impressive and the numbers associated with the incidence of smuggling are disturbing. However, behind the numbers lurks a question, and that is: what function is taxation designed to perform? At its most simplistic it can be defined as the price that qualifying

1345
citizens have to pay for the services and goods provided by the state which are administered by the government of the day. It could be stated that the payment of tax is a straight commercial deal. That being so, excise duty on alcohol and tobacco products would seem to be set at levels where the consumer—or call him the taxpayer—is being overcharged, and the vendor—or call him the Government—is profiteering. This is underlined by the rationale that both cross-border shopping and smuggling appear to be on the increase. Obviously, product being "sold" by our continental neighbours is proving to be more attractive to our taxpayers because in terms of duty it represents better value for money.
If we look at this situation in purely commercial terms we find that if the price of a product is consistently pushed up in order to sustain the levels of revenue, the purchasers will seek either alternative product or cheaper sources of supply, thereby resulting ultimately in a serious diminution of revenue. Because excise duty is perceived to be a mechanism that can dictate the viability of a market, it is also perceived as the mechanism that can shape the attitudes of those purchasing into that market. Thus excise duty on tobacco product is used to prevent people taking up or continuing to partake of the "dreaded weed". Leaving aside any ethical arguments, this can only have a very limited impact on anything other than an entirely closed market. Where alternative sources of supply at better value for money exist, the market will sniff them out. The proliferation and apparent growth in smuggling bears this out.
For example, smuggled product, as indicated by my noble friend, accounts for 59 per cent. of the hand rolling tobacco sales in the United Kingdom. The inference must therefore be that this is an entirely unregulated market with many sales being made to those most at risk and to those who are most vulnerable; for example, the under-16s. It may therefore be said that in a perverse way the maintenance of high excise duty differentials in a free market works against the best interests of both the Government and the health lobby—so far as putative medical aspirations are concerned—by militating against reduced consumption of tobacco and alcohol by minors and others.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, when I comment that it will be interesting to gather the views of the Opposition in this matter, particularly as Members on the Benches opposite are assuring your Lordships and the country at large that, should they ever have the opportunity, it is their intention not to raise taxes above their current level.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Liverpool: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Northesk for giving us the opportunity of discussing tonight matters relating to excise duty. As has already been pointed out, the scale of revenue which accrues to the Treasury each year from excise duty and VAT is enormous. For beer, the figure is some £5.5 billion or, if one includes corporation tax, income tax and business rate, the figure is
1346
£11.4 billion; for tobacco, as we have already been told by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, it is £10 billion. So, without taking into account wines and spirits, this represents a massive figure of approximately £21 billion.
I suppose it may have crossed the mind of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to wonder, if he were to reduce the burden of tax on these products, where would he get the funds he would need to replace the shortfall. But I believe that it is necessary to question whether a reduction in excise rate would lead to a diminution of revenue to the Exchequer. Moving towards equalising cross-border tax would remove the incentive to smuggle, thereby quite possibly maintaining the tax take overall. There is no doubt, as other noble Lords have said, that the current high level of excise duty is at best an incentive to indulge in creative buying sprees in France and other countries and, at worst, an incentive to crime. So far as beer is concerned, I understand that the amount brought into this country each day from France is 1.1 million pints. That amounts to 16.5 per cent. of the entire UK take-home market. It is estimated that 33 per cent. of that is imported for illegal resale. This illegal trade is costing the country £210 million in lost beer duty and VAT, as has already been said by my noble friend Lord Northesk, but it can also be argued that it is costing a further £540 million in lost retail sales.
The situation is just as bad as regards tobacco products. The revenue loss from smuggled tobacco—I apologise if my figures do not exactly coincide with those of other noble Lords—is £560 million a year. Customs and Excise figures for seizures indicate that smuggling is on the increase. It is estimated that 60 per cent. of all hand-rolled tobacco consumption arises from cross-border trade, the majority of which is illegally imported. Once smuggled goods are peddled that leads to widespread subversion of the rule of law and is socially damaging. We must not forget that the uncontrolled sale to children is a serious problem which we really must face up to.
I believe that these trends are very worrying indeed and we cannot afford to ignore them. The point made by my noble friend Lord Northesk—and I paraphrase—about the impact the excise duties are having on independent retailers and on society at large is a very pertinent one. I am sure that no one, including my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, wants to encourage crime, but with beer duty approximately seven times higher here than in France, what else can one expect?
Apart from the Exchequer, independent retailers are generally the hardest hit financially by illicit trade in alcohol and tobacco. The typical corner shop—and this has been mentioned by other noble Lords—is already under threat from the ever-increasing numbers of out-of-town superstores, and their plight will only get worse if the smuggling trend continues to grow. So I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure the House that every effort is being made to

1347
establish greater tax harmony with our neighbours by reducing our excise rates, thereby removing the root cause of crime in this sector.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, the Red Book published at the time of the Budget contains a summary of the Government's objectives with respect to taxation. Included in the list of tax objectives are,
"apply it fairly and evenly, closing loopholes so that commercial decisions are not distorted by attempts to avoid tax".
There then follows,
"raise revenue in ways which do least harm to the economy and take account of the competitive position of UK business".
I think it will be evident from the discussion this evening that the Government have singularly failed to meet either of those objectives with respect to the excise duties levied on alcohol and on tobacco.
What have been rather less clear, apart from calls for those duties to be reduced, are the reasons for the Government's failure in this case. I would like to suggest that there are two reasons. First, during their time in office and until this past year, the Government have been notably complacent in their attitude towards the problem of tax and revenue evasion. If only the same effort had been put into reducing tax evasion as has been put into the campaign against social security fraud, the problems that we are discussing this evening would be far less severe. The neglect of the Customs Service, manifest in the significant reductions in the numbers of customs officers, is an important element in the growth of smuggling.
The second reason for the Government's failure to meet their objectives is the fact that their influence in Europe, due to their general haphazard European policy, is really negligible. Also, the Government have shown a general hostility towards all questions of fiscal harmonisation. They have therefore totally failed to secure appropriate action from other EU governments to reduce the bizarre differentials in taxation on drink and tobacco which are, of course, the main motivation for the smuggling which has been discussed this evening. I note that in his Budget speech the Chancellor made a nod towards harmonisation in respect of the duty on spirits, but the Government have achieved little in that direction in respect of action by EU partners.
As a corollary, the Government also obviously stand accused of failing to anticipate what was a totally predictable outcome of the completion of the single market. Perhaps I may deal with tax differentials first. It is clear that Britain is suffering from substantial revenue losses from what might be called the legal cross-border shopping, which was one of the outcomes of the single market Act. These losses are of course to be expected in any single market in which there are different sales and excise tax regimes. For example, it is a familiar problem on the borders between US states.
The problem is generally regarded as "bearable" because the advantages of the single market, and for the individual states of the fiscal regime, are felt to offset losses caused by smuggling. Will the Minister tell us what is the Treasury's current estimate of the revenue
1348
losses due to "legal" cross-border shopping? If these are balanced out by shoppers coming from the Continent to Britain, what is the estimate of the loss of jobs in Britain due to cross-border shopping and does the Minister consider this loss of jobs to be a price worth paying?
Of far greater importance, of course—and it has been referred to this evening—is the illegal import of alcohol and tobacco. The incentive to smuggle derives from the differential in duty. Yet, despite the fact that many EU members are desperately short of fiscal revenue, in an attempt to reduce their deficits the Government have totally failed to persuade other states to raise their duties to reduce the incentive to smuggle. Why have the Government failed? Does it have anything to do with hostility towards fiscal harmonisation? Can the Minister tell us what steps are being taken to encourage other member states to raise their excise duties on alcohol and tobacco?
It cannot be emphasised too strongly that what we are discussing this evening is an illegal trade, which is doing considerable harm to British retailers, damaging British producers and which is costing British jobs. As noble Lords have already commented, it creates a culture of criminality surrounding the distribution of alcohol and tobacco which can do nothing but harm, particularly to young people.
The fundamental question which the Minister must answer this evening is why the Government are condoning systematic illegal acts which are costing the Treasury such enormous amounts of money? What action are the Government taking to reduce the incidence of those illegal acts and is that action proving effective?
Will the Minister begin by telling the House what has been the scale of staff reductions at Customs and Excise over the past 18 years and will he confirm that there has been a systematic reduction in staff year on year to the detriment of both revenue protection and protection against the illegal import of narcotics? The Minister will, of course, confirm that that policy was reversed only this year when the sheer scale of damage which had been done to the ability of the Customs and Excise to protect revenue had become evident even to this complacent Government.
In the Budget the Chancellor announced a number of measures which were designed to reduce tax evasion. However, of the total expenditure of £680 million, only £88 million was directed towards Customs and Excise although the table on page 106 of the Red Book makes it clear that that is by far the most cost-effective means of tackling tax evasion. When we turn to the Customs and Excise press release which accompanied the Budget, we are told that there are to be a grand total of 100 new staff to combat cross-border smuggling. What a pathetic reaction! The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, quoted a Customs officer's assessment of the inadequacy of the Customs protection provided to this country by this Government.
We were told at the time of the Budget that there would be 100 new staff, so will the Minister tell us exactly how many new staff have been hired to date? What has been the net gain in staff in the Customs

1349
Service since the Budget? Will the Minister tell us the number of additional staff assigned to combat and control smuggling and the total number of Customs officers as compared to two years ago? How many successful prosecutions have there been for the smuggling of tobacco and alcohol?
Several times during this debate noble Lords have directed questions at me. It is unusual for the Opposition to be asked questions in this House, but given that we have only three months before the general election, perhaps I ought to get in a little practice. I can assure noble Lords that there will be no holes in Labour's Budget of the sort that have been exposed in the Government's Budget in this debate. This short debate has revealed that the Government have not only failed to meet their own declared tax objectives, but they have failed to display even a minimum level of competence in dealing with a fiscal problem which was totally predictable prior to 1st January 1993. In particular, the Government have failed to provide the Customs protection against illegal activity that this country deserves. It is the Government's failure which is doing such damage to small retailers and which is costing jobs in Britain's shops and factories. The Government are again letting down the small businesses of this country.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he could answer my question and tell the House his intentions in this regard or those of his party.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, our intentions are to maintain the fiscal probity which will give this country the level of monetary and fiscal stability which it deserves but which this Government have failed to provide.
7.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. Perhaps I may advise my noble friend Lord Oxfuird that the real answer to the question that he has just asked is that the party opposite is saying that in the unlikely event that it becomes the Government, it will over the next two years follow the expenditure totals laid out by my right honourable friend the Chancellor in his Budget. That means inevitably that there will be no further spending above that which we have planned. I take that to be a vote of confidence by the Opposition in the spending plans that Her Majesty's Government have laid out for the next two years.
I cannot resist starting with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who as usual was extremely good at scattering your Lordships' Chamber with questions. He then said that he would answer some questions, but I suspect that some of your Lordships who asked him a question will feel that you did not receive much, if anything, in the way of an answer. Perhaps I may try to answer some of those questions. Inevitably, however, I shall not be able to answer all of the questions put by the noble Lord because he can ask questions at a far faster rate than
1350
I am capable of answering them and given the time limit on this debate, I do not think that I shall manage to answer all of the detailed questions that he asked.
This has been an interesting short debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Northesk on introducing the subject. From the Treasury's point of view, the yield on duty alone last year from alcoholic drinks was £5.5 billion and £8 billion from tobacco. That gives a total on duty alone of £13.5 billion. If value added tax is added to that, we are talking about a total of £19.5 billion from those two sources alone. I must advise some of my noble friends that significant reductions to those duties would leave an awkward gap to be filled by increased taxation elsewhere. I shall read the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, with interest because I was puzzled about whether he was suggesting that we should reduce the duty and value added tax on those items. That would certainly add to the £12.5 billion hole which we already know to be in Mr. Gordon Brown's theoretical Budget.
If we were to reduce the rates in this country to French levels, it would cost in the region of £7 billion—I underline the fact that that is the figure for duty. I repeat that £7 billion of the £13.5 billion would be lost if we were to reduce our rates to the level of the French. That would be a significant budgetary problem and we would have to find that sum from taxation elsewhere. As I shall show later, it would also have significant social consequences for the policy that we are pursuing on smoking.
I understand that since January 1993 cross-border shopping and smuggling problems have caused difficulties for British retailers and, to a lesser extent, for British industry. In his last Budget, the Chancellor took careful account of those issues when reaching the decisions that he did. Indeed, in his 1996 Budget, for the second Budget running, the duties on beer, on most wines and on most ciders remained unchanged and the duty on spirits was reduced. I believe that my noble friend Lord Oxfuird mentioned that. However, the duty on alcopops was increased in order to meet two objectives: first, to remove the duty advantage and, secondly, to address public concern regarding teenage and under-age drinking of those products.
Turning to smoking, the Budget increased the duty on hand-rolled tobacco in line with inflation by 2.1 per cent. All other tobacco duties were increased by 5 per cent. in real terms. I suspect that I am in a minority in this debate in being not only a non-smoker but someone who has never smoked. I am not sure whether that makes me a minority of one—but perhaps I am in a minority of two because the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is signalling that we agree on that at least. As we do not agree on much else, it is nice to find something on which we do agree. That is in line with the Chancellor's undertaking that tobacco duties will on average be increased by at least 3 per cent. a year in real terms, thus using taxation to reduce smoking and the number of people who take up the habit.
I must advise the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, that I object to being accused, even mildly, of political correctness. I belong to that minority which

1351
believes that a "chair" is an inanimate object on which one sits and that the person who sits on it is a "chairman". Therefore, the noble Lord was a bit wide of the mark in suggesting that I was being politically correct.
Although this is not really an argument for this evening or this debate, I believe that the argument against tobacco smoking can be made entirely on health grounds. Although I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will not agree with me, I believe that the case is unanswerable. Hardly anyone argues against the proposition that tobacco smoking is one of the major causes of cancer, heart disease and other horrible diseases such as emphysema. Tobacco smoking is undoubtedly a major cause—in some cases, it is the major cause—of some of those problems. If a food is discovered to be severely carcinogenic, governments around the world will take steps to prevent it getting into the food chain or to remove the carcinogenic element. I do not make any apology to either the noble Lord, Lord Harris, or to some of my noble friends for saying that I agree absolutely with the arguments advanced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor on tobacco smoking and health, as do vast numbers of the medical profession; and, dare I say, people who, following a lifetime of smoking, in my view self-inflicted and self-decided, proceed to take the tobacco companies to court. I saw on television this morning that there was quite a stir in France along just those lines.
As my noble friend Lord Liverpool has said, if harmonisation or approximation of duties across the European Union comes about, cross-border activity and fraud will wither on the vine (if I may put it that way). We very much favour some movement towards convergence. Equally, we are determined to maintain the position where taxation remains a matter for each member state. I want to make that point clear to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I was not sure whether he was saying that we should give away our tax-raising powers to the European Union, which would be one way of moving towards convergence. For example, we should like to see beer levels move up in countries where they are low at present. The French have just increased their rates, and that is a hopeful sign. We should also like to see the introduction of a positive minimum rate on wine and secure an upward convergence on the duty rates for tobacco. But, like all member states, we have strong views about excise taxation and unanimity is required on tax matters.
There are other potential allies on the Continent. Denmark, Finland and Sweden have high excise duties and much higher VAT. A few years ago Denmark, in order to counter cross-border shopping, brought down its duty rates on beer and wine considerably and as a consequence lost a great deal of revenue. The inevitable result was the introduction of compensation tax increases in other areas. Of course, legitimate cross-border shopping goes on and the excise duty loss there is about £200 million per year. Balanced against that, there is other cross-border shopping that works the other way. For example, in particular people from Scandinavian countries come to Scotland. I have seen
1352
Scandinavians arrive by plane at Glasgow airport in order to do very high value shopping. They come to the north-east of England—the Newcastle area—because of the ferry links. I am informed that people come from France to Kent to take advantage of the supermarkets there. It is difficult to decide those issues on the basis of a balance sheet, but we should not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are some advantages in the other direction.
As to illegal activity, it is difficult to determine the exact quantity. In the case of cigarettes and tobacco products we believe that it accounts for about 1.5 per cent. of the market. The smuggling of hand-rolled tobacco is a cause for concern. It accounts for about 60 per cent. of UK consumption. It was for that reason that the Chancellor did not increase duty on hand-rolled tobacco at the same rate as for other tobacco products.
Clearly, there is an effect on the retail drinks trade but I do not believe that the picture is a simple one. Since 1993 sales through legitimate UK outlets have increased for all drink categories with the exception of spirits. Most major and many regional brewers report increased profit levels. There have been pub closures particularly among smaller pubs that rely mainly on beer sales. Cross-border shopping aside, there are a number of other reasons why this has happened. We can all see the shift of public taste upmarket as hotel chains, restaurants and wine bars increase their stake in the eating and drinking-out markets. The off-licence trade has over the years taken business from the pubs; and within the off-licence sales sector supermarkets have increased at the expense of specialist off-licence shops, as my noble friend Lord Liverpool said.
Other factors include a shift in drink preferences from beer to other drinks such as wine. More people are drinking at home because of drink-driving laws, home entertainment but, most significantly, cheaper drinks from off-licences and supermarkets than can be obtained in pubs. It is important that these longer-term trends are recognised and that not all the changes that the industries are experiencing are a direct consequence of the single market. There is loss of trade and duty, but that is only part of the argument.
What are we doing about smuggling? Our top priority is to catch smugglers. The ordinary consumers who go to another EU member state to buy for their own consumption are doing nothing illegal. Smuggling goods from another member state with the intention of reselling them is a crime; dealing in smuggled goods is a crime; buying smuggled goods is a crime. Customers estimates that the revenue evaded through smuggling from other member states is £210 million for alcoholic goods and £560 million for tobacco products. Some of these figures will represent additional consumption. It is interesting to note that, according to Customs estimates, the volume of smuggled wine is less than 25 per cent. of that represented by legitimate cross-border trade. There is no available estimate of smuggling from outside the EU, but evidence from seizures suggests it is not on the same scale as intra-EU smuggling.

1353
In his November Budget the Chancellor announced proposals for the deployment of a further 70 officers specifically to target excise smuggling and illegal trade throughout the country. This will take the number of Customs' single market excise anti-smuggling staff to more than 330 over the next year. Front-line officers are backed up by a specialist intelligence and investigation teams whose resources are also being increased.
Lord Eatwell: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. We are all aware of the Chancellor's announcement. Can the Minister say how many new Customs officers have actually been placed in post since the Budget?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not have the figure to demonstrate how we are progressing with recruitment of the further 70 officers. However, I have explained that over the next year we will be approaching the total of 330 Customs officers. I am sure that the noble Lord approves of that. Obviously he would like more money to be spent on that. During the 12 months ending on 31st October Customs recorded 2,600 seizures involving 57.5 tonnes of hand-rolled tobacco and an increased quantity of alcohol. We take the trade concerns very seriously. Customs has a forum with the trade called the Excise Alliance which develops co-operative approaches to smuggling detection and exchanges high level information on smuggling and fraud.
There is no official estimate of the extent of large-scale commercial fraud. By their nature such activities are very difficult to quantify, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Northesk, who raised this matter, appreciates. We take it very seriously and continue to combat it. This will be aided by additional staff, numbering some 130, who are also to be deployed under the Chancellor's Spend to Save initiative.
My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth raised questions about "serious crime" smuggling, in particular smuggling related to other aspects of criminality. He told us about matters that he had learnt as a UK delegate to the North Atlantic Assembly. It appears that the majority of revenue smugglers are individuals who simply look for enhanced profit from their illegal trade. Sometimes they work in very large rings, but there is little proof that such criminals are connected with organised crime or drug smuggling. In the words of my noble friend, there is little proof that the money earned from alcohol and tobacco smuggling is being used as nursery funding for other types of criminal activity. We continue to watch this matter very carefully.
At operational level Customs officials have a very good working relationship with their counterparts overseas. That co-operation has led to significant numbers of seizures of smuggled excise goods. We should pay tribute to the work that is done by Customs and Excise officers in protecting society by the investigation of drug smuggling and dismantling the trafficking organisations, which is one of the department's highest priorities. They work closely with the police. A terrific spirit of co-operation is engendered
1354
in the Government's strategy Tackling Drugs Together, to which both we and HM Customs and Excise are fully committed. Of course, Customs also gives high priority to the smuggling of commercial pornography, paedophilia, firearms, endangered species and other prohibitions and restrictions. The resources available to Customs must be balanced between front-line anti-smuggling officers, investigation officers and intelligence staff. Their joint efforts achieve significant results. For example, to date in this financial year about £1.5 billion worth of drugs have been prevented from entering the UK. The other day in the Scottish courts individuals were brought to justice for some very serious drug smuggling.
To sum up, we recognise the problems of cross-border shopping and the smuggling that we have discussed this evening. We recognise the threat that that poses to UK revenue and to legitimate trade. Consumers are entitled to benefit from the single market but smugglers are not. I assure my noble friends and other noble Lords that we are determined to pursue them with the utmost vigour and will continue to fight our corner with our friends in the Community. In making his Budget decisions, the Chancellor will balance a whole range of factors. One of those factors will be, as in the past, cross-border shopping, the smuggling of goods and the impact that that has on legitimate trade in this country.
This has been a most interesting debate. Again, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Northesk on introducing it.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 43 [Power to make hospital and limitation directions]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 30, line 25, leave out ("is likely to") and insert ("may").
The noble Lord said: I move the amendment tabled in my name and that of the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Alderdice. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has informed me that he is unfortunately unable to be here as he has had to go aborad. He very much regrets being unable to move the amendment. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 108.
At the outset, I should perhaps declare an interest in that I am a non-executive director of an NHS mental health trust in South West London called Pathfinder. That trust has a medium secure unit as part of its provision.
In Clause 43 we are dealing with what has been called the hybrid order; namely, the power of courts to impose a combined hospital and prison sentence. It is that which has given rise to a certain amount of concern. A working group on psychopathic disorder chaired by Dr. John Reid was established by the Department of Health and the Home Office. It reached certain conclusions. It recommended a type of hybrid order. What is now being

1355
proposed in the Bill goes a long way beyond what the working group suggested, and in some ways is counter to its intentions and what it put forward.
Let us take the case of a mentally disordered offender who has committed an offence, who is then given such a hybrid order. He might spend the first three years of an eight-year prison sentence in a secure unit. During that time he or she would receive the benefit of medical treatment. Let us suppose that at the end of those three years that individual is better. Under the Bill, that individual will then have to go to goal and serve the remaining seven years of a 10-year sentence. It is that removal from a secure unit where an individual has had treatment back to prison, or perhaps to prison for the first time, which is the cause of concern.
Let me summarise the concerns. There will be difficulty in establishing continuity of care. A hospital can establish a regime of care continuity. That could hardly survive transition to a prison—at least, not in the same way. Many doctors would be unhappy about transferring an individual back to prison, because prison is not conducive to mental health. Indeed, a person who has got better in a secure unit might well suffer a relapse through being put back into prison.
A further consideration relates to conditions on release and post-discharge supervision. Arrangements provided by a hospital are normally different from those provided by a prison. There are certain complications, particularly as an individual might be in a prison further away from his or her home than the hospital is. There is also the difficulty of a prison a long way away providing supervision and help on discharge, because of the geography. The hospital could do that better, because the hospital is more likely—not inevitably—to be located not so far away from the individual's home.
Another concern is that as a result of all that, clinicians might well feel that it is so inappropriate to return such an individual to prison that they might keep him or her in hospital longer than was clinically necessary. They would do so from the best of motives: to protect the public and in the interests of the patient's well being, because they might be worried about the possible consequences of sending that person to prison, which it would be in their power to do. If they felt the treatment was over, there would be no choice but to send that individual back to prison.
Indeterminate restriction orders under the Mental Health Act 1983 might result in some of those individuals being held longer than they would be under the determinate sentence provisions of the Bill. So, if we are talking about protecting the public, it does not necessarily mean that the public would be better protected; it just means that the individual might well have a relapse in prison, and would then be released with less adequate supervision than there might be.
The difficulty with the way the Bill is drafted is plain. I think I have explained the difficulties, but so much concern has been expressed by the Law Society, the Royal College, and other organisations working in this field, that it is only right to take their concerns seriously. What the amendments would effectively do would be to give an element of discretion to the doctors in such a
1356
secure unit so that they would not necessarily in all cases have to send an individual back to prison. In some instances, of course, they would. That might be the right thing to do. But it would not be the right thing to do in all circumstances. That is the effect of the two amendments taken together. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: I shall speak to these two amendments and refer also to Amendment No. 107 which is involved in this whole matter. First, I declare a possible interest as medical director of a health and social services trust in Northern Ireland which has mental health facilities although at this stage not a secure unit.
My noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, on Second Reading, at which I was unable to be present, referred to the difficulties that might arise. He observed that the clause would leave a psychiatrist in the position of a gaoler who determines at what point his patient, who may have been cured of the illness from which he suffered, is sent to prison. The relationship between the doctor and the patient is at the heart of the problem. It may be worthwhile for us to reflect upon the history and background of the notion of the hybrid order.
In 1994 the Reid Committee made the suggestion because of the dilemma in which psychiatrists found themselves in relation to psychopathic personality disorder and offences. The dilemma was that it is not easy to know how far one can modify, change, help, mature, or develop, the personality of someone with such a demeanour. It is difficult in the generality of things. It is exceedingly difficult with any particular individual. So psychiatrists found themselves in the difficulty that if they took on a particular psychopathic personality disordered offender they would be stuck with working with him for a long period of time, although perhaps discovering after six or nine months that they could not modify that person's behaviour: he was not prepared to co-operate; the mechanisms which were to hand were not sufficiently strong, or for whatever.
That led to a dilemma for psychiatrists. If they were to take such psychopathic personality disordered offenders into their care, they might find that they would have someone with them for a long time whose behaviour and personality they could not modify. The bed would then be blocked. They would then be unable to take into their care someone who might well be able to benefit from it. So the suggestion was made at that stage that if there could be some mechanism whereby a patient could be taken on for a period of time, almost, as it were, for assessment to see whether it were possible to do something about him, and, if it were possible, they could continue to work; and if it were impossible, for whatever reason, the person could be returned to serve out the rest of his or her prison sentence.
Two things have happened with regard to the notion of a possible hybrid order. First, it has been suggested that, when the patient is taken by the psychiatrist and some modification has been engineered in his personality, he should subsequently go back to prison.

1357
The problem is that much of the development that has taken place is likely to be taken to pieces on return to prison. The circumstances to which he will return are in no way predisposing of the betterment to his approach to life, but quite the contrary. Therefore, the psychiatrist will be put in the position of saying, "I know that if this person goes back to prison all the good work that I have done will fall to pieces. On the other hand, if I keep him here I am blocking a bed, which means that no one else will be able to come in. I know that he is not going to make any more progress because he has made all the reasonable progress that he can". What he really needs for his own betterment and that of society is to go outside and to have a continuity of care. In the health service we have tried to create a seamless service from in-patient to community care. That seamless service is completely impractical when we are talking about someone coming out of prison and going to a different area with a different service.
In extending the notion from the Reid Committee, the first dilemma is that, instead of the psychiatrist working to enable the person to return to the community, he will be committed to putting the person back into prison, where his work will be taken to pieces and the person will deteriorate in the interests of no one. The second dilemma is that the Reid Committee at no time considered that this subject should be expanded to include the whole remit of mental illness.
There are fundamental differences between psychopathic personality disorders and mental illnesses. Clearly, that is not very well understood. That is evidenced by the reply of the Under-Secretary, Mr. Sackville, when the matter was considered in another place. The rationale that he gave—indeed, it was the only example that he gave—was based on a drug trafficker who would normally receive a sentence of, say, 10 years, who was at the time of sentencing suffering from schizophrenia. He suggested that schizophrenia was merely a temporary disorder and that when the person was cured he would return to drug trafficking. That showed little understanding of the mechanisms of schizophrenic disorders or their relationship to drug trafficking.
Schizophrenia is not a single but a whole group of disorders and it is clear that those who suffer from it are not well ordered drug traffickers involved in a criminal conspiracy. They are generally vulnerable people whose life is in a complete shambles. The fact that such an example was given, and that it was the only example given, shows a manifest lack of understanding of the mental illness from which many such people suffer. Such a person would not be a drug trafficker in the sense in which the expression is being applied in the Bill. The kind of disorder from which someone suffers in a schizophrenic disorder is a chronic debilitating disorder from which he is not likely to recover and for which he is likely to need continued care. He will not operate in an organised fashion as a drug trafficker.
To save the Committee's time, I have responded to Amendments Nos. 106 and 108 and also to No. 107—the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that the notion of other mental illnesses should be
1358
taken right outside the Bill and that, in so far as it should apply at all, it should apply only to the group of people that the Reid Committee recommended; that is, those with psychopathic personality disorders. As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and introduced in his absence by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in so far as it applies to psychopathic personality disorders, where an improvement has been achieved, let us not put all that at risk again by returning the person to prison, destroying the relationship with his psychiatrist, undoing all the good work that has been done and sending him eventually back into the community with no appropriate care as we would see it.
Lord Mottistone: I shall speak only to my Amendment No. 107. As the Committee is aware, I am advised on mental health matters by the National Schizophrenia Fellowship. Before the Bill came to this House my noble friend Lady Blatch wrote me a long letter giving an explanation of Clause 43. My understanding of the views of psychiatrists on Clause 43 is that Home Office Ministers had responded definitely to the discussions last summer on their White Paper, Protecting the Public, which was published last year. The Government are to be congratulated upon listening to those discussions—they do not always do so—and for taking some resulting action in the preparation of Clause 43. However, there is an underlying worry among all psychiatrists that schizophrenia sufferers being in an ordinary prison for whatever reason and however justifiably is most unwelcome. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, would agree with that. That is because such sufferers are often treated badly by other prisoners, however much the prison staff wish to protect them.
The long letter to me from my noble friend the Minister explains at some length how limited the use of hospital direction as described in Clause 43 is expected to be. That letter is dated 21st January and a copy of it is in the Library. On reflection, I believe that the powers given to the courts by Clause 43 are necessary for certain intractable and dangerous cases of mental illness. I believe that there must be some ways of protecting the public—the strangers who are attacked and from time to time killed—from people who are shown to have a mental illness in a form which leads to that kind of conclusion. Accordingly, I have tabled Amendment No. 107 as a probing amendment in order to give my noble friend an opportunity to put before the Committee for the record the relevant parts of her letter to me. I trust that, in replying to my amendment and to those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, my noble friend will take such action.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester: I agree with what has been said by the previous speakers, but there is also a moral issue. If a person after trial has been found mentally unfit and committed for treatment at the end of which he is transferred to prison he is, in effect, receiving a double punishment because he is being treated as though he is not mentally unfit. I can follow

1359
the argument that if after the treatment he is still a risk he should be detained, but I do not believe that prison is the right place to deal with that. I understand that there are great problems as regards sufficient accommodation, but that is another question. I believe that a real moral issue of double punishment needs to be addressed.
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: The hospital direction power has been prepared to meet a difficulty which the courts sometimes face when sentencing mentally disordered offenders. The circumstances are unusual, but when they arise they create serious difficulties in dealing with some of the most dangerous offenders. They occur when a serious offence has been committed. The court has heard the evidence that the offender is mentally disordered, but is not satisfied that dealing with the mental disorder will prevent further serious offences after he is released. My noble friend Lord Mottistone was right to say that that issue has not been addressed by these amendments.
Under the existing terms of the Mental Health Act 1983, the court must choose between a hospital order or a prison sentence. A prison sentence cannot guarantee that an offender will receive the specialist treatment he needs for his disorder. A hospital order is likely to lead to his discharge as soon as medical treatment is completed. It may also lead to his discharge if his condition proves untreatable, regardless of the severity of his offence. At best he will take up a hospital bed even though doctors can do nothing further for him.
The new hospital direction would resolve that dilemma. It is a power for the higher courts to direct that an offender who has received a prison sentence be admitted at once to hospital for medical treatment. It combines the security of a custodial sentence with the immediate availability of medical treatment.
The offender made subject to a hospital direction will serve his sentence, securely detained. But as long as his doctor is satisfied that he is benefiting from treatment in hospital, he can remain there. At the end of sentence, he can be discharged from hospital or he can remain there under civil powers if he still requires treatment. Alternatively, if his doctor finds that he is not benefiting from treatment, he can recommend that the Home Secretary remit him to prison to serve the balance of his sentence. In that way he will not be occupying a valuable hospital bed to no avail.
I know that some professionals in the mental health services have concerns about the new hospital direction. They fear that this is a fundamental shift of emphasis in the treatment of mentally disordered offenders; that the courts will use it to punish mentally ill people whose offences resulted from their illness; that hospitals will somehow be required to act as gaols, detaining people who no longer need treatment. If I thought they were right, I should share their concern. But I do not.
The Government's position has not changed. Mentally disordered people who need treatment should receive it in hospital. The courts have a strong tradition of applying the existing hospital order in preference to a prison sentence where they are satisfied that medical
1360
evidence justifies it. The new hospital direction will not affect the availability of the existing hospital order. Far from seeking to change existing court practice, the proposal seeks to reinforce it. Clause 43 requires the sentencing court to have considered making a hospital order and concluded that a prison sentence is necessary before it can consider attaching the new hospital direction. That is a positive obligation on the court.
To provide further reassurance, Clause 43 has been drafted to enable introduction of the hospital direction in phases. Initially, it will be available only where the court has medical evidence that the offender is psychopathically disordered. Those are the offenders for whom the power is most likely to be appropriate. There are divisions of opinion among psychiatrists over the extent to which psychopathic disorder can be tackled by medical means. There is doubt about whether the risk that psychopaths will re-offend can be influenced through clinical treatment. So they are the category for whom the power is most likely to be used.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for giving me notice of his intentions in bringing forward his amendment. My noble friend's amendment would remove from this provision the section which would permit extension of the power to enable courts to make hospital directions for other mentally disordered persons such as the mentally ill and mentally impaired. I believe it is appropriate that courts should have that discretion, not to punish the mentally ill or mentally impaired person whose offence is entirely bound up with his disorder but to deal with the cases where that may not be so—where the person was not ill when he committed his offence; where his illness is incidental to his offence; where doctors are not clear about the diagnosis at the time of sentencing or subsequently change their opinion in the light of experience. There are those who argue that mentally ill people should never have a custodial sentence. But the courts can already pass such sentences, and they do so where they think it necessary to protect the public from further offending. This amendment would remove the prospect of their having power to direct immediate hospital treatment for mentally ill people who received a custodial sentence.
I do not believe that is an outcome which my noble friend sought in proposing this amendment. There is no intention to replace the existing hospital order disposal for the great majority of mentally disordered offenders. Nor is there any evidence that the new power would have that effect. I hope that for those reasons my noble friend will not press his amendment. Indeed, he said that it was a probing amendment.
I turn now to the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking but moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Clause 43 provides that to make a hospital direction the court will need exactly the same evidence from doctors as it does to make a hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983. The court will need assurance that medical treatment is more likely than not to be of benefit. Amendment No. 106 would change that. Under his proposal, there would need only to be a possibility that medical treatment could he of benefit. This would enable the court to direct offenders to hospital where there was any chance that medical treatment could help. Precious hospital beds could be

1361
taken up by patients who did not need or refused to co-operate with treatment until arrangements could be made for their transfer to prison. In practice, those effects would be limited because doctors giving evidence would presumably be reluctant to offer beds in those circumstances.
Although my noble friend Lord Hacking is not here, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has communicated with him over presenting this amendment. However, I believe that his purpose in proposing the amendment is to facilitate the admission to hospital of psychopathically disordered offenders. Such people may need lengthy professional assessment before it can be concluded with confidence whether they are likely to benefit from medical treatment. That is a purpose which we share. But for the reasons I have given, this is not the best way to achieve it. It can, however, be achieved by the use of interim hospital orders under Section 38 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Professional advice has been that the existing maximum duration of the interim hospital order, at six months, is inadequate for this purpose. So we are extending that maximum period to 12 months in Clause 46 of the Bill.
My noble friend's second amendment would undermine the whole purpose of the hospital direction power. As I have said, the power is intended to address those situations where the court has concluded that a hospital order does not meet the needs of the case.
Except in cases where the law demands a life sentence, the court will have reached that conclusion by careful deliberation. It will have heard evidence about the offender's mental condition. It will have considered the likely effects of a custodial sentence on that condition and will have concluded nonetheless that the case demands a custodial sentence. Only then will it be able to attach a hospital direction.
The right reverend Prelate was concerned that those who need hospital treatment should receive it. We now have greater flexibility. There is no longer any need to choose between hospital and prison. Although there is a facility to make a hospital order under the previous Act, we propose also a hybrid arrangement which recognises the culpability of committing crimes which must be established for the purpose of a conviction but which recognises also the medical needs of the individual.
As I said, the amendment would render the court's decision meaningless. A custodial sentence which can be converted to a hospital order at the doctor's discretion is no different in effect from the hospital order which the court has rejected as inappropriate. It would be quite wrong to allow the doctor to override the sentencing court's decision in that way. But again, I give the assurance that what is important is not only addressing the offence but also addressing the medical needs of the individual offender.
I do not imagine that my noble friend intended the effects which I have described when proposing his amendments and I hope that they will not be pressed.
I should like to bring home to the Committee what I believe to be a serious lacuna in the arrangements behind the amendments presented to the Committee by
1362
the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. They would be a recipe for automatic release at any time. That automatic release may be at a time when a doctor has decided that he can do no more for the patient or when the patient has completed a session of treatment. Therefore, it is a recipe for automatic early release. In the case of some serious offenders, the medical treatment may have been found to be not beneficial or it may have been completed. It may be that a person is found to be untreatable. He would then be released and may re-offend without having served the sentence appropriate to the offence and without proper release arrangements being made. I do not believe that the Committee should be invited to accept that. The flexibility afforded by the Bill is very important.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone touched upon an important question. My noble friend has a very real concern for people who fall into the category of mentally ill but, nevertheless, he has always been realistic when referring to the public interest and the public safety interest. Where does the protection of the people and the protection of the public fit into the thinking behind the amendments? That seems to me to be a very real question which must be in the minds of those people who may feel an urge to support them.
Lord Alderdice: Perhaps I may briefly respond to the matter raised by the Minister. With many of those who come forward who are mentally ill, the truth is that their mental illness may only be somewhat mitigated by the treatment that is available. But, of course, it is also the case that where people by the nature of their mental illness are deemed to be a danger to themselves or others, it is entirely possible to invoke mental health legislation and ensure that they stay in hospital as long as is necessary, even beyond the question of any particular term of imprisonment if there is a real question of them being at risk.
While listening at an earlier stage, I was interested to learn that noble and learned Lords who are senior judges feel that they would be forced as professionals to make decisions that they did not believe in professionally because certain requirements were being laid upon them. The dilemma that is now being created for other professionals—and I speak of course as a psychiatrist in respect of my colleagues in forensic psychiatry—is that they are being pressed in the direction of having to take decisions which they do not believe they should be taking.
It is not possible to decide at an early stage what will necessarily be the course of the illness, how things will work out or whether or not the treatment will be effective. Indeed, it is not always possible to make such a decision at an early stage. So far as concerns the protection of the community, one of the greatest concerns is that if we do not abide by the professional treatment of such patients, they will come out less well treated and, by dint of their illness and other matters, they will be more likely to offend; they will be more likely to get into difficulty and the public will be less well protected. Sometimes, by setting things in stone, you can be less flexible and responsive to changing

1363
needs. In truth, in the long run, there will be less protection for the community than would appear to be the case on a more superficial reading.
Lord Hylton: I listened carefully to the Minister's reply, and I noted particularly what she said about extending interim hospital orders from six to 12 months. I am sure that that is a valuable extension and that it will give room and scope for better clinical judgments. However, I should like to invite the noble Baroness to consider the actual wording of Amendment No. 108 and, in particular, the combination of the words,
"medical treatment has substantially alleviated the mental condition of a person",
in conjunction with the "restriction order" mentioned in the last line of the amendment. Can the noble Baroness tell the Committee whether, in her opinion, that combination of things is likely, at least in some cases, to be sufficient protection for the public at large?
Lord Dubs: I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Alderdice. The Minister has posed a question. I appreciate that we are dealing with a difficult area; there are no simple answers as to how to deal with mentally disordered offenders. Indeed, I am conscious that, throughout the world of mental health, clinicians are having to make difficult decisions all the time as regards people who are mentally disordered and who are not offenders in terms of when it is safe to release them. That means "safe" both for the individuals being released and safe for the public. Such difficult decisions are the stuff of the day-to-day work in the mental health field. Therefore, I am under no illusions that we are dealing with a very difficult area and I do not pretend that the answers are straightforward.
However, perhaps I may put one or two further points to the Minister. The noble Baroness indicated that the court would have at its disposal much advice about the mental state of a particular offender and that the court would take such advice into account when determining disposal. That is absolutely fine, if such advice is available and, in many cases, I assume that that would be the case. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, the point behind the amendments is that it is not just a case of what happens at the outset when a person is convicted of an offence; it is the fact that there might be a period of several years during which clinicians would oversee the treatment of an offender in a secure unit. After a period of several years of such treatment, those clinicians would, I believe, be in a better position to decide the best way forward for that individual as opposed to a decision made by the court at one point in time when the offender was convicted. Indeed, I believe that we would all have a little more confidence in a diagnosis and a prognosis made after several years of experience in a secure unit with a patient.
In my view, the amendments have merit. I put them forward because I believe that protecting the public is essential. After a period of time in a secure unit and after being returned to prison and subsequently released, an individual might be more dangerous to the public than if he had not had that period in prison but had been
1364
released when the clinician in the secure unit thought it safe for the public that he should be released. I repeat, it is a very difficult decision to make. But, on balance. I still believe that the thrust of the amendments would make the public safer than would the current provisions in the Bill.
8.45 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I should just like to add a few words to the debate. I have to deal with such cases, although, happily, not all that often. I listened with enormous interest to the contributions made by the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Alderdice, from their different disciplines and different backgrounds. They are both interested in the mental health field. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that the judiciary is being threatened by some parts of the Bill into making decisions that it might not want to make.
As a matter of fact, when you have a case of this kind and you have to decide between a hospital order, with or without a restriction under Section 41 ←and, if you are making such a restriction, you have to have oral evidence from at least one qualified doctor before you can do so because you have to decide how long it is—you have the choice between making a Section 37/41 order under the Mental Health Act, or passing a prison sentence. If you make an order under that Act, whether or not it is accompanied by a restriction order, that is the end of the court's involvement in the case.
Although it is a long time ago, I well remember a case of a psychopath where the courts had, I believe, wholly conscientiously made a hospital order. After a very short time indeed the doctors, on good advice, had all said, "We are very sorry, this man is not treatable". So he had to be released; and, indeed, he would have had to be released even more so now, because I am talking about the days before the current legislation and before the days of "X" in front of the court at Strasbourg since when the mental health review tribunals have been given absolute powers to discharge—or conditional powers to discharge.
However, in that case, there was absolutely nothing that could be done because the court had had to take the view—and, indeed, it was a psychopath and these are very difficult cases—that the only option was to make a hospital order. That man walked out of the hospital. It was a very worrying case and there was a great deal of danger, especially to children. It was a very worrying matter that there was not the flexibility either for the Home Office at that time or, indeed, for the courts to establish a system whereby you combined the two.
I do not think that the right reverend Prelate need worry that someone who falls under this jurisdiction will get a double dose of treatment; that will certainly not be the case. If a determinate sentence is passed, whether that is served in hospital or in prison, it will be the same sentence. We shall come to that in due course. If it is an indeterminate sentence, the ordinary rules will apply, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and his colleagues will deal with it.
I believe there is a gap at the moment in the powers that the courts have. They have to make an irrevocable decision, if they think it is a case for a hospital order,

1365
and that cannot be reversed. However, it does not work the other way round. If a prison sentence is passed, it can be converted by the Home Office into a transfer to a mental hospital, and then the same rules apply. But, if a court is confronted with a case where it appears that a hospital order is the proper thing to impose, and it imposes that, there is no way of converting that into a prison sentence. I think that is what this matter is about.
This is a proper amendment and it is not a provision that will be undertaken lightly by the courts. These decisions are extremely difficult and they are taken on learned advice from people such as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, and his colleagues. They are not taken without a great deal of care. As I say, at the moment there is the one obstacle that, if a hospital order is decided upon, that is it; it cannot be converted.
Baroness Blatch: The one thing that unites all of us in this Chamber is the difficulty of this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned placing judges and doctors—particularly medical professionals—in difficult situations where they almost require the wisdom of Solomon to make decisions. However, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who said that that is the stuff of the life of a judge and of medical people, who make difficult decisions on an almost daily basis. I do not make that remark flippantly. We all appreciate just how difficult those decisions are.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for what he has said. It was, in effect, another way of asking what the noble Lord. Lord Alderdice, had asked; namely, what do you do when the courts impose a hospital order? There is nothing in the amendments that refers to a timescale. Under the existing provisions, a person could have committed a serious offence and have been directed to hospital under a hospital order for something which otherwise could have attracted a long prison sentence. After a relatively short time, the medical professionals may reach the view that the person is either untreatable or the treatment he has received has not worked. In that case, the doctor may block a bed and turn the hospital into a secure unit for that person. However, I do not think he would have any right in law to do that. The doctor would simply have to allow that person to walk out of the hospital. That is the dilemma that we have grappled with.
First of all, culpability would have to have been established by the courts in coming to a view about a sentence. The courts have the problem of imposing a sentence that fits the crime; in other words, taking into account the seriousness of the offence and reflecting that in the period of time it would have attracted had the person involved not been mentally disordered. If the person concerned requires treatment or assessment, he will be sent to hospital under a hospital direction. As I say, if a doctor found that he could not give that person further treatment or that the treatment was having no effect, there is the problem of whether to send that person to prison. That is possible under our flexible arrangements. If somebody is sent to prison it will be possible to return him to the hospital at some stage for further treatment if it is felt that he would benefit from
1366
treatment. I argue that the flexibility that exists under this Bill meets many of the concerns that the Committee has expressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred to an offender being detained under existing mental health legislation and to doctors being placed in a difficult position. The problem with relying on the 1983 mental health legislation—which has been mentioned by the noble Viscount—to protect the public is that, in the more difficult cases that we are discussing, offenders cannot be detained under the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, appeared to be talking about the more serious offenders, as he referred to many years of medical treatment. Therefore one has to assume that the original offence was serious.
A hospital direction is a possibility for an offender who has received a prison sentence. A doctor's dilemma in sending such an offender to prison is no different from that which arises if a prisoner has been transferred to hospital under the existing legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the restriction order. I believe that the noble Viscount mentioned that in passing. The court will already have decided that a hospital order and a restriction order do not provide sufficient protection in the few cases where a hospital direction is made. Therefore that matter will have been considered. A hybrid order will be put in place if that is considered more appropriate.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that the doctor knows best what the future of the patient should be. If treatment continues to be needed and can be provided by medical professionals, that person will stay in hospital, or even be returned to hospital if that becomes necessary. If that person is ill in prison, he can always be returned to hospital for further treatment.
I do not want this debate to be seen as me, on behalf of the Government, versus the rest. I end where I began. What unites us all is the dilemma involved in this matter. However, we believe that the flexibility that has been provided in the Bill will allow the courts greater opportunities to address the varying needs of mentally disordered offenders.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for her full response. I shall wish to think hard about what the Minister has said when I read Hansard. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 107 and 108 not moved.]
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clauses 44 to 46 agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 108A:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
ESTABLISHMENT OF COURT PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENT SCHEME
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment in magistrates' courts of schemes which provide for the psychiatric examination on court premises after conviction and before sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered.
(2) Regulations made under this section may be made so as to apply only in specified areas.").
The noble Lord said: I think it is generally agreed that too many mentally ill and mentally disordered individuals are in our prisons, and that prison is not necessarily the right place for a person with a mental disorder. Various surveys have been undertaken to establish the truth of that proposition.
In December 1996 the British Medical Journal published a research study of 750 male remand prisoners in 13 adult prisons and three young offender institutions. That study found that psychiatric disorder (widely defined) was present in 63 per cent. of inmates. Apart from substance abuse, which was diagnosed in 38 per cent. of cases, the main diagnoses were neurotic illness, 26 per cent., personality disorder, 11 per cent., and psychosis, 5 per cent. The researchers judged that 9 per cent. needed transfer to an NHS hospital.
Other studies have been undertaken which support that general conclusion. The psychiatric liaison service at Clerkenwell Magistrates' Court published a study in 1991. The psychiatrists attending Clerkenwell court recommended hospital admissions in 39 of the 80 cases. The average number of days from arrest to admission for those who reached hospitals through the scheme was 8.7. In contrast, for those remanded to Brixton Prison, the average time from arrest to hospital admission was nearly 51 days. Having a proper assessment at the level of the magistrates' court not only helps the court in its disposals but also gets treatment carried out far more quickly and is of widespread benefit.
Some schemes are already in existence. The amendment ensures the availability throughout the country of psychiatric examination,
"on court premises after conviction and before sentence of persons who are or appear to be mentally disordered".
I believe that the amendment commends itself. However, perhaps I may make a few comments in support of the provision. The Law Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists are keen on such court based mental health assessment schemes because they ensure early identification of defendants suffering from mental disorder and provide magistrates with appropriate information and expert advice to assist them in the exercise of their powers.
During the previous debate, the Minister talked about courts having the benefit of such advice. In that case she referred to courts for more serious offenders. I refer to magistrates' courts. For magistrates' courts, decisions involve, as in other cases, balancing the mental health needs of the defendant against the interest of public safety and the need to minimise the likelihood of reoffending. Such a scheme gives magistrates information about all possible options in the disposal of such an offender. At present, the service is patchy. If the amendment were to become law, it would assist throughout the country.
There are some harsh instances of mentally ill people in prison. A letter was sent to one of my noble colleagues from a family whose son was in prison. I do not wish to refer too much to the details. He suffered from a form of mental illness. He was murdered in the prison cell by another prisoner who was also mentally ill—a very tragic experience indeed. The parents who
1368
wrote the letter suggested that had there been a proper system of assessment that outcome might well have been prevented. That was an extremely sad and tragic case. But I believe that the experience of magistrates' courts is that many mentally ill or mentally disordered people would benefit if such assessment schemes were on court premises. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Again there is little between us on this issue. The importance and value added by such schemes are not in doubt. The value of mental health assessment schemes at magistrates' courts is fully accepted by the Government. There is no need for legislation to promote such schemes which are being readily set up in response to specific local needs. However, I respect what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. He is trying to chivvy on this policy. I wholly accept that.
The Home Office has been active in encouraging its development. Guidance was issued in 1990 and 1995, and funds made available to assist with the salary costs of medical staff who attend court. Support has increased from £500,000 in 1993 to over £1 million this year, and additional funding will be available from the next financial year.
In 1990 there were a handful of local arrangements. Now there are some 130 schemes already in operation around the country. We are helping to pay for 53 this year, and more will be funded from local resources.
It is important not to be prescriptive about how these schemes operate. I do not believe that the noble Lord argued that point. They are local initiatives, and it would be unhelpful to tie the hands of local agencies. They are best placed to devise the right response to local needs and to make the most effective use of local resources.
It would be a step back to restrict assessment to the pre-sentence stage, as this proposed clause would do. That would limit examination to convicted persons and exclude people on remand. A major benefit of assessment schemes is the early identification of mental disorder and the availability of advice to the court at first hearings. This can avoid unnecessary remands to prison.
This amendment is unnecessary. There is no dispute over the value of court assessment schemes. But prescriptive central regulation is not needed to promote what is already being achieved at local level. There has been an enthusiastic response to Home Office encouragement and financial support to get new schemes off the ground. These have quickly demonstrated their effectiveness, including their cost-effectiveness. But to be durable, they need to be part of a wider local inter-agency strategy for dealing with mentally disordered offenders. In that way, their success and continuation are likely to be assured.
We agree with what the noble Lord seeks. We should like to move faster if we possibly could. We believe that local initiatives are best encouraged. We are working through NACRO in research and promotion projects.

1369
We need no prodding in this respect. As always, it is a matter of making sure that the resources match the provision.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for her helpful reply. As a general proposition I would say that governments always need prodding, so I differ from her in that respect. However, it was a helpful reply. I am pleased she made the point about the need for prisoners held on remand. I had wanted the amendment to include that, but I understand that there are difficulties as regards the Long Title of the Bill. Otherwise the amendment would have included "remand". I understand from that that the Minister sees such schemes as applying to prisoners on remand as well as to convicted prisoners. Therefore beyond my wish that we make faster progress towards establishing those schemes, there is no difference between us. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford moved Amendment No. 108B:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
REPORT ON COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO VICTIM
(" . It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act a report containing an assessment of the feasibility of arrangements for the payment to the victim, at the time when a court makes a compensation order, of the full amount of compensation ordered by the court.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause prods the Government to make amends for their treatment of the victims of crime when they virtually halved the budget of the criminal injuries compensation board. As I recall—it may well still be the case—when an order was made by the criminal injuries compensation board a compensation order made in the magistrates' court or the Crown Court was taken into effect. At the time the award is made, anything that is outstanding under the compensation order will then be collected and retained by the court itself. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, nods his assent to that proposition so I assume that it is still the practice.
This clause suggests a feasibility study which would try to ensure that the victims of crime received a lump sum from the magistrates' court or the Crown Court at the time of the disposal of the offender. The suggestion is that, instead of receiving the money in dribs and drabs over a long period of time, or not receiving it at all, the court itself should pay out a lump sum and then be responsible for collecting it from the offender through the usual court system. It is an idea which this Government proposed in the Green Paper, Punishment, Custody, and the Community in 1988. A White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public published in 1990, states:
"At present, many offenders pay compensation by instalments, which are then sent on by the court to the victims. There is considerable support for the idea that when a compensation order is made, the court should be able to pay the total sum awarded for the victim immediately, and then recover the money from the offender".
The Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group, in a report in 1996 entitled Increasing the Rights of Victims of Crime, said that it supported the proposal in principle. It continued:
"However, we recognise that without an improvement in the enforcement of compensation orders and fines it has substantial resource implications: at present the annual shortfall between the amount of compensation orders imposed and the amount collected has been estimated at £18 million".
In other words, compensation orders exceed the amount collected by £18 million per annum. That is the kind of level of resources that would be required to implement a scheme of this sort.
It has to be said in relation to that figure that, first, it is only a relatively small proportion of the amounts of awards made annually now by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board; and, to the extent that the court makes a lump sum award initially when the offender is disposed of, that would be taken into account and set against any money that might otherwise come from government funds through criminal injuries compensation payments. Therefore it is not a straight payment out of £18 million per annum. There would be set-offs against that which would reduce the figure very considerably.
The benefits of such a scheme can be imagined. Victims complain, perhaps less now than they did, about delay over the payment of awards under the CICB scheme. They are also very concerned to see that the recompense that they receive is at least partly from the pocket of the person who caused the particular injury to them. So from all points of view it is desirable that victims should receive their money promptly and that the sums should be collected through the court system and be retained by the courts themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: An issue as complex and far-ranging as this is difficult to decide at this hour of the night at the end of the Bill's passage through this place. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, at present if a compensation order is made by the court in favour of the victim of a crime of violence, and if that victim then applies to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, the board deducts from the amount which it grants that which the person has received under the order made by the court.
As the noble Lord said, that means that, since usually only part of the money has been paid, that part is deducted financially from the order and the board then takes over the responsibility of attempting to enforce the remaining part of the order against the individual. It is a cumbersome organisation, but we do recover a certain amount of money.
I have a lot of sympathy with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that people want their compensation early and if we could devise a scheme whereby they received a sum of money quickly rather than paid over weeks, it would be to the advantage of the victim. The difficulty is how the court arrives at what that figure of compensation should be, and also what area it would cover. Perhaps the whole question of the relationship between the compensation

1371
paid by the individual and the compensation covered by the state through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board deserves detailed study.
I believe that the Minister will confirm that although the delays are bad, they are better than they used to be. We are conscious, as we are always reminded by Victim Support, that the desire of the victim is to get something quickly rather than perhaps a greater sum at a later date.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: Two points trouble me about the amendment. First, there is no compensation clause in the Bill. We are committing a new Parliament to considering a new issue in 12 months' time: to carry out a feasibility study and to come forward presumably with the results of that study on a compensation scheme. That is the first point: the proposal is not linked to any clause in the Bill.
Secondly, it is a considerable and open-ended extension of the criminal injuries compensation legislation because we are not talking specifically about criminal injuries. This concerns any compensation order made by any court to any offender which would be met immediately by the court from state funds. It would then have to be recovered. We are talking of a pretty considerable blank cheque on the part of the state.
There have been repeated proposals for immediate payment of court compensation orders in the past and the arguments have been rehearsed on many occasions. Immediate payment would of course remove from the victims the problem of spasmodic and incomplete payment of compensation by offenders. But the objections—primarily cost—have proved compelling.
I take absolutely the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle about frustration over the speed at which payments are made. That will always be an issue and I pay tribute to the progress that is being made. I know that my noble friend would wish to make yet more progress in clearing the backlog and getting on top of current claims.
There are no central records of default, but we have estimated that the cost of immediate payment could be up to £10 million a year to start with, taking into account loss of interest on the sums awarded and outright loss through amounts written off as a result of default and, indeed, as a result of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board finding at the end of the day that a payment is not due. That initial cost could be expected to escalate if the Government agreed to underwrite compensation orders at the taxpayers' expense.
Apart from the cost argument, underwriting compensation orders would appear unfair to others with equal or perhaps greater need, for example, beneficiaries of maintenance or debt orders. It could also be unfair to victims who were not awarded compensation, for example, where the offender had been imprisoned and there was no prospect of obtaining or enforcing payment, or in cases where there was uncertainty or dispute as to the amount of compensation which it might be appropriate to award. Furthermore, immediate
1372
payment of compensation from public funds would also tend to distance the offender from the sense of having wronged the victim.
Thus, while we can see the superficial attraction of the underlying idea, we find the practical objections compelling. We think the better answer is for the courts to set compensation at an appropriate and reasonable level, and then to enforce payment vigorously. It is, after all, the courts' responsibility to ensure as far as possible that the penalties which they impose are correctly assessed and are made to stick. They already have the powers they need to do this with respect to compensation orders.
It is my understanding that about 80 per cent. of compensation orders are met by the offender and about 20 per cent. are not met either in part or in whole. It will be clear from the foregoing that we see no good purpose in revisiting the issue yet again. I cannot imagine that we would arrive at a different conclusion. I therefore ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful but somewhat disappointed at the Minister's considered reply to the proposal. I sought through the amendment not to put in place a scheme that would immediately cost money, but to ask for a feasibility study so that all the issues to which the Minister referred could be properly examined and a report could be made on which action could be taken.
I have aired the matter as far as I propose and I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford Lord Thomas of Gresford had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 108C:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
DEFERMENT OF COMMENCEMENT DATE OF CUSTODIAL SENTENCE
(" .—(1) When a court passes a custodial sentence, it may order the deferment of the commencement of that sentence until such date as it shall specify, not being more than six months after the date on which the deferment is announced by the court.
(2) The power conferred by this section shall be exercisable only if the court is satisfied, having regard to the nature of the offence and the character and circumstances of the offender, that it would be in the interests of justice to exercise the power.").
The noble Lord said: In view of the time, I prefer to reserve my remarks on this amendment until a later stage.
[Amendment No. 108C not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 108D and 108E not moved.]
Clauses 47 to 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 34, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Sections 35 and 36 shall not come into force until the Department of Transport and the Department of Social Security have calculated the resultant cost to the Department of Social Security, as required by Treasury guidelines, and have reported the result, and the methods, of such calculations to Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: The noble Baroness gave us a brief preview of the Government's reply to this amendment when we debated Clause 35 stand part on Thursday last. I have read and re-read recently what she said then. The point she made was that the amendment, in her view, would be self-defeating. The noble Baroness said that it would prevent the conducting of pilot studies, which would prevent the possibility of arriving at accurate costs.
I do not take that point as conclusive but I take it extremely seriously. I therefore say to the noble Baroness that if she will give me an assurance that, after the pilot studies, the costing assessment will be made and reported to this House before any further disqualifications are made under Clause 35 of the Bill, I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment and say nothing further. If the noble Baroness can give me that assurance, it will meet everything I have to say.
However, if she cannot, there are still some points to be made which are of substance. It is true that one cannot assess the costs of disqualifying people from driving with complete accuracy until pilot studies are made. But it is true also—I am sure that the Treasury has already made this point—that if one is introducing a measure, one needs at least a ball park estimate of the costs it will incur. One needs to know whether by disqualifying people from driving we are, in particular, increasing the social security budget by preventing them from working. There are ways in which such estimates can be made. I am not only concerned with the figures; I am concerned also with how the Government arrive at the figures when they set out to estimate the cost to one department of a measure introduced by another.
I have spent a lot of time questioning the Department of Social Security about how it undertakes those assessments. I have not received particularly lucid or transparent replies. Therefore, while the amendment is before the Committee, I hope to obtain some idea of how the Home Office will set about assessing the costs to social security of depriving people of their driving licences. For example, is it able to do studies which find out what proportion of the population today cannot go to work by public transport? It is a question to which I should like an answer and to which sample surveys could supply at least an approximation to an answer.
Will the Home Office study the rate at which people come off benefit? Will it compare the rate at which people with access to public transport come off benefit with the rate at which people who do not have access to public transport come off benefit? Among people without access to public transport, will the Home Office compare the rate at which car owners come off benefit with the rate at which non-car owners come off benefit?
Those are all perfectly possible exercises. If the Home Office does not intend to address them, I should like to know what other exercises it intends to attempt. The whole issue of costings is shrouded in too much mystery: we make something of a fetish of it. If we want—as I am sure the Government want and as I want—people to make reasonably realistic estimates of the costs of what they propose, we cannot keep the
1374
methods by which costings are arrived at a secret. That is often the most interesting and fascinating part of the whole exercise. I hope at the least that the Minister can tell me how the Government intend to address the question of working out the costs of Clause 35 to other government departments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl tempts me to my feet by talking of survey research. I am a great devotee of it, having earned a living all my life through it. How one can possibly estimate the costs of a provision which provides for the courts to use driving disqualification as a penalty if one does not know how often or on what occasions they will use it and on what kind of people they will impose it is beyond me.
Earl Russell: Cannot one attempt to assess the average cost per disqualification? Would not that be a start?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, it would not—if I may comment again as a survey researcher. One could say it is £100, £1,000 or £20,000. But if one does not know whether it is happening once, 1,000 or 20,000 times, it does not help.
Baroness Blatch: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. An almost perverse result of such an evaluation comes to mind. Someone could confess to using a car a great deal where disqualification would represent a very serious financial loss, whereas for someone on social security the actual financial loss might be deemed to be very little.
The main evaluation will be the effectiveness of disqualification from driving as a punishment and a deterrent to committing crime. One does not have to wait for these pilot schemes to carry out the kind of survey the noble Earl would like to see carried out, even if it were possible. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—I just do not believe it is. But even if it were, we already have disqualification from driving as a penalty at the disposal of the courts. Except in very exceptional circumstances, the magistrates' courts do not even have flexibility to consider whether someone needs or does not need a car to go to work. Disqualification is automatic in drink-driving cases. I have sat in court and witnessed the same disqualification from driving dispensed as a penalty. I have seen it having very different effects as between someone who can afford to have a chauffeur or have someone drive him around and someone who is self-employed and finds himself unable to work.
We have said in earlier discussions that we would expect magistrates to consider disqualification from driving along with other penalties. The kind of factor we would expect them to take into account is whether the person is entirely dependent on his own transport to get him to and from work. It would be an insensitive magistrate who awarded disqualification from driving as a penalty to someone who could not get to work rather than resorting to another form of community sentence or other sentence available to the court.

1375
I cannot give the assurance the noble Earl seeks. I understand his concerns but I hope he will allow us to leave it to the courts to balance the need for punishment and the sensitivity of the appropriateness of the disposal the courts would use. What I can say to the noble Earl is that we shall make the evaluation public for all to see.
Earl Russell: I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on his rehearsal. He sounded exactly like Prince Hal trying on the crown. I also congratulate the Minister on proving that this exercise was premature. I listened very carefully to her reply. I take her point that she will be primarily concerned with the effect of the penalty as a deterrent. But she went a little way at the end of her reply to reassure me that that is not the only factor that will be taken into account. I take her point that most magistrates would not impose this penalty on someone who could not otherwise go to work. But it would help if we could be certain that it was a requirement on the magistrate to inquire before passing sentence whether that was the case.
I have the greatest respect for magistrates. However, like all the rest of us, magistrates come in all shapes and forms. There is no profession on earth in which everyone is good. So, if there could be a requirement on the face of the Bill that magistrates should take that information into account, it would go a long way to reassure me further. That, I think, is a matter for a further amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 109A:
Page 34, line 40, leave out ("5") and insert ("4A").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 110A to 110F and 110H to 110P and also to Amendment No. 113A. This group of technical amendments is designed to put beyond doubt the application to prisoners who have been sentenced abroad and repatriated to the United Kingdom the legislative provisions which relate to their early release.
The amendments make clear that repatriated prisoners are to be treated, in terms of their eligibility for early release and any licence conditions, according to the legislation in England and Wales (or as the case may be Scotland), applicable to prisoners who were sentenced in this country on the same date on which the repatriated prisoners were sentenced abroad. That will ensure that repatriated prisoners continue to be treated as near as humanly possible on a par with equivalent prisoners sentenced here.
Thus a prisoner sentenced abroad prior to the coming into force of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, but who was repatriated here after the coming into force of that Act, would be treated on return here as an existing prisoner—that is, in accordance with the transitional provisions in the 1991 Act. He would benefit from eligibility for parole at the one-third point in his
1376
sentence rather than be treated under the provisions of the 1991 Act under which parole eligibility for long-term prisoners is at the one-half stage.
The amendments put forward make similar alterations to the Scottish legislation, which is slightly more complex than is set out in the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. The additional complication arises because in that Act there were no transitional provisions. However, the objective is to achieve the same result for prisoners who are repatriated to Scotland as for those who may be repatriated to England and Wales.
No amendments are necessary in relation to Northern Ireland, which has no equivalent early release provisions to those applying in England and Wales and Scotland. The amendments are numerous and fairly detailed, but their objective is quite clear and I hope that they are acceptable to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: The amendments are detailed and they sound a bit technical. However, can I draw comfort from what the Minister said that the intention is that no prisoners who are repatriated will he disadvantaged in any way and that they will have the same rights as previously? I believe that I have got it right and I hope I have not done injustice to what the Minister said. I would like to carry that principle into Amendment No. 110G when I move it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord is quite correct, subject to the qualification that I indicated that it would be as near as possible. It is not possible to achieve exact equality, but that is the general objective. I fully accept that there are implications for a later amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 51, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount Colville of Culross: I gave notice earlier on this evening that I wanted to ask a question about Clause 51. I hope that the message got through to the noble Baroness. My question is about the training which will be necessary before commencement. I am assuming that in due time commencement orders will be made to bring into effect the various provisions in the Bill. I did not hear the noble Earl, Lord Russell, last Thursday because I was myself the subject of a very useful piece of judicial training by the Judicial Studies Board. There is not a word in the financial effects of the Bill about provision for training. I do not believe that it will be just the judiciary who will be involved; the CPS and a considerable number of other people will be involved.
What is the timetable that we are all having to anticipate? The fact remains that there will be a day when the sort of calculations that the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has been embarking on, whereby under Clause 22 you pass an equivalent sentence today to what you would have done yesterday, will be implemented. The result is truly amazing. I do not think that any of us will do it in exactly that way; but, nevertheless, there will be a marked difference.

1377
Before that happens, a number of things will have to take place. The whole of the junior judiciary—and that includes all the magistrates, and certainly people such as myself and all those who sit as Recorders and Assistant Recorders—will have to be trained in the provisions of the Bill in relation to sentencing. They do not normally get more than one sentencing conference a year and there is a limit to what can be put into that one day. There are a number of other provisions in the Bill which will have to be absorbed and applied by the judiciary at all levels before they can properly implement it.
The other difficulty is this: there is in existence—it is of very great help in guiding those who have to pass sentence—an encyclopaedia which does not lay down rules, but it does include all the guideline cases that have been produced by the Court of Appeal over a period of time and gives a selection of other decisions by the Court of Appeal either on appeal against sentence or on the Attorney-General's references, which gives one an idea of the range of sentence within which one should be working. It also does something to help those who are prosecuting to decide on the type of offence that they are going to put on the indictment that comes before the court.
None of that will be quick. There is no provision whatever for it in the Financial Effects of the Bill. It may be that in the Government's view it is chicken feed, but from the point of view of those who have to carry out the legislation, it may be cheap in terms of what the Treasury has to pay, but it is critical for them as they attempt to do that which Parliament has laid down. I may have missed something because I have not been present in the Chamber all the time and if so, I apologise to the Committee, but my colleagues and I would be grateful to know something of what the noble Baroness has in mind in terms of a timetable for the implementation of the Bill, and particularly the provisions of Part II, Chapter I, which includes Clause 22, and a number of provisions which are rather more complicated than those in the first part of the Bill. If the Minister could tell us about that, we would be greatly comforted by what I imagine will be a period of time during which we can learn how to implement the Bill's provisions. It would be most helpful if the Minister could give me an answer on that.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The whole Committee should be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for raising this vitally important matter on Clause 51 which deals with the appointment of the different days for the introduction of different parts of the Bill. The noble Viscount pointed out the degree of training of the judiciary that will be needed before the Bill can be implemented and the time that that will take, yet nowhere in the Bill is any recognition given to that point.
I should like to raise another point and to ask the Minister whether she will give the Committee at least this assurance—that it is not the Government's intention to bring into force any part of the Bill until adequate resources and provisions are available to meet its effects. I say that for this reason: as we have already
1378
discovered during our earlier debate on Clause 7, apparently against the stated intention of the Home Secretary—or so he always says—the Bill will increase the average time spent in gaol by every prisoner serving less than four years by at least 11 per cent., which in itself means an increase of several thousand in the daily population of our prisons. I suggested to my noble friend that since the White Paper claimed that that part of the Bill was intended to be neutral in terms of prison population it was difficult to believe that it had been taken into account in the chapter dealing with resources. It was suggested that a number of new prisons would be required to meet the provisions of the first part of the Bill. It is clear that if we move to a system of real time sentencing of the nature proposed by the Bill, it will lead to a substantial increase in the prison population, despite the proposals in Clause 22 of the Bill.
Realistically, how long does the Home Office believe that it will take to provide the necessary resources to meet the demand? It says glibly that it will require so many new prisons and they can be built in such and such a time. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, well remembers that in the early 1970s when he and I were fellow Ministers in the Home Office there were problems in changing a prison in the Midlands so that it could take life prisoners, which it did not have the power to do at that time. It aroused enormous local reaction. One cannot easily provide prisons.
In the past few days one has witnessed the reaction to the suggestion that a former Pontins holiday camp in Blackpool should be used as a prison. One has witnessed the reaction of the local authority to the intention to bring a hulk across the sea from America and put it in Portland harbour. The noble Viscount is far more familiar with this because he had to face an angry meeting of residents of the area at the time. Having myself been in charge of prisons for a short time before him, I question whether the glib assumption in the White Paper that the department will just have to build so many more prisons is realistic in a short timescale.
I believe that the Committee is entitled to an assurance that if, the Government, for reasons that I still find difficult to accept, have decided to alter the whole sentencing policy in a way that gratuitously increases the prison population—which is already straining available resources—they have no intention of implementing that part of the Bill until the resources have been provided and the prisons are actually there.
Lord Ackner: The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has referred to an 11 per cent. increase in the calculations made before the Bill was debated. There are other matters to be taken into account. The overall figure has been discounted by the Government by approximately 20 per cent. because of the alleged deterrent effect of the provisions that they seek to enact. Everyone on the Opposition side doubts that this deterrent effect is realistic. In so far as the minimum sentence provisions are thought to have a deterrent effect, for the moment it has gone. It is the noble Baroness's own observation that a coach and horses have been driven through the Bill, so that source of deterrence has gone.

1379
Then there is a further point. It seems to have been the Government's assumption that sentences were accurately defined in terms of a particular figure. They are not. They are a range. It has been pointed out that judges who have been harassed, particularly by the press, with regard to the sentences which they impose at the moment are not likely to tolerate even further harassment when they reduce, as the Government would wish, the sentence by two thirds. They will therefore, I anticipate, sentence at the top of the range, as they are perfectly entitled to do. That will put up the prison population.
Reference has been made to Clause 22. In due course, as a final wind-up, having given notice that I shall seek to attack the whole of Schedule 5, which is the schedule which shows the enormous complication of the transitional period, I will seek to show that to explain that on its own will require a seminar of several days' duration.
9.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not wish to be tempted into a general discussion of commencement, particularly after the remarks about rehearsals by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, beyond saying that clearly no government can commence any part of any legislation until they have the resources to implement it. We have seen that in respect of the custody of juveniles on remand under the Prison Service.
However, I think that it is worth saying, in the light of what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, have said, that the Minister will know that I have put down Written Questions about the financial memorandum to the Bill. At the moment the estimation of financial effects merely says that the implementation of Parts I and II of the Bill will mean, by the time the process is completed in 12 years, approximately 11,000 extra prisoners and an extra cost of between £375 million and £425 million per annum.
That clearly is not an adequate financial memorandum. One has to have the division between Part I, concerned with mandatory minimum sentences, and Part II, concerned with the abolition of existing parole and admission procedures. My Written Questions have sought the division of those figures as between Parts I and II. Clearly the gross figure was arrived at by adding the estimates for Part I to the estimates for Part II. We are entitled to know what they are if we are to debate these matters properly. My purpose in rising now is to seek an assurance from the Minister that we will have a response to those Written Questions before we resume debate on Report, which I understand will not now be on 13th March.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: A number of interesting points have been raised by noble Lords. I shall deal first with that raised by the noble Viscount with regard to training. To set it in context, perhaps I may indicate that the current proposal is to introduce Chapter I of Part II, about which the noble Viscount spoke, some time in the latter part of 1999, which would leave adequate time for training matters to be addressed.
1380
As has been said on a number of occasions, and I would not wish to demur from it, issues of judicial training are to be dealt with by the judiciary. However, the Government will be interested to know what steps are being taken in that regard. It is a highly relevant factor in deciding when the relevant provisions can be commenced. Others, such as justices clerks, magistrates and many involved in the criminal justice system, will also require to address the issue of training. One imagines that, in order to assist any formal training that takes place, as frequently happens new books and editions of encyclopaedias will be published.
As regard the availability of prison places, the position is as set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. I understand that the Questions referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, were tabled today—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yesterday!
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: They came to our notice a matter of five minutes ago on the basis that they arrived this afternoon. If they arrived yesterday, I apologise for any breakdown in communications. Clearly, they will require to be answered in detail and there is no reason why they cannot be fully answered before the Report stage.
As indicated by my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Ackner, the availability of prison places is important. Any government would have to take regard of the existing prison estate and to plans for increasing that estate before bringing the relevant provisions into force.
I await to hear with interest what the noble and learned Lord may say about the extent to which judges will take account of the new provisions in the legislation. I fully accept that there is no precise, determinate sentence which applies to each and every commission of any specific offence. However, I must say with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord that if judges were to sentence at the top of the range purely in order to avoid criticism in the media, I should not regard that as a relevant fact for them to take into account. However, I say that as a man who has had only a brief career as a temporary sheriff in Scotland before my immediate predecessor, my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, sacked me from that position because I did not sit frequently enough.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transfer of prisoners within the British Islands]:
[Amendment No. 110 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Alderdice Lord Alderdice moved Amendment No. 110ZA:
Page 43, line 19, column 1, at beginning insert ("local authority or").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie and to crave the indulgence of the Committee on his behalf. As a result of difficulties in travelling, he was unable to remain until this late hour. I assume that

1381
he asked me to move his amendment because the schedule component referred to restricts transfers from Scotland to Northern Ireland and not for any personal expertise, which I do not have in regard to this matter.
The amendment refers to the table on page 43 which shows equivalencies between those expressions in the right-hand column, which refer to Northern Ireland and with which I am familiar, and those in the left-hand column, which refer to Scotland. I am informed that the difficulty is that, while the right-hand column refers to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland and the left-hand column to Justices for a petty sessions area, the left-hand column should more properly read "local authority" in respect of Scotland. However, justices for a petty sessions area would apply in the event that the offender moved to England. Therefore, it is not a matter of taking anything out but simply inserting "local authority or" in that part of the table.
I find myself to some extent at the mercy of those wiser and more experienced in this regard, in particular the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The noble Lord has my sympathy in having to move this amendment. I had more notice given to me in order to oppose it and I find that it is a very technical matter. But looking at it carefully, I am satisfied that the amendment is unnecessary, and perhaps I should explain why.
Schedule 1 of the Bill sets out new arrangements for the transfer of prisoners and those released on supervision within the British Isles. It enables transferees to remain subject to the legislation in place where they are sentenced. That requires a small amount of translation of the words and phrases used in legislation for different parts of the United Kingdom. That is what is set out in the tables in the schedule.
The amendment proposed seeks to amend the substitution of Scottish expressions used in paragraph 11(6) of Schedule 1. Those are expressions used in Sections 15, 18 and 19 of the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 which will apply to the supervision of a released Scottish prisoner who is transferred to Northern Ireland.
Section 15 of the 1993 Act operates throughout Great Britain on the basis that a prisoner or his supervising officer may request the Secretary of State that a Scottish local authority or the justices for a petty sessions area in England and Wales be designated as the appropriate body to supervise the prisoner in place of the body first designated.
The Bill replaces the references in Section 15 to English justices with the reference to the Probation Board of Northern Ireland. That would be the appropriate body to supervise a Scottish prisoner who had been transferred to Northern Ireland. The amendment is unnecessary because the Bill would not permit a local authority in Northern Ireland to supervise a released prisoner here. It is also wrong because the 1993 Scottish Act refers to a local authority in ways which do not make sense when applied to the Probation Board of Northern Ireland. One example is that the 1993 Act refers to a local authority's director of social work.
1382
This is a detailed and technical matter. It is not easy to explain, even in the fairly extensive answer that I have given. But, in view of what I have said and with the assurance that I have looked at this myself and I am satisfied that it is correct, I hope that the noble Lord will not be slow to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alderdice: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for his detailed explanation. My colleagues can refer to that detailed answer in Hansard and, if necessary, can return to the matter. However, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repatriation of prisoners to the British Islands]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 110A to 110F:
Page 48, line 16, leave out ("question") and insert ("following questions, namely—
(a)")
Page 48, line 17, after ("licence") insert ("and
(b) whether or not he is an existing prisoner for the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the 1991 Act,").
Page 48, line 18, after ("length") insert ("or, as the case may require, commencement").
Page 48, line 40, leave out ("question") and insert ("following questions, namely—
(a)")
Page 48, line 41, after ("licence") insert ("and
(b) whether or not he is an existing prisoner for the purposes of paragraph 8 of Schedule 12 to the 1991 Act,").
Page 48, line 42, after ("length") insert ("or, as the case may require, commencement,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 110G:
Page 49, line 11, after ("Kingdom),") insert ("—
(a) in subsection (3), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted "or
(c) would result in a prisoner serving longer than two thirds of the term which the Secretary of State would have considered appropriate if the transfer had taken place before the commencement of Chapter I of Part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.": and.
(b)").
The noble Lord said: The difficulty that this amendment refers to stems from a basic principle in the Bill; namely, that, while prison sentences will not be shortened, the actual sentence imposed by the courts will be less. I hope that I have that principle right because what I am about to say follows from that.
I am referring to prisoners who are transferred from prisons abroad to serve the remainder of their sentences in this country under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984. That is essentially a humanitarian measure which has been accepted widely as being beneficial. It ensures that prisoners in countries with which we have an agreement who are serving a sentence abroad can, if

1383
they wish, if our government agree and if the foreign government agree, be transferred to serve the remainder of their sentences in this country.
The difficulty and unfairness is that a prisoner sentenced abroad comes back to this country and unless the British maximum sentence for a similar offence is less than that abroad, the prisoner will serve the remainder of that sentence here, deriving all the benefits of parole, remission, early release and so on. If the Bill is enacted, the position will change because the previous practice of applying remission and parole to a foreign-imposed sentence will no longer apply. Therefore, unless we do something about it, such prisoners will actually end up serving longer in prison under the Bill than would previously have been the case.
Therefore, it is paradoxical that foreigners sentenced in British courts and then transferred to serve the remainder of their sentences abroad under reciprocal arrangements will benefit. They will get a shorter nominal sentence in this country under the Bill's provisions and, presumably, that will be taken into account by the prison authorities in their own countries which will then release them earlier. So we have the paradoxical situation that Britons sentenced abroad and serving their sentences here will be penalised by the Bill, whereas foreigners sentenced here and serving the remainder of their sentence abroad will benefit. Clearly that it is not the intention, but it may well be the outcome.
I understand that the matter has been considered by the Government. Indeed, I appreciate the letter written to me by the Minister in which she referred me to a Written Answer given in the other place by a Mr. David Maclean, one of the Home Office Ministers. It was in answer to a Parliamentary Question put by Sir Ivan Lawrence and appeared in the Official Report of the other place on 17th February. That Written Answer refers to a scheme put forward by the Government which is an alternative to the one suggested in my amendment, although it is intended to achieve the same end; namely, to deal with the unfairness to which I have just referred. That is all well and good, except for one sentence in that Written Answer which reads:
"This method of calculating the period to be served in prison will not apply to prisoners repatriated from foreign jurisdiction operating sentencing provisions equivalent to those contained in chapter I of part II of the Crime (Sentences) Bill".—[Official Report, (Commons) 17/2/97; col. 361.]
Therefore, if the foreign jurisdiction has a sentencing system which is not equivalent to the one in the Bill, the Government's formula will apply and the prisoners transferred will benefit. However, if our Government judges that the sentencing provisions in the foreign jurisdiction are equivalent to those in the Bill, the formula suggested by them will not apply. I know that that sounds complicated, but I believe that the principle is very simple.
I believe that the Government have arrived at an interesting and sensible formula for dealing with the difficulty by administrative means. They have then qualified it by the sentence that I quoted. As it is difficult to see how that qualification will apply, I am afraid I am puzzled as to whether the formula put
1384
forward by the Government will work as well as they suggest or, indeed, in how many instances it will work. Frankly, it would be better if the Government were to drop the qualification and simply apply their administrative formula for dealing with the unfairness to all prisoners transferred from abroad under existing legislation—for example, the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984.
Why not apply the formula that the Government have just worked out to all prisoners transferred rather than say that it will only apply to prisoners from jurisdictions that behave differently from that envisaged in the Bill? It is very difficult to see how to apply that qualification. I hope that I have made my point clear. I welcome what the Government have done—or, indeed, what they have suggested they will do—under the administrative arrangements. I only hope that they will drop the qualification. Clearly my amendment is a probing one, designed to get the Government to help us resolve this particular difficulty. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter which is of concern. As he correctly said, it was raised in another place and responded to in detail in a Written Answer to which he has referred.
We do not believe that it would be appropriate to treat repatriated prisoners in line with this amendment. That would effectively mean re-sentencing the prisoner or, in other words, moving to a system of converting sentences. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will he well aware, and as many other noble Lords will know, under the convention on the transfer of sentenced persons there are two methods by which the administering state—that is, the state to which the prisoner is transferred—can deal with the unexpired portion of a sentence. It can continue the enforcement of the sentence through a court or an administrative order or it can convert the sentence into a new sentence, thereby substituting for the sanction imposed by the sentencing state its own sanction.
We have traditionally believed that the method of operating the Council of Europe convention, to which the United Kingdom and many other countries are parties, would be impracticable if we embarked upon the approach of converting the unexpired portion of sentences. Our experience suggests that the conversion of such sentences by the receiving state—the administering state—frequently leads to a reduction in the length of time which the repatriated prisoner has to serve. The Government's policy has been to preserve the integrity of our own sentencing system by insisting on the continued enforcement procedure both in relation to prisoners that we are repatriating from this country to another country and, equally, those who are British who are returning to this country, and doing so, of course, as a matter of choice.
It would be quite inconsistent for us to operate one system for incoming prisoners and another for outgoing prisoners. It will not surprise the Committee to learn that other countries take a similar approach and would not be happy to do business with us—if that is the correct term to use—were there to be these differing approaches.

1385
Having considered the matter carefully we believe that we can administer the sentences of those repatriated here within the framework of the Bill as drafted in such a way as to alleviate the problems which the noble Lord has identified. A repatriated prisoner's sentence would be administered in the following way. At the point of repatriation, the remaining balance of the prisoner's sentence would, as at present, be calculated by deducting from the original sentence passed the length of time the prisoner had spent in a foreign prison, including, where appropriate, any time spent on remand, and also taking account of any remission to which he was eligible for the period he had spent in custody while abroad. However, rather than deeming this balance to be the prisoner's sentence in this country, what is proposed is that the period should be further reduced by taking into account the period of supervision which will be required under the provisions of this Bill.
As the Committee will recall, Clause 13 requires all prisoners sentenced to more than 12 months in prison to undergo a period of supervision equal to 25 per cent. of the term of imprisonment or a period of three months, whichever is the greater. A repatriated prisoner's balance in prison which he would require to serve would be reduced by the period of supervision required in his particular case. The result would be that the total time spent in prison here, when added to the supervision period required, would not exceed the balance of the sentence outstanding in the foreign jurisdiction as at the date of repatriation. In addition, the earned early release provisions in the Bill would apply to a repatriated prisoner. Members of the Committee will recall that these amount to the prisoner being able to earn up to a maximum of 12 days' early release provided he is of good behaviour and co-operates positively with the prison authorities.
The precise effect of calculating sentences in this way will vary from case to case depending on the rate of remission applicable in the sentencing jurisdiction and the stage in the particular sentence at which the prisoner is returned here.
It is important to stress that this new process of calculation would apply only to repatriated prisoners who had been convicted of offences after the coming into force of the provisions of Chapter I of Part II of the Bill. As I mentioned recently, that is a year or two off. Furthermore, they would be applicable only where the sentencing jurisdiction did not have sentencing provisions comparable with those provided for in the Bill. Where sentencing provisions in the foreign jurisdiction were on a par with our own, it would be inappropriate to adjust the balance here in the manner proposed. That is the practical issue which troubles the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Each case is looked at on a case by case basis. Once Chapter I of Part II of the Bill comes into force it would involve looking at the sentencing procedure in the sentencing jurisdiction to see whether it could properly be said to be comparable with that which will apply in this country. If it is, then the calculation I outlined would not be necessary; if it is not, it would.
1386
It is important to stress that any prisoner seeking repatriation from overseas will be provided with full information about the manner in which the unexpired proportion of his sentence would be administered were he to return to this country. This will enable him to make an informed decision as to whether or not he wishes to proceed with his application for repatriation. It is not a question that the first time prisoners will learn how long they have to serve is after they have come back to this country and are locked up in prison in accordance with the appropriate warrant. The procedure makes it clear—it is subject to the provisions of the convention—that full information is available to the prisoner before he chooses to come back.
We believe that these arrangements do not amount to resentencing, to converting the sentence, which is an approach to the administration of the convention we have never favoured. We believe that they will provide fairness. As I indicated, I assure noble Lords that, if each instance is considered on a case by case basis, the concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I understand why he wishes to raise it in Committee—is not one which in practice should have any unfair impact on prisoners who understandably wish to come back to this country to serve the outstanding balance of their sentence.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for his clear explanation. There is so little between us that I wish he could have moved a little in my direction. I accept all his arguments. My amendment is purely a probing amendment. I have welcomed the scheme the government put forward. I believe that it will achieve substantially the aims set down for it.
The only issue—it is one which he did not explain in detail—is as regards the difficult decision that the Government will have to make when deciding that certain foreign jurisdictions have a system equivalent to our own. I believe that he used the word comparable. He said that the decision would be on a case by case basis. If the formula with which the Government have come forward for instances where the sentencing system in the country is different from ours is satisfactory, why not apply it in all instances? That would prevent the Government having to make the more difficult judgment as to whether the sentencing system is sufficiently close to ours for us to take that country's system as opposed to applying the Government's formula.
What the Government are doing is so good that they should do it in all cases. I am asking them to drop the exception. It will be very difficult to know whether any system is equivalent to ours. It will involve a lot of difficult judgments. We are having enough difficulty changing our own system from what it is now to what is envisaged in the Bill. To make detailed judgments about different systems, even in European countries, is unnecessarily complex. Why do the Government not simply drop the qualification and say that in all instances where the Council of Europe agreement applies, which includes certain countries outside Europe as well, we will apply the formula devised by the Government and simply drop the qualification which the

1387
Minister has not been able to justify and which will be difficult in practice? I urge the Minister at least to agree to re-examine the matter.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am happy to assure the Committee that I will do so. As I anticipate that we have two and a half years to do so, we shall do so thoroughly before October 1999, when Chapter I of Part II comes into effect.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister. Did he say that "there were" two and a half years to do so, or "we have" two and a half years to do so? I shall not press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 110H to 110P:
Page 49, line 39, at end insert—
("4A.—(1) This paragraph applies in relation to—
(a) prisoners repatriated to Scotland before 25th October 1996 (the "relevant date") who were still serving sentences, which were imposed before 1st October 1993 in the country or territory from which they were transferred, on the relevant date; and
(b) prisoners repatriated to Scotland in respect of such sentences on or after the relevant date.
(2) Paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the 1984 Act, as originally enacted, shall have effect, and shall he deemed to have had effect since 16th February 1990, as if—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words "section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" there were substituted the words "section 22 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989"; and
(b) at the end there were added the following sub-paragraph—
"(3) In this paragraph "sentence" means the provision included in a warrant which is equivalent to a sentence.".").
Page 49, line 41, after ("1996") insert ("(the "relevant date")").
Page 49, line 42, leave out ("their sentences on that") and insert ("sentences, which were imposed on or after 1st October 1993 in the country or territory from which they were transferred, on the relevant").
Page 49, line 43, leave out ("on or after that") insert ("in respect of such sentences on or after the relevant").
Page 49, line 51, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of Schedule 6 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 a prisoner's sentence shall be deemed to have been imposed on the day on which the relevant provisions take effect.").
Page 50, line 9, after ("imposed") insert ("on or after 1st October 1993").
Page 50, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of Schedule 6 to the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993 a prisoner's sentence shall be deemed to have been imposed on the day on which the relevant provisions take effect.").
The noble Baroness said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 109A. I beg to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 110Q
Page 58, line 14, at end insert—
("Indecency with Children Act 1960 (c. 33)
3A. In subsection (1) of section (1) of the Indecency with Children Act 1960 (indecent conduct towards young child), for the words "two years" there shall be substituted "seven years".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is designed quite simply to provide for what has become a lacuna in the sentencing powers. The case was raised and brought to my attention by his honour Judge Colin Colston on the basis that he had frequently to deal with cases under the Indecency with Children Act 1960. Section 1(1) of that Act provides that,
"Any person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of fourteen, or who incites a child under that age to such an act with him or another, shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years".
That is to be contrasted with the Sexual Offences Act, under which, on an indecent assault, the maximum sentence has now been increased to 10 years.
What gives rise to the problem is the prosecution's belief, which may be quite justifiable, that in order to prosecute under the Sexual Offences Act there must be a touching amounting to an assault by the accused; whereas if a child is persuaded into itself committing an act of gross indecency or being a party to it, that can only be dealt with Under Section 1(1). He gives as an instance with which he frequently has to deal an adult, usually a parent, who persuades the child to be a party to an act of oral sexual intercourse. That does not involve an indecent assault but it does involve the incitement of the child to commit an act of gross indecency. Clearly, the maximum sentence of two years is quite inadequate to deal with that.
Judge Colston has provided me with a letter which comes from Mr. David MacLean and is dated as recently as 12th February, although I received it only today. It points out that the Government are committed to ensuring that the courts have the powers they need to deal with the offender who appears before them. The Government have decided that a full review of sexual offences penalties is required. The review would be undertaken by officials in the Home Office in due course.
That is reassuring, but this is such a short amendment and the need for it is so obviously serious that one would have thought that the limited amendment that I propose could be inserted while one is waiting—and the wait is always longer than one expects—for a review. Then one waits after the review for consultation on the review, and subsequently one waits for the occasion when the provision can be put in a criminal justice Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I start by saying to the noble and learned Lord that I am very sympathetic to his amendment. No right thinking person can regard indecent conduct towards a child with anything other than complete revulsion. We are concerned to ensure that the courts have the powers that they need to deal

1389
with the cases which come before them and we are always willing to increase the maximum penalty available for an offence when it is clear that the existing maximum is too low to reflect the seriousness of the offences which come before the courts.
We are aware that the maximum penalties may be inappropriate in the case of certain sex offences and also that there may be inconsistencies in the penalties available for different sexual offences. That is why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced last month in another place that he had decided to review the maximum penalties for all sexual offences. The purpose of the review is to identify any anomalies and to ensure that the maximum penalties available to the courts for different offences properly reflect their comparative gravity. The review will, of course, cover the offence of indecent conduct towards a child.
There would be an argument for resisting the proposal now on the grounds that the review will address the offence in the context of all the others. On the other hand, I see the force of the argument that if there is a serious shortcoming in the law on this point and it is sufficiently anomalous—and I suspect that the noble and learned Lord may be right in arguing that there is—we should act straightaway while we have an opportunity before us in the Bill.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will allow me to reflect further on the point to ascertain whether it would be right to change the penalty for the offence now. In doing so, I should like also to reflect on whether the noble and learned Lord is right in proposing a seven-year maximum sentence or whether the model in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill which will raise the penalty for the roughly equivalent Scottish offence to 10 years would be a more appropriate course to follow. In the light of that promise to reflect and bring something forward at Report stage, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment now.
While I am on my feet I wish to put a correction on the record. The article by Alasdair Palmer in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday was not correct. It referred to the offence of indecent assault on a child as carrying a maximum penalty of two years. I know that the noble and learned Lord did not make that mistake and made the proper distinction about conduct towards a child. But as the noble and learned Lord knows, the maximum penalty for indecent assault is 10 years. Furthermore, the article stated that the Home Office is resisting attempts to increase the maximum penalty. Again, that is simply not true. On the contrary, as I have said, we are actively reviewing the maximum penalties for sexual offences. We have already accepted that there is a strong case for reconsidering the offence which is the subject of the noble and learned Lord's amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The noble Baroness said something extremely encouraging. It is quite right; it is too low.
Lord Ackner: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her generous suggestion which, of course, I accept.
1390
I put down seven years because I knew that it was easier to get that figure increased than to get it reduced. As "Modesty" is my middle name, I felt that was a wise approach. On the basis of what has been said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendments Nos. 110R and 110S:
Page 59, line 30, at beginning insert—
("( ) In subsection (4A) of section 82 of the 1980 Act (restriction on power to impose imprisonment for default), in paragraph (e) for the words "under the age of 21" there shall be substituted the words "under the age of 25".").
Page 59, line 30, leave out ("the 1980 Act") and insert ("that Act").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee I shall move these amendments en bloc. They are minor amendments required as a consequence of Clause 32 of the Bill. That clause enables courts to impose an attendance centre order for fine defaulters up to the age of 25, rather than up to the age of 21 as now. The amendments do no more than make a similar change in the reference to the upper age limit for attendance centre orders in Section 82(4A) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. It may be helpful for me to indicate that Section 82(4A) refers to ways in which a fine can be imposed by the courts. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 111 to 113 not moved.].
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 113A:
Page 63, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) In Schedule 6 to that Act, in paragraph 1, in the definition of "new provisions", after "Act" where it last occurs, there shall he inserted the words "and the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 as it has effect by virtue of paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 2 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997".").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 113A was spoken to with Amendment No. 109A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 63, line 21, leave out ("80 per cent") and insert ("two thirds").
The noble Lord said: In rising to speak to Amendment to No. 114 I am aware of the fact that there must be a feeling of relief throughout the Chamber as we come to the penultimate amendment in the Committee stage of the Bill. I can assure the Committee that at this time and at this stage of the Bill it would clearly not be appropriate for me to make a long speech. However, though it comes late and the amendment may seem small, it is a matter of principle which is of considerable importance. It is therefore with regret—though I do not suggest it is a regret for which anyone can take responsibility—that we must debate it at this hour.
The purpose of the amendment concerns the change proposed in the Bill to Section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. That section gives statutory backing for the acceptance of the view that

1391
those who are willing to plead guilty should benefit from that plea in the sentence that is passed. The Committee will be aware that Section 48 says,
"In determining what sentence to pass on an offender who has pleaded guilty … the court shall take into account … the circumstances in which this indication was given",
and the stage at which he pleaded. It should be made clear in open court that those matters have been taken into account and that the sentence that would otherwise have been passed has consequently been reduced.
The importance of pleas of guilty in our criminal system must be obvious to anyone. The length of time taken up by unnecessary trials inevitably delays the whole procedure of the courts. Therefore, if those who are rightly guilty of offences are willing to admit their guilt and plead guilty, by that act they are not only saving the time of the court, but also expressing remorse for what they have done. It is accepted not only in our jurisdiction but also in every other jurisdiction that recognition of that fact should he met.
It is now accepted—I think it probably applies in Scotland as well—that the normal discount of sentence is a third. By tradition, you can advise your client with a degree of confidence that should he choose to plead and admit his guilt you would hope to get up to a third off the sentence he would otherwise receive. The implementation in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of mandatory sentences inevitably substantially affects the advantage of guilty pleas. The Government have clearly recognised that. No one faced with a mandatory sentence, receiving any benefit from pleading, is likely willingly to plead if he thinks he has the slightest possible hope of being acquitted. I have no doubt that that will apply to anyone who is charged with an offence that comes within the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill just as it will with those that come within the provisions of Clauses 2 and 3. As noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have warned the Home Office, the introduction of mandatory sentences, among other things, is bound to have the deleterious effect of reducing the number of pleas of guilty.
The Home Secretary has recognised that argument. The Bill proposes that there should be the power to reduce a sentence on a plea of guilty which is otherwise a mandatory sentence, but, perversely, the Home Office has not taken the normally accepted reduction of a third of the sentence for pleas of guilty, but says that a reduction of up to 80 per cent. may be allowed. I say to the Minister with respect that the Government should take seriously the arguments advanced, particularly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, during the Second Reading of the Bill that a discount of 20 per cent. is not sufficient to cover many of the aspects that are required to be considered when people may be choosing to plead to charges involving serious crimes with considerable consequences to themselves.
I cannot understand why, having accepted the principle, the Home Secretary is not prepared to go along with the recognised provision that exists today of discount of a third. Perhaps I may make two brief points. First, the Home Secretary has said repeatedly that he is not aiming or intending by the Bill to increase sentences in general. Why, then, interfere with the
1392
discount normally allowed for pleas of guilty? Secondly, I pointed out to the Minister in a debate we had at about this hour on a day last week with regard to the reduction in the sentence of 66 per cent. that if she wished to be mathematically correct it should be reduced to 60 per cent. I said that I agreed to a certain extent that it was a teasing amendment because it sought to point out the absurdity to which that would lead.
The Government are themselves enacting the same absurdity by saying that the discount should be 80 per cent. rather than a third. My noble friend said, in explaining why the Government had chosen 66 per cent., that sentences are invariably found in areas that are divisible by three and that therefore if you say "take off a third" you can do it simply. But if you say "take off 40 per cent.", you come to an absurd example. Perhaps I may therefore do the reverse here. If you allow for the discount of a third in the mandatory sentence of three years passed for a burglar, you give a sentence of two years. It does not seem to require a calculator beneath the desk of counsel to work out that answer. If, on the other hand, you take a discount of 20 per cent., then you pass a sentence of 2 years, 4 months and 24 days. With seven years, if you take a quarter deduction, you come to 4 years and 8 months. If you take a deduction of 80 per cent. you come to some figure 1 cannot now work out—5 years, 7 months and 12 days.
So on the Minister's own argument the sensible thing is to stick to the normal provision that sentences are reduced by up to one-third for pleas of guilty. I hope very much that, having accepted the principle, the Minister is prepared to say that she will look again at the figure used in this case. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This amendment is grouped with my Amendment No. 115, which suggests a proportion of 75 per cent. I am utterly convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, not least by his mathematical arguments. I too listened in disbelief to the long and utterly implausible explanation by the Minister in response to his amendment last week when she protested that unless a sentence was reduced by one-third or two-thirds one could not possibly calculate it. She is hoist with her own petard. She has to agree to the noble Lord's amendment.
But it is more serious than that. I believe that it is the experience of the courts that if one is going to attract a plea of guilty, which is enormously beneficial to the work of the courts and to the victims of serious crime in that there should be an acceptance of guilt in appropriate cases, there should be an adequate incentive to plead guilty. If one-third works now, why on earth change it?
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: I hope I shall be excused for returning to this matter since it is in my judgment of the greatest practical importance. The practice of reducing sentence where a defendant has pleaded guilty is very long established. It reflects a belief that it is in the public interest to encourage pleas of guilty. The reasons are obvious and several of them have been mentioned. It marks an acceptance of responsibility by the defendant; it spares the victim the ordeal of giving

1393
evidence; it encourages—and this is vital—the supply of valuable intelligence to the authorities; it eliminates the risk of unjust acquittals; it contributes to the efficient and cost-effective conduct of criminal business. Since the practice is endorsed by Section 48 of the 1994 Act, one may take it that Parliament shares the view that this is a beneficial practice.
The extent to which a sentence is reduced to take account of a plea of guilty, like almost everything else in properly conducted sentencing, depends on the facts of the individual case. If the plea comes late then the discount may be small. I encountered a case last week where a defendant pleaded guilty after 12½ weeks of trial. The judge said that she would give some discount, but not a very great one. The Committee may think that that was sensible.
However, if a plea of guilty is early and if it is accompanied by the supply of valuable information to the authorities which enables other criminals to be apprehended and other criminal activities to be stopped, then the discount may be very substantial. There is no rule of thumb. It is true, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, has said, that in the ordinary case a plea of guilty entered early generally leads, in the common understanding, to a discount of approximately one-third. That is a rule which has evolved in practice because it has been judged to be the sort of discount which is necessary to encourage pleas of guilty while ensuring that offenders are realistically punished for their offences. Schedule 4(17) departs from the general understanding. It stipulates that the maximum discount shall be 20 per cent. for the mandatory sentences required under Clauses 2 and 3.
One is entitled to ask why that figure has been chosen. Is it based on research? If so, who has conducted the research and is it too late to see the results? Is it based on consultation? If so, who has been consulted and what answers were given? Is it based on experience? If so, on whose experience? Is the truth that it is a figure that has simply been plucked out of the air and deliberately pitched very low to prevent the courts reducing the mandatory sentences by the ordinary percentage? If so, I invite the Minister to ponder the consequences. Clause 2 provides that the minimum sentence for a timely plea, even if accompanied by valuable intelligence, is 20 per cent., so that the smallest sentence will, on my calculation, be 671/5 months; under Clause 3 it will be 284/5 months. Judges do not award terms of imprisonment in fifths of months, so in fact the discount will be less than the 20 per cent. as the courts will be obliged to round upwards since they cannot round downwards.
I repeat that the discount will be less than 20 per cent. I venture to suggest that no knowledgeable observer would regard a discount of 20 per cent. or less as sufficient to encourage a plea of guilty and a supply of information, which is a routine event with offences such as drugs and burglary. I look to the Minister for reassurance that that
1394
point has been considered and a satisfactory answer found, and I invite the noble Baroness to tell us what that answer is.
Lord Ackner: I should like to add two points. First, the application of the, so to speak, two-thirds rule—it sounds like the old days at the Bar—is one which is the product of this Bill. The judge has to reduce the sentence he would have given by two-thirds, so the two-thirds is something which is simply and easily applied. Secondly, we should proceed, should we not, on the basis of the amendment to Clauses 2 and 3—the amendment which produced the coach and horses; the amendment which restored the judge's discretion; the amendment which, according to the noble Baroness, brought us back to where we started. On that basis, there cannot be the slightest justification for applying other than what is normally applied because we are back to that normality.
Baroness Blatch: I fear that we shall have to agree to differ on this point. All noble Lords who have spoken have done so from the basic belief that they do not like minimum mandatory sentences. I accept that. That has been their consistent viewpoint.
The two amendments standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Williams of Mostyn, raise the important issue of discounts to the mandatory penalties set out in Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.
The Bill as it stands provides that a court may take a timely guilty plea into account so long as the sentence passed is not more than 20 per cent. below the mandatory minimum. As my noble friend has explained, the effect of these amendments would be to increase the proportion by which a court would be able to reduce a sentence below the mandatory minimum in order to take account of a guilty plea.
It is accepted on all sides, I know, that there needs to be an incentive for defendants who are guilty to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity, to save witnesses from having to give evidence unnecessarily and to avoid wasting the court's time. This is why the Bill as it stands makes statutory provision for a discount below the mandatory minimum.
Section 48 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides that the courts may reduce sentences to take account of guilty pleas but does not specify the proportion. The Court of Appeal's guidelines indicate a range of 20 per cent. to one third. No doubt that is why my noble friend Lord Carlisle proposes a maximum discount of one third in relation to mandatory minimum sentences. But we must also bear in mind the need for mandatory minimum sentences to be set, even in cases where the defendant pleads guilty, at such a level as to provide a real deterrent for persistent offenders. It will be open to the courts to allow more than a 20 per cent. discount in cases where, other than for a guilty plea, they would have sentenced above the mandatory minimum.

1395
Both burglary and drug dealing are crimes characterised by persistence. The aim of mandatory minimum sentences, which I accept that noble Lords who have spoken do not agree with, is to ensure that burglars and drug dealers know that they face a stiffer sentence if they persist in offending. If the mandatory minimum is substantially reduced I believe that we run the risk of undermining the very purpose and rationale of Clauses 2 and 3. If one takes into account remission, if earned, and the reduction, one is talking of a prisoner serving a minimum sentence of much less than two years for what would he a three-year mandatory minimum sentence.
The Bill provides that the discount given for a guilty plea may not reduce the sentence imposed under Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill by more than 20 per cent. below the mandatory minimum, or seven years under Clause 2 and three years under Clause 3. But it does not provide that the discount can only be 20 per cent. If the court is minded to impose a higher sentence the discount can be at a much higher level.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Ackner: Perhaps the noble Baroness can assist me on one matter. Does that mean that in a drug case if the judge imposes seven and a half years he can apply the one third and if he imposes three and a half years in relation to burglary repetition he can apply one third? If one goes above the mandatory sentence one can bring it down by reason of applying the classic one third reduction, thereby circumventing what the noble Baroness has said.
Baroness Blatch: No. The point at issue between us is that the noble and learned Lord does not agree with mandatory sentences. We simply say that there should be a sentence below which the courts should not award a discount. If the offence is concerned with burglary or drugs and someone has been convicted a third time in court, the sentence should be three years or seven years. The discount for an early guilty plea should be no more than 20 per cent. In the particular case mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, if someone is given a seven and a half-year sentence one assumes that the offence is more serious than if someone receives a seven-year sentence. If the judge were so minded he would be allowed to give a discount up to no more than 20 per cent. below the minimum mandatory sentence in the context of both the three-year and the seven-year sentence.
Lord Ackner: With great respect, I understood the noble Baroness to say that if a sentence above the minimum were imposed the judge would be entitled to apply the ordinary one third reduction. I sought to point out that on that basis a small increase above the minimum sentence would produce a lesser sentence than to impose the minimum sentence which would then be cut down to the 20 per cent.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord suggests that in such a case the judge might want to apply the third. I simply say that as long
1396
as the judge does not go below 20 per cent. of the mandatory minimum it must be for the court to decide what to apply. The general rule is to apply the third. We simply say that, consistent with the view that there should be a mandatory sentence, there should be a cut-off point below which no court should go for an early guilty plea. That would be 20 per cent. below the minimum both for drugs (a seven-year sentence) and burglary (a three-year sentence). We have taken the view that a balance must be struck. On the one hand, there must be sufficient incentive to encourage those who are guilty to plead guilty. On the other hand, the mandatory penalty must be such as to provide a real deterrent and salutary punishment of persistent offenders.
Our judgment is that a 20 per cent. discount, which represents the lower end of the normal range for guilty pleas—I did say that the guidance to the courts was between 20 per cent. and one third—strikes the right balance. For those reasons, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: Before the Minister sits down, could she address specifically the question of supplying information to the authorities, because that leads in practice to more than one third, as everyone will recognise. It is a valuable source of information which leads directly to the protection of the public. How is that taken care of with the 20 per cent?
Baroness Blatch: I entirely take the noble and learned Lord's point. First, if we are talking about a three-year or a seven-year sentence, we are talking about the bottom of the range, but persistent offenders who have offended for at least a third time. The kind of case about which the noble and learned Lord is talking is invariably the more serious one.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No.
Baroness Blatch: We are talking about sentences at the bottom of the range. The noble and learned Lord must be if we are talking about a sentence that attracts the minimum sentence for a persistent offender—a third time at least for drugs dealing and burglary. But where someone exposes a ring of people working, gives information to the court, pleads guilty, and is very helpful to the courts, it is normal for the courts to be very generous. What I am saying is that if a higher sentence is given, then a larger discount can be considered so long as the discount does not come below the 20 per cent. cut-off point below the mandatory minimum sentence.
Lord Bingham of Cornhill: What about the very case with which we are concerned—someone qualifying for a three-year or a seven-year sentence? I have encountered the very case this week—someone who gave valuable assistance to the authorities about other burglaries which led to a number of arrests. I do not think that anyone would expect that a 20 per cent. discount would encourage that degree of co-operation.
Baroness Blatch: In responding to the noble and learned Lord, I have to return to the fundamental point

1397
that I am making, which I agree is a difference between us. It is that we believe that someone who comes before the courts for the same offence persistently for drug dealing and/or for burglary who attracts the minimum sentence should also attract the minimum discount down to no greater than 20 per cent. below.
I said that doing the calculation if you have someone who receives a three-year sentence and earns the good behaviour discount plus the 20 per cent. discount for having helped the courts, you are talking about someone serving a mandatory sentence of much less than two years. That is not right. We believe that there has to be a cut off if we go down the road of accepting the principle of mandatory sentences, but I respect that the noble and learned Lord does not agree with that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The Minister does not understand the point that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was making a moment ago.
Lord Chesham: That is arrogance.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Thomas of Gresford: The point I want to make is that in a drugs case—of course we are dealing with drugs cases—the people who tend to get arrested are the minnows. It is the minnows who give the valuable assistance to the investigating authorities in order to have the larger people arrested.
The value of the information that they give is worth infinitely more than a 20 per cent. discount on a mandatory sentence of seven years. It may well be worth at least two thirds off the sentence for a minnow, a runner, a person who distributes drugs at the end of the chain, who gives detailed descriptions, and details of organisations at a much higher level. That is a frequent occurrence. That is the kind of thing that happens in the experience of the courts all the time.
Again, when it comes to persistent burglaries, it is that sort of instance where there is a well-organised gang and a person at a low level is caught. That is the person who breaks, who gives the information. That is the person on whose behalf one goes round to talk to the judge—of course with both sides being represented—to tell him the value of the information that has been received.
The problem with mandatory sentences is, first, they give no incentive to the smaller people in drugs, burglaries and organised crime of that kind to provide such information. The second point is that it is not always easy to persuade people to plead guilty. They appear fearful of the future and believe that there is a chance—indeed, there may be—either that the evidence will not come up to proof or that something will go wrong in the course of the trial. They believe that there may be a misdirection or that something will happen which will result in their acquittal; perhaps not a very meritorious acquittal, but certainly there is always the chance of an acquittal, a perverse verdict.
1398
In order to persuade a defendant to plead guilty one has to provide him with an incentive, never more so than with persistent offenders. From the very fact that they are persistent offenders one can derive that they will have been through the court system on other occasions, will have received sentences of imprisonment, will have had connections with the police and will be experienced. One has the greatest difficulty to persuade persistent offenders in their own interest—and it is in their own interest—to plead guilty.
The third point is that, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, by pleading guilty they are beginning to show remorse. They are possibly set upon a track which will prevent re-offending in the future. All those three practical reasons are based upon experience. The defendant has a free will and he cannot be ordered to do anything; not by the judge, his own counsel or the prosecution. He has to take the decision to plead guilty; he is the person who says the word "guilty". To that person you have to give a real incentive, and 20 per cent. is nowhere like it.
Earl Russell: The Minister has sought to evade the force of the argument for this amendment by alleging that all the arguments have come from those opposed to mandatory sentences. I am not certain whether that is the case, but if the Bill in any form becomes law all of us will have to live with it and attempt to operate it. Whichever way we go, it seems that some of us will have to live with a law which is not what we think it should be. Therefore, I do not believe that we can answer practical points about trying to make the law work by saying that they come from an alternative approach.
Let us take another issue on which there is rather more agreement. We have heard today a Statement about reducing delays in justice. Whether or not we agree with the methods suggested, we all agree with the objective. I ask the noble Baroness to consider the possibility that accepting this amendment might do more to reduce delays in justice than all 33 of the proposals in that Statement put together.
On the subject of that Statement, when my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford referred to the drug runner I was reminded of the proposal to deprive the CPS of discretion to discontinue prosecutions because the offence is minor. When we want evidence from a drug runner the two likely inducements that we have are refraining from prosecuting or a discount for a guilty plea. Today's Statement will take away one of those and this Bill will take away the other. Therefore, how will we obtain the evidence? Is this Bill really intended to protect the public? If so, it is very unsuccessful in its objective.
11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I found the last part of this debate quite depressing. This Bill is before Parliament because the public are particularly anxious about the daily scourge of drug dealing and domestic burglary. The Government address that anxiety in the Bill by

1399
proposing that there should be a sentence of no less than three years for those who commit burglary persistently and seven years for those who deal persistently in drugs.
We have also given incentives for good behaviour in terms of early release, and we have said that there should be some recognition of a guilty plea by reducing the sentence by 20 per cent. and no more than 20 per cent. of sentence.
I should say to the noble Earl that the only people who have spoken to the amendment are those who are implacably opposed to the Government's proposals for mandatory sentences. Does the noble Earl wish to indicate something different?
Earl Russell: I am not certain whether that applies to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey.
Baroness Blatch: It certainly applies to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, who went into the Division Lobby on Clauses 1, 2 and 3 to vote against the Government.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think it is proper to speculate on my motives or opinions.
Baroness Blatch: I was merely stating a fact that the noble Lord voted against the Government's proposals in the Bill.
The efforts which have been made by those opposed implacably to the Government's proposals to reduce by one means or another the amount of time that people have to spend in prison when they have persistently offended against the community seems to me to be extraordinary, and I find it quite depressing. However, I respect people's views. I said at the outset that I respect those who take the view that mandatory sentences are not the answer. We take the view that they are. If we are to have mandatory sentences and they are to mean anything, the reduction for a guilty plea should not be more than 20 per cent.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to informants. If an informant deserves a reduction of two-thirds of the sentence for valuable information, the route of awarding a discount under Section 48 will not be open to the court. In practice, that enables discounts of up to one-third for guilty pleas, not for providing useful information to the authorities.
The noble Lord said also that 20 per cent. was not worth having. I am not so sure. I did some arithmetic. I believe that to have almost 18 months—one year, five months—deducted from a seven-year sentence is not bad for someone who has been in and out of the courts at least three times for drug dealing. That is not to be dismissed lightly. All Members of the Committee who have spoken to the amendments have referred to the bottom of the range of sentences—the three-year range and the seven-year range. Many people in the courts who are guilty of persistent burgling and drug dealing will receive much greater sentences. There is then scope for the courts to be more liberal in the time that they deduct for being helpful to the courts. That is very much a matter for the courts.
1400
I end where I started. I accept that we must agree to differ. We have taken the view that mandatory sentences are an important response to public anxiety. I stand by that. We believe that not to give more than a 20 per cent. discount for a guilty plea is consistent with receiving a tough sentence on the third time of being convicted.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister said that she found the debate depressing. I hope that she will accept that, with regret, I am bound to say that I found her answer very depressing. What saddened me particularly was that in some ways it was predictable. She said what I expected would be said.
I find it very worrying that the Home Office is apparently so committed to the rightness of its views that it is not prepared to listen to the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, his predecessors and others, or even to attempt to answer their arguments. I suspect that my noble friend Lord Colville is as surprised by that approach as I am. I do not believe that it is traditional for the Tory Party in government in any way to ignore the advice of those experienced in the field or, indeed, not to attempt to work with them.
My noble friend the Minister was specifically asked upon what 80 per cent. was based, but she offers no answer. She was asked who was consulted and whether the Lord Chief Justice, the judiciary or, indeed, anyone was consulted. Clearly the answer is, no. I have made my position clear. I do not like the idea of mandatory sentences. But, if we are going down that road, certain things are necessary. One upon which we succeeded was the proper exclusion clause and the second, I believe, is a proper provision for those who plead guilty.
Whether or not one is opposed to the principle of mandatory sentences does not, to my mind, affect where one stands on the issue of the amount to discount for pleas of guilty. However, clearly it would be irresponsible for me at this late hour to attempt to test the opinion of the Committee, but I hope to have the opportunity to return to the issue—perhaps by some other means—at an earlier hour during a later stage of the Bill's proceedings. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 63, line 25, after ("65") insert ("and 67").
The noble and learned Lord said: The intention of the amendment is to preserve the effect of Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which deals with computation of sentences of imprisonment with particular regard to the extent and manner in which the imprisonment can be reduced by any period spent in custody prior to the sentence.
The amendment seeks to put Section 67 into paragraph 1 of Schedule 5, along with the other sections outlined there which are being preserved until this legislation is brought into force. If Members of the

1401
Committee will look at Clause 8 of the Bill, they will see that the provisions of the legislation apply only once the Act is brought into force. Clause 8(1)(a) applies where,
"a court sentences an offender to imprisonment for a term in respect of an offence committed after the commencement of this section".
If one turns to the repeals which are set out at the end of the Bill on page 69, it will be seen that almost the first entry refers to the fact that Section 67 is to be repealed. This is designed to safeguard the entitlement to apply Section 67 in the calculation of the sentence until Section 8 comes into existence. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: As I understand it, the intention behind the amendment is to preserve the effect of Section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and the existing provision for the crediting of remand time, which is to be repealed by the Bill, for all offences committed before the commencement of Chapter I, Part II of the Bill. I understand that the concern of the noble and learned is that since Clause 8 of the Bill (the new provision which deals with the crediting of remand time) is to apply only to those sentenced for offences committed after commencement of that clause, there will be no provision for the crediting—or such time relating—to those who committed their offences before commencement but are sentenced afterwards.
I have written to the noble and learned Lord on the point. I can assure him that we have taken account of the need for transitional arrangements and that the Bill, as it stands, allows adequate provision to be made in that respect. The concern of the noble and learned Lord will be dealt with by repealing Section 67 of the 1967 Act when Clause 8 is introduced by commencement order, subject to a transitional saving which will preserve the effect of Section 67 for those who have committed offences before the commencement date. I know that the noble and learned Lord has already discussed these points in some detail with my officials. I hope that on further consideration he will not press his amendment.
The majority of the transitional provisions in this schedule reflect the fact that Chapter I of Part II of the Bill will be introduced subsequent to other provisions in the Bill. If Chapter I were introduced at the same time as we intend to commence those other provisions, this would have serious resource implications over ensuring sufficient prison places and adequate judicial training. The schedule also contains provisions on transfers which, while apparently complex, clarify a currently unsatisfactory area of the law.
I think we have met the particular concern of the noble and learned Lord, but of course he will not be reticent in telling me if I have not.
Lord Ackner: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think the explanation is a convoluted one which may well be right. I want an opportunity to consider it. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 5 shall be agreed to?
Lord Ackner: I wish to contest this Question. I appreciate that it is late in the evening, gone 11 o'clock, but this is really a bonne-bouche to end the evening with. I hope the Committee will find a certain wry entertainment in what I propose to say because it has been part of the main philosophy of the Home Secretary and the Government to introduce greater honesty and clarity into the sentencing process so that all those involved, offenders, judges and the public, will know exactly where they stand.
I now turn to Schedule 5, which is concerned with transitional provisions and savings. I am grateful to Dr. Thomas, QC of Cambridge for providing the detail which I suspected but which I did not analyse with the thought that he has given to it.
The provisions of the Bill will apply only to offences committed after the commencement of the relevant sections. That is already common ground. There will be a transitional period and this may last—as I understand from what has been said in the past—for a decade or more during which both systems will be in force simultaneously. An offender sentenced after the commencement of the Bill for an offence committed before that commencement will be sentenced under the existing law. He will get the full sentence, not the reduced two-thirds of the sentence which Clause 22 requires, and he will serve it in accordance with Part II of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, as he does at the moment.
The relevant provisions are repealed by Schedule 6 to the Bill, but resurrected for the purpose of the transitional period. Schedule 5 also contains detailed provisions dealing with the case of offenders convicted of a number of offences, some committed before and some after the relevant commencement date. Where an offender is sentenced to consecutive terms for offences committed either side of the commencement date, the time to be served under each sentence is to be determined separately for each sentence under whichever of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 or the Crime (Sentences) Bill applies. An offender convicted of two offences, one committed each side of the commencement date, and who today would receive two years for each offence, will in future be sentenced for two years for the "old" offence and 16 months for the new offence—that is the two-thirds reduction. The offender will serve 12 months of the first sentence, and then begin to qualify for "early release days" in respect of the second. His position after release will be governed by whichever of the Acts applies to the final sentence.
If the sentencer orders the "old" sentence to be served first, the offender will be subject to a release supervision order for 25 per cent. of the "new" sentence—that is four months—with no liability to return to prison in the event of a conviction for an offence committed after that date. If for whatever reason the sentencer orders the sentences to be served in the reverse order, the offender will serve the 16 months required by the "new" sentence, less any early release days awarded. He will be able to earn a maximum, I believe, of something like 96 days; and he will then begin to serve the "old"

1403
sentence. He will be on licence for six months after release and subject to return to prison under Section 40 on conviction for an offence committed within 12 months following release.
If the sentences are ordered to run concurrently, (just to add to the jolly picture) the time to be served under each sentence will be calculated separately according to the relevant legislation. The offender's position after release will depend on which sentence is the "final sentence": that is, the sentence which will have the latest release date, allowing for any time which is deducted on account of time spent in custody on remand, but not for any "early release" days which the offender would be able to earn under the Bill.
An offender who today would be sentenced to three years on each count concurrently will, under the Bill, be sentenced to three years for the "old" offence, and two years for the "new" (post-commencement) offence. For the purpose of determining which is the "final" sentence, the three years will be treated as having a release date 18 months after the sentence, and a "new" sentence, which is treated as having a release date two years after the sentence, will be the "final" sentence. The offender will be subject to a release supervision order for six months after release and no liability to return under Section 40.
I repeat the philosophy of the Bill,
"to introduce greater honesty and clarity into the sentencing process",
so that,
"all those involved—offenders, judges and the public—will know exactly where they stand".
Dr. Thomas ends this helpful account by saying this:
"All that can be hoped is that in the cold light of day after the heat of an election campaign has dissipated, no Home Secretary, of whatever party, will be tempted to bring such nonsense into force".
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble and learned Lord began by saying that this was a bonne-bouche. My noble and learned friend at my right hand wishes that he were ending the night with a whisky rather than a bonne-bouche from the noble and learned Lord.
Dr. Thomas has worked overtime on that submission. I rather anticipated the noble and learned Lord when I referred a moment ago to the amendment to Schedule 5 sweeping up what I knew to be his concern about the complexity of Schedule 5. I referred to the general point: we accept that it is complex. Moving from one system to another will always throw up complexities. But our underlying concern has always been to recognise the rights of those who committed offences and will be subject to the provisions that pertain at the moment and those whose offences will post-date the provisions of the Bill and will therefore be subject to the new provisions. The reason the schedule is so complex is precisely that the provisions preserve the rights of the offender which accrue on the date when the offence was committed. The detail of the schedule aims to cover every conceivable permutation of sentences in order to do justice to the individual.
1404
A "broad brush" approach in Schedule 5 would result in unfairness to offenders and would create anomalies which would create unjustice towards offenders. That is not our aim. Therefore, while accepting the complexity of the schedule and congratulating Dr. Thomas on his submission, I hope that Schedule 5 will stand part of the Bill.
Lord Ackner: I take it that with the congratulations goes the concurrence that the transitional period could last for a decade or more.
Baroness Blatch: There will be people in prison whose sentences very much pre-date this Bill. Yes, of course, unless they are to be treated very differently, the date when the offence was committed will determine which scheme they come under. So it will take some time before the provisions of the old system disappear.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The financial memorandum confirms that. My estimate of the costs in terms of the prison population and in money is only after 12 years.
Earl Russell: Are not the uncertainties of this schedule—not just as a consequence of the provision against retrospection; I follow the Minister's point in relation to that—a result of the extreme open-endedness of the commencement provisions in Clause 51? Is it not because different parts are coming into force at different times and none of those times is yet determined that there is so much uncertainty? Has not the noble and learned Lord just uncovered that we are bringing in this Bill long before we are ready to implement it?
Baroness Blatch: This is an extraordinary debate. We have made no secret of the fact that it will take some time for all the provisions of the Bill to come into effect. We have given an indication of those measures that will come into effect immediately on Royal Assent. We have given an indication that we expect the honesty in sentencing proposals to come into play. We have said that we will not disadvantage anybody who is in the system at the moment. Those whose offences pre-date the Bill will be subject to the present system and those whose sentences post-date the Bill and post-date particular provisions in the Bill will be subject to the new sentences. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, made the point for me that all of that is taken into account in the financial memorandum. Yes, it will take some time before those who are subject to the present system are out of the system.
Lord Ackner: I follow the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Much as one would like to divide the House, having demonstrated the total folly of what is provided in this legislation, it would not be a responsible thing to do at this time of night. I merely leave for the record—
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I know that the noble and learned Lord does not agree with the honesty in

1405
sentencing proposals, and that, in a sense, I want to set aside. Assuming that that honesty in sentencing proposals is accepted by Parliament at the end of the day, then I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree with me that we need Schedule 5 in order to have proper transitional arrangements in place. I hope that he is not suggesting that we would move directly from one system to another and thereby genuinely apply the provisions of the Bill retrospectively to people whose offences pre-date the measures in the Bill.
Lord Ackner: I sought to emphasise the lack of honesty and clarity which is being provided by the Bill to the sentencing process. I sought to show that the proposition that I quoted; namely, that all those involved—offenders, judges and the public—will know exactly where they stand, is Cloud-cuckoo-land. As I was in the process of saying, it would be quite wrong at this stage of the proceedings to seek to divide the House. I therefore seek leave to withdraw my opposition to Schedule 5.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 6 shall be agreed to?
Viscount Colville of Culross: I shall not enhance my popularity by making a speech on Schedule 6. However, I wish to ask the noble Baroness a question of which I gave her a little notice earlier this evening. I am sorry if it did not reach her. The question concerned Section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. The noble Baroness is probably not familiar with that section and I do not blame her. It lays down that, if someone is serving a prison sentence but has reached a stage when he or she is out on licence and commits another offence during the licence period, that person is sentenced to the remains of the original prison sentence as well as to a further prison sentence for the new offence which has been committed.
That provision is being repealed, but it is quite a useful method of bringing home to people that a prison sentence does not finish when they are let out on licence. Last week we discussed possibly another look at the whole question of risk assessment. In the Bill as it stands, there will be a supervision period, which means that a part of the sentence will be served in the community. I do not know what the Government will do by way of amplifying or extending that, if anything. Nevertheless, in the Bill as it stands, part of the sentence will be served while the offender is in the community.
Will the noble Baroness reconsider the proposition that Section 40 should be repealed altogether when the present Bill's provisions come into effect? It brings home to someone who has committed an offence, and then during the period of supervision or licence commits another one, that the court meant what it said. That is in line with what the Government are trying to say in the Bill. I should have thought that they would be inclined to keep the provision rather than repealing it. I have heard no reason why it is being repealed. It cannot stand exactly as it is in the 1991 Act. It would have to be adapted. But the whole principle seems to have been
1406
thrown out. If the noble Baroness cannot answer me tonight, perhaps she would like to think about it and come back to me at another stage.
Baroness Blatch: I am sorry, I have not seen either this question or the previous one which the noble and learned Lord said he had passed to me. First, Section 40 has no place under the system introduced by this Bill. It is premised on the existence of remanding the remaining period of the sentence during which the offender can be sent to prison.
I do not know whether the noble Viscount was present at the stage when I responded to my noble friend Lord Belstead about the changes which we intend. Subject to collective agreement in the ministerial team, we wish to bring back a proposal at Report stage which would meet some of the concerns of my noble friend Lord Belstead about the Parole Board having an involvement in the release arrangements for long-term prisoners. There was also a proposal for the Parole Board to have an involvement in setting conditions for someone who would be released at the behest of the board.
However, there is a fundamental difference between the system to which the noble and learned Lord referred just now and the one which will be proposed when I have made amendments at Report stage. It is that under the short-term or long-term sentences proposed in the Bill, when the person is released from prison—either under the earned release system for short-term prisoners or under the proposals that I hope to bring forward for long-term prisoners, who will be released on the basis of recommendation by the Parole Board, with conditions set by the Parole Board—he is then deemed to have served his sentence. At that point he moves into the supervision period, which is not part of the sentence.
We are already in discussion about arrangements for recall to prison. Any breach of conditions in that supervision period will constitute an arrestable offence and therefore there will be arrangements for getting people back into prison for the whole range of breaches—whether the breach is serious, in which case somebody is returned to custody and then dealt with very quickly by the courts, or is minor and may also be dealt with by the courts, whose available disposals will range from community service to conditional discharge or whatever is in the mind of the sentencer.
There is therefore a difference. But the sentence is deemed to have been served on release from prison under the new arrangements.
Lord Belstead: I should not like my silence to be taken as meaning that I applaud what my noble friend has just said in relation to the deeming of the sentence being finished when release occurs. I am, of course, grateful to my noble friend for offering a concession, and it is a valuable concession. But I have pointed out to the Minister, outside this Committee, that the Government have painted themselves into a corner by stating that the sentence is completed once release begins for anybody. That makes it extremely difficult to effect the continuation of the existing recall arrangements (which I noticed nobody in the Committee

1407
criticised and yet they are to be swept away). That is not good. At the same time it drives a coach and horses through the concept of parole.
I do not particularly mind what the concession is called. I would be the last to say that it must be called "parole". But if a risk assessment is being done by the Parole Board with a stipulation of conditions, it is important that a proportion of the time is spent while the sentence is continuing.
I give notice to the Government that it is my intention to table an amendment at Report stage which will make it clear that the end of the sentence as given in the court shall be the time that is deemed to consist of the full sentence in relation to recall. It will therefore be possible once again to write into the Bill a recall system of the kind we have now. As to whether or not there is the slightest hope of carrying such a Motion in the House I do not know. I repeat—I mean no discourtesy to my noble friend on the Front Bench, who has fought long
1408
and valiantly and very courteously on this Bill and has been helpful to me; I am speaking to the Government—I do not want the Government to think that, because I am silent on this point, that silence means assent.
Baroness Blotch: This must be my last word because the Committee is becoming anxious. The House is sitting tomorrow and the convention is that we do not go past 11 o'clock when the House is sitting on a Friday.
However, the only way one can accommodate supervision periods inside sentencing time is to go for much earlier release. The Government have set their mind against early release. The whole purpose of the proposals was to do away with early release, and that will remain a fundamental issue between us. If the Committee supports that, that will indeed wreck the Bill.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before midnight.

  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  EU Council: Forthcoming Business
  Central Africa: Refugees
  Central Africa: Refugees
  Central Africa: Refugees
  Central Africa: Refugees
  Great Lakes Region: Peace Negotiations
  Great Lakes Region: Peace Negotiations
  NATO
  NATO
  Democracy in Europe: US Role
  Democracy in Europe: US Role
  IAEA Enhanced Safeguards System
  IAEA Enhanced Safeguards System
  Mr. Metin Goktepe
  Mr. Metin Goktepe
  International Fund for Agricultural Development: Replenishment
  International Fund for Agricultural Development: Replenishment
  Scottish Law Reform Projects
  Scottish Law Reform Projects
  Paedophiles: ACPO Representations
  Paedophiles: ACPO Representations