Sitting of 15 January 1997

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

British Prisoners of War
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
9.34 am
Sir Michael Marshall: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important subject and I appreciate the support of many hon. Members who have been active in the matter.
My concern about deductions from British prisoners of war in Germany and Italy between 1939 and 1945 arises from the evidence that I have received over many years from my constituent, a former Royal Air Force officer, Group Captain Alec Ingle. His complaint to the Secretary of State for Defence was put in formal terms in December 1995 and is based on the experience of RAF officers who were prisoners of war.
Group Captain Ingle also reflects the views of the Justice for Prisoners of War campaign, known as JPOW, which, having started with 30 members in the early 1980s, has now spread to cover the interests of several thousand British ex-prisoners of war in all three services in all parts of the United Kingdom.
I am drawing most especially on evidence from Group Captain Ingle and from several others in the campaign, including most notably Captain Hugo Bracken RN (retd.), a constituent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Sir P. Mayhew).
The scale of the officers' complaints can perhaps best be related to the number of prisoners of war in German hands in May 1945: 6,000 Army, 2,500 Royal Air Force and 400 Royal Navy and Royal Marines. I am also aware of the parallel complaints relating to more than 4,000 protected personnel, including officers and men of the Royal Army Medical Corps, chaplains, ambulance drivers, stretcher bearers and others who were protected under the terms of the 1929 Geneva International Red Cross convention.
The activities of Mr. G. W. King have been especially notable in the protected personnel lobby. His correspondence with Lord Freyberg has provided the most useful up-to-date assessment of the current Government actions to handle the complaints. In a letter to Mr. King dated 3 December 1996, the Minister's assistant private secretary said:
"The review which is now in hand is considering the whole matter again, re-visiting all aspects of the subject, re-examining the conclusions of the 1980s work and examining the points and evidence submitted then and since. You and others have raised many points of considerable detail and these are being considered afresh both in respect of Officer Prisoners of War and of protected personnel."
240
Naturally, I welcome the commitment to a fundamental review that I believe is suggested by the terms of that letter, but it is right to remind the House of some of the difficulties and unfairnesses that have led to the Secretary of State's decision to reopen those matters.
The main research efforts in the early 1980s, referred to in the letter, relate to the report prepared under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton (Sir G. Pattie), in his then capacity as Under-Secretary of State for Defence, for the Royal Air Force. My right hon. Friend outlined the Ministry's findings in a statement and a report laid before the House on 31 October 1980—and I am glad to see him here today.
I need not dwell on the report at this stage, because it is currently the subject of a wholesale review, and I recognise that there were genuine difficulties at the time at which it was prepared, in the lack of complete information and in the nature of a report prepared in only six weeks, which obviously imposed limitations. I am also aware of the evidence that has been produced since that time and that has led my right hon. Friend the Member for Chertsey and Walton to make submissions to Ministers.
There are, however, one or two aspects of the Pattie report that usefully summarise the nature of the problem. It was correct in identifying the central complaint as relating to the money withheld in the United Kingdom on account of pay that former British prisoners of war were supposed to have received from the detaining authorities in Germany and Italy when, for long periods, they either received nothing or were paid in effectively worthless currency.
Moreover, many former prisoners of war contended that they had not been given an opportunity to reclaim those moneys on repatriation. Perhaps the unkindest cut of all was the fact that the vast majority of them had to pay income tax on money that was never received.
In rejecting the case for further repayments of deductions, the Pattie report concluded:
"On the basis of the evidence before it, the Study Group had little alternative but to reach the conclusions it did. That is not to say, however, the Government are in any way unsympathetic to the problems of former POWs. The Government feel, therefore, that rather than continue to rake over the remaining evidence from 1945, a more constructive response would be to consider whether additional assistance could be made available. These possibilities are now being studied and will be the subject of a further statement."
That was the 1980 statement. That brings me the nub of the argument that I believe it is right to deploy today.
Since that statement and the publication of the report, substantial detailed evidence has been submitted to the Ministry of Defence and to others—to whom I shall refer—which shows the scale of the deductions and the limited nature of refunds. Global figures are available for the amounts deducted and the amounts refunded. The scale of those deductions came as a surprise to me as I began to examine these matters. For those in Germany, the average deduction was about 30 per cent. of net pay, and for those in Italy 65 per cent.
Years of wrangling following the publication of the Pattie report ensued before the MOD accepted that only
"approaching two-thirds of the deductions had been refunded".
I must add that my constituent and others in the JPOW campaign believe that a more realistic estimate would be between 50 per cent. and 60 per cent.
Even accepting the MOD's one third estimate, that puts the shortfall at more than £1 million in 1945 money, which would be more than £20 million today—a sum which,

241
incidentally, does not include interest. The additional assistance referred to in the Pattie report has not been forthcoming, other than to a limited extent in respect of hospital facilities.
It was against that background that I and other Members of both Houses of Parliament took up these issues on behalf of the JPOW campaign. Given the lack of progress in dealings with the Ministry of Defence, I approached the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who ruled that he was unable to consider these matters because his remit excluded Her Majesty's forces. Similarly, approaches to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration produced the response that it was unable to pursue this anomaly, despite what was being put about at that time in the report on the civil service and in the Bett report. On the detail of the arguments about deductions and repayments, the Select Committee for Defence felt unable to make this problem a subject for inquiry.
In pursuing some method of appeal, I eventually approached the Prime Minister, who advised me and my constituent that the only way in which an ex-service man could effectively pursue such matters was by formal request for redress of grievance to the Air Force Board of the Defence Council. Accordingly, on 11 December 1995, my constituent wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is the head of the Air Force Board, asking him to authorise the setting up of an inquiry. With that letter, he submitted considerable detail on behalf of the JPOW campaign. The evidence submitted not only highlighted some of the shortcomings of previous studies, but went into great detail. It covered matters such as the relevance of the Geneva convention, arrangements for receiving returning prisoners of war, communal funding—which was gathered voluntarily, although it was, in effect, compulsory—within prisoner of war camps, rates of reimbursement of pay, MOD gifts to relevant charities, rates of exchange used to calculate pay deductions and many other matters. I take it—indeed, I earnestly hope—that these matters will be covered in the full review promised in the letter to the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association last December.
I must, however, voice my concern about the time taken to complete the present inquiry. Following my constituent's formal complaint in December 1995, it was not until spring last year that the general inquiry was authorised. Since then, inquiries by written parliamentary question and informal contact have given little indication of how long the current inquiry will take. Naturally, I fully support the need for a thorough inquiry. I know of the personal interest of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, with his background as an ex-regular Army officer. I know, too, of the personal interest of my noble Friend Lord Howe, who chairs the current inquiry. However, I must repeat my concern about a process that looks likely to take the best part of a year. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister understands the feelings of all the prisoners of war who have pursued these matters since 1945, and in detail since the Pattie report was published more than 16 years ago.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for assurances on a number of points. Will he confirm that sufficient resources have been made available to ensure the early completion of the review? My understanding is that two senior civil servants have been charged with this task under the general
242
direction of Lord Howe, and that they are undertaking the work part time while carrying out other duties as part of their responsibilities for historical research. The Minister's assurances on that point are of the utmost importance.
May I also ask my hon. Friend to tell us whether the working party intends to take up the repeated offers from some of those involved in the JPOW group, who have carried out detailed research on the records at Kew and elsewhere? They have offered to meet officials. Surely their input could help to expedite the completion of this work.
Will my hon. Friend give some hope and reassurance regarding the future arrangements for handling the complaints of ex-service men? He will be aware that this matter runs wider than the problems of former prisoners of war, and he must realise that in the current climate of opinion—in which strong cases are advanced for an independent mechanism to review the affairs of public officials—it is difficult, in cases such as the one that I am raising today, to justify the activities of a Department acting as judge and jury in its own court. I acknowledge the special needs of serving personnel, but these cases of ex-service men require urgent attention.
I shall let the last part of my appeal to the Minister rest with my constituent, Group Captain Ingle. He and others have taken a generous approach, and he speaks for the vast majority of former prisoners of war. They recognise the difficulties—the absence of detailed records in every case, tracing the next of kin, and dealing with cases of ex-prisoners of war who have sadly died. They suggest that the Government should—indeed, could—make a generous contribution to service charities, so that money could be made available to the most deserving ex-prisoners of war and their families.
I urge my hon. Friend, in what little time remains in this extended season of good will, to give his assurance that this matter will be given sympathetic and detailed consideration. I also urge him to confirm that the findings of his Department's review will be made available to the House and to Parliament as a whole in the very near future.
9.48 am
Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have this opportunity to support the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) in his efforts to ensure that something is done about the injustice that appears to have been perpetrated. I congratulate him on his struggle to bring the matter to the attention of the House and of a wider public, and I hope that his efforts will be successful in the near future. I am happy to say that although this is by no means a party political matter, I am supported by my hon. Friends and certainly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the leader of my party, who takes particular interest in such matters because of his background in defence.
It appears that there has been an injustice. I freely confess that I knew little of the matter until recently when I was approached by a constituent, of whom more later, who is himself affected and who has been involved in the Justice for Prisoners of War campaign for some time. He provided me with a considerable file on what has gone before but, not least because we heard much about it in the previous speech, I shall not repeat it. The points have been well made already. One point that has not yet been brought out is that it is hard to find another country that has treated its ex-prisoners of war, at least in respect of deductions from pay, as poorly as we have. That should be reversed.

243
It was rightly said that the delays are far too long. The original working party took about six weeks. Perhaps that was too rapid, as some of its conclusions were not fully justified, but it was much quicker than the 15 months that the present inquiry looks like taking. I hope that the Minister will take due note of what the hon. Member for Arundel said about the need to ensure that the matter is brought to a conclusion as rapidly as possible in the best interests of justice. Justice should not be delayed; for the people involved, it has been delayed already for some 50 years. It is never too late to right a wrong, but the wrong should be righted as quickly as possible.
Will the Minister say how much the investigation has cost in terms of time and civil service resources? I imagine that the total costs so far must be considerable, given the time involved. Perhaps it would have been more sensible, and even cheaper, for the Government to have pressed ahead earlier with a fair donation to service charities rather than worrying too much about the degree of investigation necessary to prove the case.
The problem of escaping prisoners of war has not been fully brought out and involves an even greater injustice than those so far mentioned. It is the duty of all officers who are captured to try to escape. Many did so very bravely and some, sadly, lost their lives in the attempt. However, some officers who were recaptured, or who never got away but who had made attempts to escape, were fined for so doing. They never received the pay that was deducted in Britain in return for the pay that they were supposed to have received in their POW camps because they were fined equivalent amounts for trying to escape.
My constituent, Captain Freddie Harris, has a particularly interesting story. He had 832 days of deductions from his pay. During that period, he was a POW in Italy for 588 days. At the end of his time in a POW camp, the Italian Government fell, Italy came out of the war and he escaped. Many of those who escaped with him were recaptured by the Germans and put into other POW camps. Not unnaturally, their deductions continued. My constituent escaped and became a partisan and spent the rest of the war fighting on behalf of the allies. He was no longer a POW. Not unexpectedly, the British Government and his family did not know the full facts at the time. Communications were understandably not fully maintained between partisans and our Government. Fighting as a partisan, he was no longer being paid by enemy forces in the way that POWs were. In spite of that, the deductions in this country continued. He suffered a particular injustice, as did anyone who suffered a similar fate. I suspect that few others are involved; his case may even be unique. The injustice was that the deductions went on when he could not have been paid by the enemy because he was not in their hands and was seeking to evade capture during the whole of that time. Captain Harris is not aware of any return of deductions having been made to him since the war.
Mr. Steve Norris: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have many friends in his constituency. I am happy to say that Freddie Hams is one of my oldest friends. I have known him for a great many years. I cannot stay until the end of the debate; I hope that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends will forgive me. I want to place on record the extent to which I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I knew little of the matter until it was brought to my attention by Freddie Harris. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's concern that a matter involving
244
natural justice for some brave people who endured much on behalf of succeeding generations should be brought to an honourable and equitable conclusion as soon as possible.
Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was about to expand on my remark that this was not a party political matter and he has demonstrated that. It is best illustrated by paying tribute to my predecessor but one, Sir Michael McNair-Wilson, who was for many years Member of Parliament for Newbury. He raised the matter in an Adjournment debate in 1982 and pressed the point on behalf of Freddie Harris and others. I am delighted to pay tribute to his efforts. Sadly, he died a few years ago. I end by quoting what he said in the House of Commons in that debate. I entirely agree with it and it illustrates that this is not a party political matter, as he was, in other times, an election opponent of mine. He said:
"I believe that there is a debt of honour that a Government one day must pay to those brave men."—[Official Report, 9 February 1992; Vol. 17, c. 949.]
That debt should now be paid.
9.57 am
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I, too, am grateful for the opportunity to bring to the House my experience in learning about an issue that many people of my generation could not have begun to imagine would still exist: that 50 years after their service, British service men still have not had their wages and salaries paid. That idea would not occur to one unless one was told the tale in a constituency surgery. It says something about the apolitical nature of the process that hon. Members have come to the House today because of our experiences talking to our constituents.
I was approached by Graham King of the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association. I pay tribute to him for being remorseless in following up the concerns of people in his position. I had no idea that we were dealing with the tip of an iceberg. Numerous issues, specifically those concerning the pay of ex-prisoners of war, could have been brought before the House today.
It is probably helpful if I concentrate on one matter of particular concern to the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association, whose parliamentary representative I am. The position of "normal" officers and non-commissioned officers is relatively straightforward and does not cause a great deal of difficulty in practice. The difficulties arise in the case of protected personnel, whose history and status are strange.
As I understand it, under the Geneva convention, protected personnel were not imprisoned, but detained and, as a result, they were paid the salary of the equivalent rank of somebody working for the detaining power. For example, a corporal in the RAMC would be paid the same as his German equivalent if he was imprisoned in Germany.
The position seems to have changed towards the end of 1940, when the various powers agreed that their obligation under the Geneva convention to repatriate protected personnel would not work in the context of warfare. An agreement was reached that such personnel should no longer be detained, but imprisoned. While they were being detained, deductions were made—because, under the Geneva convention, they were detained personnel. It would seem logical that, when it was agreed that repatriation could not take place and that they would be imprisoned as

245
ordinary prisoners, the British Government should again assume responsibility for paying them—as if they were normal prisoners of war.
In practice, however, the Germans sometimes, but not always, continued to pay protected personnel. Clearly, the British Government of the day never appreciated the distinction; they did not understand that if the status of protected personnel was changed so that they were no longer being temporarily detained before repatriation, but imprisoned for the duration of the war, certain consequences would follow. The consequence that followed was that those personnel should be dealt with under the normal arrangements, but that never happened. I suspect that the position in relation to protected personnel is relatively clear—it is well worth having clarity on the issue. The details of POWs and their pay are labyrinthine, but the position in relation to protected personnel is pretty clear.
Given the personality of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, I know that he will want to be helpful. I am also grateful to Lord Howe for the letters that he has been writing to me. To their credit, Ministers now seem to have a grip on the situation and want to bring about a successful conclusion. I have a little experience of the way in which Whitehall works and I did not always detect that sense of urgency or a commitment to producing a sensible result.
Some years ago, when I was a newly appointed Minister, I turned to my immediate superior for assistance because I could not resolve a certain conundrum. He said, "Let me put it this way: your job in this case is to render as much assistance as possible short of actual help." That principle sometimes serves one well in Government—it certainly did on that occasion—but it does not apply in the case that we are discussing. We must accept that, however the situation arose, however complicated it may be, however many years have passed since the event, it is straightforward: people serving in Her Majesty's armed forces were not paid the money due to them. However it came about, that is the position and it must be resolved.
I have no doubt that if the civil servants who are applying themselves to the task 50 years later wanted to find reasons to justify the status quo, they could easily do so. But those in Whitehall should not approach the issue in that way. However the problem arose and whatever its different complexities, British service men—both commissioned and non-commissioned—were shortchanged. Once that conclusion has been reached, how the problem arose is almost irrelevant to the task of sorting it out. Given the commitment of Ministers to deal with the matter properly, I have no doubt that it can be resolved.
When I first began my correspondence with Lord Howe, the timing of the review's result was open-ended. It was said that it was a difficult and complex matter and it was hard to say when the report would be made. It is a credit to Ministers that that nonsense has now stopped: we have been told that the review will be announced at the end of November. I was slightly nervous when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) say that the work was being carried out by two part-timers who doubtless had previously had other duties, but perhaps we need not worry too much about that.
246
The review has been a long time coming and a timetable for it has only recently been announced. We now know that the review must take place by the end of March. We must come up with the right answer—Ministers must commit themselves to saying that British service men were shortchanged and that the problem must be resolved. We do not want to hear red herrings such as the suggestion that the occupying—the detaining—powers should have taken action, but did not, and that all happened a long time ago. Whatever arrangements were established by the German Government of the day—and whether or not they defaulted on their responsibility—it is ultimately the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government of the day to look after service men and ex-service men. I have no doubt that if the problem is approached in that way we can achieve a sensible resolution.
I do not want to spread discord, but it is worth placing on record one other issue. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) said that one way of honouring the obligation would be to make a grant to a service charity. The National Ex-Prisoner of War Association does not believe that that approach is appropriate. I shall not detain the House today, but I see no insuperable difficulties in identifying which living service men—or conceivably their widows—were shortchanged and recompensing them accordingly. Our obligation is to individual serving officers and non-commissioned officers and cannot be discharged by giving a sum to a service charity. That detail can be decided in due course, once the principle has been dealt with.
Mr. Roger Gale: My hon. Friend will know—as do those of us with constituencies where organisations such as the Burma Star Association, the SSAFA Forces Help and the legions are represented—that they feel strongly about the subject. I think that the suggestion has been put forward simply because those involved wanted a way out of the problem. They feel—as we all feel—that the problem has existed for far too long and must be resolved. It is that sense of frustration that has led to the suggestion.
Mr. Nicholls: I understand the sense of frustration highlighted by my hon. Friend. It would be all too easy for the system to say that there was a difficulty, but it all happened a long time ago—we shall fix on a relatively modest sum and distribute it to service charities. The first point of principle that must be understood is that service men were shortchanged. Those service men still exist and have some remarkably clear recollections; many of them own better documents than those on the shelves of Whitehall. While I understand how the frustration highlighted by my hon. Friend has come about, I do not think that we can turn to someone who is still living and who has a clear recollection of the fact that he was shortchanged and say, "It doesn't matter, old fruit—we shall give a sum of money to a service charity." That is not the answer, but it is important that we do not become overly exercised about that in today's debate as we must deal with the point of principle.
We are dealing with people who are very much in the twilight of their years and to whom the obligation of the Government of the day is total. We are dealing with people who, beyond a shadow of doubt, were shortchanged. The fact that that may have occurred owing to an historical accident, defaulting Germans or circumstances that existed

247
before many of us were born does not matter one jot. For the good image of the Government, of the system, of the way in which we all operate, it is essential that the obligation—which the House finally discharges—is not once again pushed under the carpet. The formula of providing all assistance short of actual help cannot be applied here.
10.8 am
Mr. Rod Richards: I represent the interests of my constituent Captain Frank Kernan, who was a prisoner of war during the last war. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) and congratulate him on the vigour with which he has pursued the case for Justice for Prisoners of War and on the lucid and cogent arguments that he has advanced on their behalf in this morning's debate.
No one here would dispute the fact that this is, for many reasons, an immensely complicated matter. In 1945, Europe was devastated by the war. Fifty years have passed, and it is natural that many of the records that existed then no longer exist, especially those connected with the Army and the Royal Air Force. We understand that.
The matter is also complicated because many of the records were not complete in the first place. They were not complete because many of the prisoners of war who were repatriated in 1945 had forms thrust upon them within a day or so of their return from having spent many years in prison. Many of those people spent four or five years as prisoners of war, and we understand that that was a very long time to be a prisoner, not knowing that the period of imprisonment was going to be four or five years—it could have been six, eight or 10 years. They faced an indefinite period of imprisonment and, having suffered that anxiety for such a long time, the state of mind of those young men on their return to this country must have been quite awesome.
As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) rightly said, we must also bear in mind the fact that officers have a duty to escape or to attempt to escape and to aid their fellow officers in their attempts to escape. Military personnel who were prisoners of war were very much operational and active throughout that time and their lives were in danger—there can be no doubt about that.
In replying to the debate, I want my hon. Friend the Minister to recognise, as does every hon. Member who has spoken in this debate, that an injustice has been done. As the hon. Member for Newbury said, we owe those people a debt of honour, and my hon. Friend should, first, acknowledge that injustice has been done and, secondly, that compensation is due.
We all understand the difficulties involved in quantifying that compensation and in the repatriation of funds that were either not paid to or unfairly taken away from prisoners of war, but it is an important matter of principle that the Government should accept that an injustice has been done and that a sum of money is owed. How that sum of money is calculated and, indeed, what should be done with it is problematic, but it would be a first step if Her Majesty's Government were to acknowledge that payment in some form was due, either directly to former prisoners of war or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel said, indirectly in the form of a generous payment to charities that support service personnel and their widows. As my hon. Friend said, payments to such charities might not be universally
248
acceptable; nevertheless, it is important that the Government should accept that some payment is owed to those honourable people, who fought for us and who lost their liberty during the war.
People always look for a villain of the piece in Whitehall, so it may offer some comfort and succour to my hon. Friend the Minister if I say that I am not suggesting that the sum of money, when quantified, should be deducted from the current Ministry of Defence budget. The moneys were held by Her Majesty's Treasury, so when the sum has been calculated and my hon. Friend takes up the battle it is for the Treasury to repay what is owed because, in a sense, the money has been held on deposit and the Treasury has benefited from the interest over the past 50 years.
I understand the difficulties facing my hon. Friend and I know that there is a review going on, but it would be a step forward and it would offer some comfort to ex-prisoners of war and their families and friends and to Justice for Prisoners of War if Her Majesty's Government were to acknowledge that an injustice has been done and that a debt of honour is due.
10.14 am
Mr. Denis MacShane: I, too, want to congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on obtaining this debate. As you might recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, we had a debate of my calling just before December on reparations for prisoners of war who were held in the far east, so I have some interest in this matter.
My interest extends further than the technical question of moneys owed that should now be paid back, either by our Government to our prisoners of war or, as I believe, by the Japanese Government or the Japanese companies that used our prisoners of war as slave labourers. Unfortunately, the issue can get bogged down in legal niceties, which is I why I am delighted that it is the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who is to reply to the debate. He is certainly no lawyer—neither a barrack-room lawyer, nor a Whips' lawyer nor a parliamentary lawyer—and I am sure that he will give as generous a response as he is allowed to give. Perhaps, as a former officer, he will even break free from the conventions of his civil service brief and, as urged by the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), offer an apology and announce that the Government—if not his, perhaps a future one—will be generous in this respect.
The issue goes further than the points raised in the debate. At the annual Remembrance day celebrations, I am conscious of the fact that British fighting men and women have been in service constantly since 1945, so the issue is relevant not just to those who served in the second world war, although they are the subject of our debate. Since 1945, we have been involved in a seemingly endless list of armed engagements: Korea, the various decolonisation conflicts of the 1950s, the constantly running sore that is Northern Ireland, the Falklands war and the Gulf war, to name but a few.
The Minister will recall that he gave me an hour of his time to discuss the issue of those killed in the friendly fire incident in the Gulf war, which is still a sore for the nine British families who lost their young ones in that tragedy. In addition, the Minister—very decently—came to the

249
House not long ago to tell us that the line on the effect of chemical agents on soldiers in the Gulf war had had to be changed. Campaigns and pressure can work—the Ministry of Defence is not a monolith and we must continue to press such issues on an all-party basis.
Consideration may need to be given to the possibility of our having a Minister who has responsibility for veterans, such as there is in the United States and France—someone who has special regard for the needs of former soldiers, sailors and airmen, including those who were held in prisoner of war camps and those who, although they may not have received the honourable wounds of war, suffer now from illnesses as a result of what they were obliged to do without fully understanding what was at stake.
Those are the deeper issues involved. Next week, with other hon. Members, I shall meet survivors of Japanese prisoner of war camps to press their case further. The issue will not go away—it is a matter of honour. I urge the Minister to lift his eyes from the lawyers' brief in his folder, remember what it was like when he was in his own mess with his fellow officers and think of the honour of our country.
10.19 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I had not intended to participate in the debate, because other hon. Members have made the case much more effectively than I could. I have listened with great interest to the arguments, and I should like to reinforce a point that I made in an earlier intervention.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) suggesting that a sum of money should be given to the service charities to disburse among the claimants and causes which they feel should be the beneficiaries of the settlement of what is undoubtedly a debt of honour. I also listened with interest to the alternative argument, advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I can appreciate that prisoners of war who are still alive would feel a tremendous sense of injustice if they were not allowed to press their claims. As we all know, their numbers must be very small by now.
I wonder, therefore, whether the Minister might like to consider a halfway house solution. The reason behind the service charities suggestion—I know that this is true in my constituency—is that service organisations believe that, if each individual case is to be pursued, whatever the decision arrived at after the review there will still be interminable delay before the families entitled to the money actually get it.
My halfway house proposal is to allow the few who are still alive and wish to press their cases individually to make their claims accordingly; but the overriding and outstanding debt of honour to the many who are now dead should be paid via the service charities. If the Minister will examine this possibility, we may be able to have our cake and eat it.
10.20 am
Mr. Winston Churchill: I join in the congratulations already offered to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on bringing this
250
matter before the House and giving us the opportunity to debate it. I am particularly delighted that the Minister for the Armed Forces is here to respond, because I know of his instinctive sympathy for those who serve their country in circumstances of difficulty and danger—and who do so, as these prisoners of war did, with the highest distinction.
I fear, however, that before the debate my hon. Friend the Minister may have been to the Treasury tailors to be fitted up with a Treasury straitjacket. Still, like the hon. Member for Geneva—or, rather, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—I hope that he may yet break free from such Treasury bondage.
I start from the premise that it is never too late to rectify an injustice—and this is clearly a case of a demonstrable injustice. One of the proudest roles and traditions of this honourable House is the redress of grievances. Despite the passage of time, it is therefore entirely right that we should deal with this matter today. I hope that the Minister, on behalf of the Government, will respond positively to the compelling case made by several hon. Members today.
We are talking about tens of thousands of men who were taken prisoner and often held in intolerable conditions for periods between a matter of months and four years. They have, in effect, been cheated by the Government whom they served with such distinction and loyalty. I agree with those who have talked of a debt of honour; it is high time the House of Commons took steps to acquit it.
10.23 am
Dr. John Reid: I need not detain the House long on this issue. Adjournment debates are generally occasions for Back Benchers, but I should like to make one or two remarks.
Some people say that the House is at its best when it is packed and exhibits the theatricality of the circus, but I often find that it is at its best during Adjournment debates when it is not packed. We certainly learn more and discuss more. I have learnt a great deal today and in recent weeks from the cases that have been raised by Members on both sides of the House. I therefore congratulate the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on his dogged pursuit of the issue and on his success in obtaining this morning's debate.
A matter of principle is at stake. There is a compact between the British Government and forces of the Crown which underlies every operation, every strategic decision and the whole relationship between the armed forces and civilian society. When we ask men and women who serve in the forces of the Crown to undertake certain risks, an obligation is placed on Governments of any political persuasion to provide them not just with the resources to complete their tasks and to minimise their risks but to take care of them should they suffer as a result of their activities.
In this case, the obligation—60 years after some of these events took place—appears never to have been discharged. I fully understand the Government's difficulty in handling the matter—the Minister will face the usual difficulties of legality and bureaucracy. Moreover, there is the additional problem that, over decades, the evidence on which to base any judgment has become fragmented. What is more, many of the pieces of evidence will have been affected by the fog of war. The hon. Member for

251
Newbury (Mr. Rendel) cited a constituent who joined the partisans and who was therefore not in contact with the British Government during the relevant period—a perfect illustration of what I mean. This Minister has the reputation of occasionally swathing through the conventions of bureaucracy and firing from the substantial hip; I hope that he will apply himself on this occasion to following up the issue with gusto.
As for the charities suggestion, I make no comment except to say that this is certainly not a question of "charity", however the decision is ultimately reached. It is a question of justice and of honour. Every Member who has spoken has mentioned a debt of honour. That becomes all the more true when we realise that we live in an age of compensation and litigation. These people made tremendous sacrifices for their country and suffered all sorts of stress, often to the detriment of their health and quality of life. In an age when compensation seems to be claimed by everyone for everything, we are especially indebted to these people. It is not as if they voluntarily undertook these hardships: they were under orders to do what they did. It would therefore be a tragic irony if it were subsequently discovered that they were penalised for discharging their obligations under orders.
This is not a party political issue, as several hon. Members have pointed out. We may have our differences over how to approach veterans' affairs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham said, we believe there is a case for a veterans unit under a Minister; but there is no reason why this should not be a House of Commons matter. After all, the whole country owes the debt to the people involved. I therefore urge and, knowing him, expect the Minister to give the matter the speediest and most sympathetic consideration, so that, even after half a century, not one more day is lost than need be in resolving what appears to be both a tragic omission over the past six decades and a major debt of honour in the present circumstances.
10.29 am
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) on expertly and clearly articulating this difficult case. I thank him for raising again an issue that is of great concern, which has been well expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I also thank my hon. Friend for his usual courtesy and consideration in keeping us thoroughly informed of the way in which the campaign was developing and for allowing us to come to the debate properly prepared to try to satisfy—although I fear that I shall not be able to do so—some of the points that have been made.
It is good that that concern is felt broadly throughout the House. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), whose concern for veterans is well known and who is playing an important role in the issue of Japan and reparations—on which I do not propose to touch this morning—made some important points.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) spoke extremely well of his constituent, Freddie Harris. As a young officer in the Coldstream Guards, my father was involved in trying to convey arms to the partisans in Italy and in trying to enable as many British prisoners of war who had been released by the Italians as possible to be
252
guided back to our lines before the Germans could get them, so I have an added interest in the matter. I am anxious and interested to know more of Captain Harris's case, which I understand was raised in an Adjournment debate, but I have not had the privilege of reading that. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would make those papers available to me.
The hon. Member for Newbury said that Captain Harris had escaped and fought with the partisans, and the hon. Gentleman raised the interesting question of what quasi-legal situation that put Captain Harris in. I have no doubt that the Army, having a rule for everything, will find that it has a definition for that, but I am anxious to find out more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has been interested in this matter for some time, made a powerful speech. I am grateful for the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), and for the contribution from my hon. Friend and kinsman the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who spoke, as always, with such distinction and feeling for the cause and interests of people who served their country a few years ago, in the last war or before that. It is good, therefore, that this concern covers the spectrum of opinion not only in the House, but widely outside it. Some well-informed people take a close interest in this and I hope that they will follow our debate carefully.
We are concerned with people who were officer prisoners of war or protected personnel in German and Italian hands during the second world war—individuals who, under the international convention for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armies in the field, signed in Geneva in 1929, were not to be deemed prisoners of war if they fell into enemy hands. The status of "protected person" was granted not only to those engaged exclusively in the treatment of the wounded and sick and to chaplains, but to auxiliary nurses and stretcher bearers who were carrying out their duties when captured.
Thanks in part to the assiduous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel has pursued the issue, I am aware of the profound sense of grievance felt by some ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel about decisions taken during the war and in the immediate aftermath and about Defence Ministers' consideration of their concern in the early 1980s.
Those service men spent, in some cases, most of the war in captivity. Only last week, I met a young private soldier who was in the Gordon Highlanders and who was captured at Dunkirk. He went into a prisoner of war camp two days after he was captured and stayed locked up until 1945. What a terrible price to be paid by a young man in the prime and flower of his youth. There were many like him, although their experiences and hardships inevitably differed. Each has a different story to tell, depending on where they were held, whether they were repatriated during the war—as some of the sick and injured and some protected personnel were—whether they made successful escapes, whether they simply had to face endless hours of tedium, waiting for liberation by allied troops, or whether they faced the great uncertainty attached to capture.
For some of those men, the last months of the war were particularly turbulent. Moved on foot ahead of the advancing allied armies by the Germans, short of food,

253
sometimes badly or brutally treated and even mistakenly attacked by our own aeroplanes, some of them were liberated by Soviet forces and moved far behind enemy lines into Russia before being sent home. Although most could do little directly to affect the war's outcome, they continued to serve with dignity, to behave with courage and to face hardship and uncertainty with courage and fortitude.
Those captured early in the war had been taken while facing great odds. The protected personnel played a vital role in caring for our sick and wounded prisoners of war, and all played their part on the road to eventual victory. Therefore, as all hon. Members have said, we are concerned with not only personnel's military service, but their conduct and behaviour while prisoners of war.
We are debating the money deducted from the pay accounts in Britain of officer prisoners of war and of protected personnel. I have specifically mentioned officer prisoners of war and protected personnel in German and Italian hands because those held by the Japanese were refunded with all the deductions made in respect of payments that they should have received from the Japanese. This is not at issue, although the reasons for those refunds have been questioned.
The pay deductions that concern us today were made on the basis of the terms of two conventions signed in Geneva in 1929: that covering the care of the wounded and sick, to which I referred earlier, and the international convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Those set out the principles for the treatment of prisoners of war and captured non-combatants, which were developed into practical arrangements by various agreements made subsequently between the British Government and their German and Italian counterparts.
The deductions were made to offset payments that the officer prisoners of war and protected personnel were supposed to receive from the detaining power. Officers' payments were made because officers were not permitted to work in captivity and therefore to earn what could be used as "pocket money" to meet certain living expenses in the camps. Protected personnel received money from the detaining power because, under further agreements between the belligerent Governments, they had not been repatriated after capture, but stayed with our sick and wounded to care for them. For that work, they were to receive their pay from the detaining power at the equivalent rate for that power's own medical staff.
That was the theory. During the war, however, it became apparent from information from the camps that, although deductions were being made in Britain on the basis that the arrangements for payment by the detaining power were working, in some cases the reality was rather different. Arrangements with the detaining power were not always working as they should have been.
It was therefore decided to implement a policy of refunding some of the deductions when officer prisoners of war and protected personnel returned to Britain. The aim was to put the individual back in the position of having received, overall, his due pay, adding up what had been received or credited from the detaining power and what had been credited and paid in Britain.
A major element of the case put by those who have so cogently made representations to us—including, in lengthy submissions, Group Captain Ingle and Captain
254
Bracken, RN (retd.), of Justice for Prisoners of War, and Mr. King of the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association—questions the fairness of the deductions having been made in the first place. That is the general tenor of the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friends.
The representatives also question the exchange rates used to calculate the actual amounts deducted and refunded in respect of camp payments. They consider that they did not receive the overall value of their pay, and question the implementation and efficacy of the scheme to refund deductions. These are clearly serious matters.
A further issue, which prompted much of the concern expressed in 1980, relates to the arrangements for repayment between countries. It was originally intended that certain payments made by the detaining power to individuals would be reimbursed to that power by their own country at the end of the war. After the refunds that I have described, an element of the deductions remained, but, in the circumstances that prevailed at the end of the war, the money was not transferred to Germany and Italy, but was retained by the Treasury. It is argued that it should have been repaid to the service men involved at the time, and should be repaid now.
There are further concerns about the handling of communal funds that were operated in some camps, and about money that was subsequently given to service charities in respect of those funds.
This is a tremendously complex cocktail of issues, and the situation is further complicated by the apparent lack of consensus among the different groups and individuals concerned. The Justice for Prisoners of War group has pointed out the difficulties involved in working out individual claims and making individual payments—difficulties that undoubtedly exist. It seeks the payment of a substantial sum to service charities for the benefit of former prisoners of war and their dependants. The National Ex-Prisoner of War Association representative, however, wants to see the settlement of individual claims from former protected personnel.
As I said, my Department did a huge amount of work in the early 1980s to address the points that were raised then. Moreover, recognising the criticism with which the original working group report was received, it continued to study further questions, and to discuss many additional points with representatives for the former prisoners of war. Indeed, as recent submissions to my Department acknowledge, a number of the criticisms of the original report have been accepted.
At the end of the deliberations of the early 1980s, however, the Government took the view that, although it would be possible to continue to refine points of detail, there was no case for reconsidering the original policies and decisions of previous Administrations of both parties and trying to reopen the matter. Those decisions were not reached lightly, or without profound concern for the strong views of those involved.
A number of the former officer prisoners of war and protected personnel have, however, continued to investigate the matter, and in 1995 they sought to reopen it. At the end of that year, Group Captain Ingle made a detailed submission for redress of grievance to the Air Force board. That submission was similar to one that had already been prepared by Captain Bracken, and the two were considered to see whether they raised any new

255
issues, or included any details, that had not previously been considered and which, had they been considered, could have changed Ministers' previous views.
While that work was in hand early last year—during which time a further detailed submission was received from Group Captain Ingle—the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association also raised issues relating to protected personnel, and wished to make its own detailed submissions. Those submissions were eventually received last summer. On the basis of all those approaches, it was decided that the whole subject should be re-examined in detail, and a new review was announced, to be headed by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence.
That review is in progress. Its aim is to re-examine the principles that underlay decisions made by successive Governments and agreements between the belligerent powers, those decisions and agreements themselves and the implementation of the various policies concerned. We wish to set all those matters in their wider context, and to see whether the policy decisions were properly made, promulgated and implemented, as far as can now be discovered. I hope that the work will be satisfactory.
I appreciate that the two groups concerned have done a great deal of detailed research, and I congratulate them on the tenacious way in which they have gone about their presentation. They have presented what they feel to be an overwhelming and clear-cut case, and I understand the strength of their feelings and their concern about the time that our review is taking. I appreciate the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and the concern that he has expressed. I hope that, by the end of the debate, he will have been reassured.
It is a fact that many of the arguments of the two groups have been advanced and considered before. The decisions that they wish to be overturned were considered and made by previous Administrations of both parties over a number of years, in the context of the time and with contemporary knowledge. Many of them were questioned and discussed during and after the war, and reconsidered in the 1980s. Because of lasting dissatisfaction, we have agreed to review them again, but, in doing so, we must re-examine the whole matter with great care. That is why I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme, and to the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), that although my natural instinct would be to try to resolve the matter now, I cannot do so in the light of the decisions made by previous Administrations of all parties, the immensely detailed work that has been done and the work that remains to be done. We must conduct the re-examination with the greatest possible care, and settle the matter once and for all.
Let me reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that I believe that proper resources have been made available for the work. On this occasion, we have been anxious to use specialist staff, experienced in historical research and with knowledge of the archives and the procedures of the second world war and the period immediately after it. Let me take this opportunity to congratulate those staff on the work that they have done:
256
they are extremely busy, and are taking an enormous amount of detailed care to ensure that we get this right. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the work is proceeding at the best possible speed. We have no interest in not concluding the matter one way or the other as soon as we can.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel said, two excellent officials are leading the work on behalf of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but others are contributing in specific areas. It has been found that, for very good reasons, work of this kind should not be fragmented. My hon. Friend will appreciate that down that path lies the possibility of evidence being missed or misinterpreted, and I know that he would want the work to be as thorough and complete as possible.
I understand that Captain Ingle's submission is a detailed and thorough piece of work, which should be dignified by a proper and detailed response. We are grateful for the offers of meetings with the Justice for Prisoners of War group and the National Ex-Prisoner of War Association, which have been acknowledged and which can only help us to reach a conclusion.
My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said that he hopes our work will be complete by the end of March. It follows that, as the work is not yet finished and as he has not yet reached his conclusions, it would be improper for me to comment further on the many detailed and complex issues that have been raised, but I will draw all today's contributions to my noble Friend's attention, and I will personally follow these matters extremely closely.
Finally, let me add my voice to those of hon. Members who have paid lasting tribute to all who fought and were captured by the enemy in battle. There is nothing trite about such tributes in the House. The sacrifice and the hardships of those people cannot be overstated, and the awfulness of being locked up must have been truly dreadful not only for the young men involved but for their families. I know from the time that my grandfather spent in captivity during the Boer war of the lasting impression that is made on those who are unfortunate enough to be taken prisoner of war. My grandfather was lucky to be able to escape quickly, but he recorded that the experience of capture was
"the greatest indignity of my life".
I want all those who are concerned with the outcome of our review to know that those feelings are truly understood.
I acknowledge the sense of what has been said by all who have spoken today, and the admirable way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed the feeling that this is a debt of honour that must be resolved, that the work must be finished and that there must be a satisfactory outcome. I cannot forecast the outcome of the work because it is not yet completed, but I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel that our review is being conducted in the greatest possible detail and with an open mind, and that our findings will be made available to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Bus Employees' Pensions
10.49 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I should first declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and as secretary of the parliamentary group of Labour Members associated with that union.
Two factors are critically important for those who consider participating in a pension scheme. The first is that they view pensions as wages deferred for the future, after they have retired and must rely on what they have put aside or invested for their golden years. The second is that a pension scheme is held in trust by a company for those who have chosen to pay into it, for the benefit of its members and beneficiaries—not for the benefit of the company or the directors, and certainly not for the benefit of the Government.
In no circumstances should the fate of employees who have invested a portion of their hard-earned wages in such a scheme be abused. In no circumstances should money held in trust by a company on behalf of pension scheme members be hijacked for the company's use or to facilitate gain for anyone other than legitimate members of the pension scheme. It should certainly not be used as a sweetener for privatisation—a bribe for bids for public sector assets based on the principle, "Just look at the pension scheme surplus."
After privatisation, approximately £1 billion has been taken from pension schemes, affecting approximately 1 million past and current public sector workers in various industries. After the 1990 theft from the bus employees' superannuation trust—BEST—pension scheme, as many as 80,000 retired bus workers are losing up to £20 a week of their pension entitlement.
On 6 September 1996, the pensions ombudsman ruled that the Government had unlawfully taken money, to the value of £168 million, out of the BEST pension scheme after privatisation of the National Bus Company. That scheme's rules stated that if the scheme were ever wound up any surplus should be divided among employees, up to the limit allowed by the Inland Revenue. The employer could receive a share only after employees had received the maximum to which they were entitled.
Prior to 14 November 1989, the scheme's original rule—rule 49(b)—stated that if a surplus were available on winding up:
"The excess shall he applied in providing additional amounts of annuities … for the benefit of all or any of the Beneficiaries."
Many people joined the fund on that basis. They did not subscribe on the basis of providing the Government with a surplus to use for whatever ends they deemed fit, which is what has happened. The surplus was to be used for the benefit of those who had invested in the scheme—a point that the Government have ignored. Instead, the Government have used the funds as a sweetener for privatisation.
The manner in which the Government were able to achieve such a windfall—the history of which can be found in the ombudsman's report—was due to the amendment of rule 49(b). The BEST trustee was put under pressure to alter the rule by National Bus Company management, who told the trustee that unless the rule was altered the company would suspend its contributions to the fund.
258
In paragraph 72 of his decision, the ombudsman stated:
"The threat to exercise the power to suspend contributions was intended to persuade the Trustee to surrender powers which it held under the Scheme's winding up rules, powers which it was required to exercise in the best interests of the Scheme's members."
In the face of such pressure, the BEST pensions committee had no alternative but to recommend that rule 49(b) should be amended so that the surplus would go to the employer. The amended rule stated:
"If any balance remains, the same shall be repaid to the company, except to the extent that the company agrees that part or all of the same may be applied in increasing benefits."
After amendment of the scheme's rules, the Government and their allies launched a campaign of disinformation. Scheme members and Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Hall), who questioned what had occurred, were told by the management, by Allen and Overy—solicitors for the pension fund—and by the Minister that the pension fund surplus had to be paid to the company. They were not told of the company's discretion in the matter, or that—in the fortuitous way in which these matters work out—any surplus would go to the Government when the company was wound up.
The information provided by the Government was incorrect, however, because the rules had been unlawfully amended and the surplus should have been used primarily for the beneficiaries' advantage. In my recitation of the facts, some people may think that I have understated the case and feel that events were more like daylight robbery. Many people believe the latter, and I share that view.
Paragraph 107 of the ombudsman's decision states that the amendment was unlawful and that
"the agreement to amend the winding up clause was obtained through a breach of the Company's duty of good faith and through a threat to commit a fraud on power".
The Secretary of State has acquired all the company's liabilities and rights following the dissolution order and must therefore take responsibility for that breach of good faith and that threat to commit a fraud.
As rule 49(b) was unlawfully amended, questions must be asked about the accuracy of information provided to the Public Accounts Committee when it was considering bus privatisation. Did the figures provided to the Committee include the £168 million that the Government had unlawfully taken from the pension fund, and was the Committee informed that the Government had taken the money? As the money never belonged to the Government, was information on it included in their deposition to the Committee?
Another interesting aspect of the debacle is that after the scheme was wound up two trustees were appointed, both of whom were civil servants employed by the Department of Transport—the Department which had taken the money from the pension fund. Those civil servants were supposed to act in the members' best interests in recovering the £168 million—which, with interest, now totals about £200 million—from the Department of Transport. That was a very difficult situation to put them in as they were civil servants in that very Department.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is called insider trading.
Mr. McNamara: Or lack of trading in this case.

259
When requested to reveal information on any negotiations that had taken place to recover members' money, the trustees—on the instructions of their lawyer—refused to reveal any information, despite the fact that it is a breach of trust law not to supply such information to a pension scheme member who properly requests it. They were thus not only failing to pursue recovery of the money but withholding information from scheme members.
It is worthy of note that following a company search undertaken by my union's legal advisers, it was discovered that the trustee company, which was supposedly independent, was in fact owned by the Secretary of State for Transport. Since then, new trustees have been appointed within the Office of the Official Solicitor. Again, however, one might question their degree of independence from the Government and the speed with which they are advancing the interests of trust members.
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to put it on record that he is not suggesting any impropriety on the part of the officials appointed as trustees. He will know that when the appointment was made, as the benefits had been insured, it was assumed that the company would have little or no business to transact. We asked the Official Solicitor to replace as quickly as possible those officials who, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, were in a somewhat invidious position, with trustees whom everyone can accept are independent. While the hon. Gentleman may wish to make allegations against me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I hope that he is not impugning the integrity of officials who, as he said, were placed in an invidious position.
Mr. McNamara: No, but I think I am entitled to question the speed with which they are processing the matter.
As matters now stand, members of the scheme have not received any of the pension fund surplus and many may die before their entitlement becomes available. Meanwhile, the Government have taken all the surplus and used it to subsidise the privatisation process.
In the case of the BEST pension scheme, the law is very clear: where a scheme states that a surplus must be distributed to the employees, that must be done. There is no question of the money being distributed elsewhere until employees have received the maximum entitlement under Inland Revenue rules. Altering the rules so that the employees no longer receive the surplus, following pressure from the company—and, thereby, from the Government—was unlawful. The ombudsman directed the trustee to
"recover the monies paid to the company on winding up, with interest at an equitable rate".
Regrettably, the BEST scheme is not an isolated instance of Government fingers in the till. The ombudsman's decision on the National Bus pension fund is expected in a few months. It is also expected that the ombudsman will find that £30 million was unlawfully taken from that fund. The National Grid has already been ordered to pay £55 million—a very modest estimate as some commentators believe that the true figure may be as much as £500 million—to the employees' pension fund after similar complaints from members. The Government
260
have threatened to use a £55 million surplus in the Rosyth dock workers pension fund as a sweetener for privatisation. Rail companies plan to use a £500 million surplus in the British Rail pension fund, which existed prior to privatisation, for their own benefit.
Meanwhile, the TGWU, which is my own union, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, the GMB, the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union and others are investigating a series of complaints from members about what happened to pension funds when their industries were privatised. There are therefore a number of questions that I should like to put to the Minister.
It is most surprising that although the pensions ombudsman—a Government statutory appointee—has reached his decision, the Government, far from accepting what their own appointee has said, have turned to the trustees and said, "Sue us. Yes, we'll give you the money for your legal fees, but sue us." What message does that send to the nation about the Government's attitude? Their own appointee has found against them, so they play for time. A man who is distinguished in his knowledge of the law and of the industry finds the Government in "breach of good faith" and possibly committing "a fraud on power," but the Government, in order to delay matters, turn around and say, "Sue us."
My first question is why should this matter be brought to court for resolution when the ombudsman has so clearly stated that rule 49(b) was unlawfully amended? What is the motivation for the employment of such an obvious delaying tactic? After all, the office of the ombudsman is a statutory appointment created by the Government. One might suggest that the delay can only be exacerbated by the fact that the current trustees work in the office of the Official Solicitor and the Government are reluctant to proceed quickly.
Secondly, why did the Secretary of State mislead and supply blatantly false information to a number of interested and connected parties on the subject of the surplus? Not only were the management of Allen and Overy—solicitors to the fund—guilty of such action, but so was the Department in asserting that the surplus had to be paid to the company without at any time revealing the role of the pressure put on the trustees to alter the rule. On a related point, may we also have information about what was told to the Public Accounts Committee?
Thirdly, will the Minister publish the correspondence between the Government and the trustees, who in theory should have been acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries and not delaying matters to assist the Government when they were in fact working for a Government Department? If the Minister will not provide that explanation, he must explain why not. Under the law, a beneficiary is entitled to be given the information that he requests on such issues. Further to that matter, will the Secretary of State give some indication of when he expects the trustees to be able to take action? Has he given the trustees any indication of the time scale envisaged by his Department?
Given all those facts, it is scarcely amicable to suggest a course of litigation, irrespective of the fact that Ministers expressed the hope that it will
"be carried out in as co-operative and speedy a manner as possible".

261
What facts contained in the ombudsman's report do Ministers not accept? Do they accept that the rule was altered? Do they accept that the ombudsman's report is an accurate statement of the law and of the Government's liabilities? If not, why not?
This is not an arcane dispute on an obscure point of law; it is a matter of great importance to thousands of pensioners who feel that they have had their pension funds filched to subsidise privatisation, making the Department of Transport the Robert Maxwell of the public sector. This is a debate not on the merits of privatisation but on how privatisation has been achieved at the expense of people who paid into pension schemes where the pension moneys in this case—and perhaps in many others and also perhaps in future cases involving British Rail—have been or might be used to bribe reluctant bidders to enter the marketplace to bid for public assets. Natural justice and the law demand that BEST pensioners should receive their full entitlements and should receive them now, not after further prolonged litigation.
11.9 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister for not having been here at the beginning of the debate. It is seldom an excuse in the House of Commons to say that things were going so fast that I was not keeping up with the excitement in the Chamber. What my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is doing is tremendously important and I congratulate him.
It is not clear how the Government can so consistently think that they can get away with the most outrageous behaviour without anyone noticing. I often forget how brazen they are. Their sheer brass neck amazes me.
I am an individual member of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Many members of my union are busmen who are directly affected by the pension scam—I use the word scam advisedly, because that is what it is—but I must make it clear that I do not benefit from the pension fund, nor have I ever contributed to it. That does not mean, however, that I am not outraged that the Government's behaviour has been allowed to go almost unremarked.
Having set up a parliamentary commissioner—or ombudsman, as we call him for convenience—to look into the correct administration of the business of government, after a clear decision that their behaviour on the bus companies pension funds was not only bad administration but a total breach of faith, would any other Government in the world have said, "Thank you very much. We have taken note of what you have said. Now if you want to get your money back, you've got to sue us."?
Because of their incredibly narrow and tiny attitude towards the sale of state assets, the Government were prepared to use the pension funds of bus companies to encourage private companies to take over assets. They were then prepared to go to the trustees of the pension funds, knowing that the law puts them into a straitjacket—correctly; no one wants pension fund trustees to be able to do whatever they like—and tell them, "This is a deal you can accept or you can't accept. Either you commit suicide publicly or you accept a deal that says that we
262
take the assets and we tell you what you are going to do. If you don't like it, we shall make it impossible for you to continue." That is the sort of deal that was spelt out to the trustees. It does not matter how obscure the legal points are. I am not a lawyer, but I know a clear case of stealing somebody's assets when I see it.
I am in perpetual correspondence with the Minister. I sometimes feel that it would save a lot of time if we had a direct line between his office and mine, because I am constantly questioning him on the behaviour of the Department of Transport in relation to other people's assets. The Minister knows that the pension funds were built up by contributions from some of the poorest paid members of the industry. The transport industry does not overpay those who work long hours in difficult conditions. I assure the Minister that busmen and buswomen are not among the multi-millionaires of the United Kingdom. Their assets, built up slowly over a long period by them and their employers, were used as large bags of sweeties to encourage people to come in and take over the assets of the state bus companies.
The Government's behaviour raises all sorts of questions. Would any other organisation say, "I'll use your money to tell you to sue me."? The Government are using taxpayers' money to enable the Government to be sued. At every level, coming and going, the taxpayer pays. That is a basic fact, in case anybody had not noticed. It is not the Government's money; it is the taxpayer's money. They constantly tell us, "Oh, we don't have any money, it belongs to the taxpayers." It certainly does. What is the Department doing with that money? It says, "The ombudsman has found against us, but we have no intention of carrying out what the ombudsman has said unless we are sued." Where is the money for that legal process to come from? From the taxpayer. We have a violent circle of complete nonsense, in which the taxpayer is supposed to pay.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North raised some detailed and important points, and I have no intention of repeating what he said. The Government's effrontery amazes me. They have an extraordinary ability to take my breath away. They continually do things that I though that no one would have the nerve to do, and then they do it again. To quote a classic case, I wrote to the Minister just before Christmas asking him about the pension funds of a number of different establishments—the National Bus Company, the British Airports Authority, the privatised ports and British Rail. I hope on another occasion to be able to spell out in detail that what the Government have done to the busmen is nothing compared with what they have done to people in the rail industry and some others.
Yesterday, when it became known that this debate would take place this morning, by some strange coincidence, I received a long and detailed reply from the Minister. I am grateful to him and I am sure that there is no connection between the two facts. It is worth putting some of his comments on the record. He said:
"Ownership of the trustee company, NBC Pensions Trustee Limited, passed to my Department as part of the arrangements in the late 1980s … It was believed at the time that—with payment of pensions secured through the purchase of insurance—the company would have little or no substantive function. Two officials of the Department were appointed to be Directors of the company. However, it remained a separate legal entity with its Directors required to act independently in carrying out their duties to the company, which also retained its own independent legal advisers.

263
When the Pensions Ombudsman issued his draft determination … steps were taken within the Department to ensure that those officials who were Directors of the company were separated from, and took no part in, the Department's consideration of this subject."
The Minister intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, saying that he hoped that there was no question of our criticising individual civil servants. Of course there is not, nor has there ever been, but the Minister knows that one of the strongest arguments that the House has with the City of London on any kind of control of funds is that there should be clear distinctions in any company, regardless of day-to-day operation, between the activities of anyone with a vested interest in operating on both sides of the fence. That is why the House has frequently had to change legislation on directors' functions in recent years.
This is not a new issue—it is plainly on the statute book and it has been argued time and again, but the Government are saying, "We will have two of our members appointed as directors. They will not have any connection with the people next door. We will not influence them. Indeed, we will not even know the legal opinions that have been given to them." I have much more faith in individual civil servants than I have in the Minister—I hope that he does not take that too personally. It is extremely difficult for people outside to understand the duality of function of those employees of the Department. It would have been far better if the Government had been prepared to arrange a different structure.
Why are there no trade union representatives of the work force among the trustees? What is to stop the Minister from accepting trustees from the Transport and General Workers Union and the RMT, which have members who have contributed to the scheme and are directly affected by the decisions? Indeed, who will reimburse the unfortunate man who brought the case? As far as we know, he has been pushed aside without being reimbursed. In effect, he has been told, "Thank you very much. We have seen all that and we shall put it right in so far as we are forced to do so, but we shall do no more unless we are pushed into a corner."
It is clear that when the Government realised that all state organisations had large pension funds, they said to private buyers, "We can discuss certain matters openly, but you must bear in mind that all these establishments have very large pension funds to which you will have access after the sale." Some rail franchises were based on the assumption that private companies would get their hands on pension funds after taking over the franchise. It is nothing new for the Government to incorporate in their sales policy access to other people's assets.
The Government have offered no explanation. Does not the fact that an individual hon. Member has had to raise the subject in private Members' time to allow a full debate on the Floor of the House demonstrate the Government's attitude? They are certainly not prepared to go into detail in their own time and spell out the implications of their action.
Whatever important and detailed questions are raised this morning, the Minister has to answer one basic charge. The Government sold the bus companies knowing that they had large pension funds. They made a proposition to the trustees of those pension funds that they knew they could not refuse. It was almost a Mafia-style proposition. When it was accepted, individual members of the fund
264
objected, and one took the case to the ombudsman. It then became clear that the Government's action was wrong—not accidental or a bit bent around the edges, but wrong.
So what did the Government do? Did they come to the House and say, "We are terribly sorry, but we got it all wrong. We are sorry about that and we will put it right. We shall appoint independent trustees and return the money. We admit what we have done and we shall pay the money back with interest"? They certainly did not. It was not that simple. In effect, this bankrupt Government said, "We are hanging on to every damn penny before the general election. It is very simple. If you want your money back, you will have to sue us. You will have to sue us with taxpayers' money although it is taxpayers' money that needs to be returned." That is so outrageous and disgraceful that I can hardly believe that the Government are seriously suggesting it.
I know that the Government have no great moral commitment, but it would be nice if they took a moral stance in respect of such matters. The Minister is very nice and amiable. I am sure that he is a very honest fellow, but, by heavens, he has a funny Government sitting around him taking some very strange decisions. This morning I should like him to say, "Sorry about that, but we got it all wrong. Far from asking anybody to sue us, we shall rapidly bring the matter to a conclusion. We shall reimburse the individual who brought the case and appoint trade union trustees so that the interests of the work force will be covered in future. We apologise not only to the bus companies and their work force, but to the House of Commons." That would be a very unusual phrase for the Government to use, but it is extremely important. They should say, "We apologise because what we did was wrong. The ombudsman has said that it was wrong and we are sorry." If they did that, some of us would be so astounded that we might end up having seizures, but they would do something to restore the incredibly damaged standing of an incredibly tatty Government. When they do that, I shall come to the House and pay tribute to the Minister and his colleagues, but until then I repeat that the Government are guilty of the outrageous misuse of other people's funds and they should be ashamed.
11.24 am
Mr. Eric Martlew: First, let me declare an interest. At the last general election I was sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, many of whose members belong to the pension fund that we are debating. I shall sit down if the Minister accepts the invitation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) to come to the Dispatch Box and promise to put the matter right today. He obviously does not wish to do so.
I have been in public life for 25 years. When I first entered public life, I was an angry young man. I am glad to say that I am still angry. My constituency is the hub of Cumberland and the south of Scotland for the bus companies, so many of my constituents have worked in the industry for many years. They were never paid a great deal of money even when the industry was nationalised. They now work for Stagecoach, and I suspect that they are paid considerably less. However, they provided an excellent service and they paid into the pension fund.
I have a letter from my constituent, Mr. Reay, who paid into the pension fund from its inception in 1974 until it was wound up in 1987. He expects the money that the

265
Government took illegally to be returned to him and the other 40,000 pensioners. He is right. Morally, the Minister has no argument.
The Government took the money illegally, and now they are delaying giving it back. Everyone in the Chamber realises that, when the case goes to court, the Government will be found to have acted illegally and the money will have to be paid back. There has already been a 10-year delay, and some pensioners have died. The Government have taken a cynical approach. They realise that, if they delay another two years, more pensioners will die. It is a disgrace. I am not as charitable about the Minister as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich. He could get up and say, "We were wrong. The ombudsman said we were wrong and we shall pay back the money." It seems that that will not happen.
Before nationalisation, Carlisle had several bus companies—the Ribble, the United and the Cumberland—which were amalgamated into the National Bus Company. My constituents and 40,000 others paid into the pension fund. Now, we have a private monopoly, Stagecoach, which is now bidding for the Regional Railways franchise and the west coast main line. Stagecoach could end up with a monopoly on public transport in the region. Perhaps that is for another debate, but it is a significant consideration because Carlisle is a railway centre and there is concern that what has happened to the bus pension fund may happen to the railway pension fund.
The Government are not doing the honourable thing. The £168 million could come out of the Treasury's contingency fund. There would be no problem with that—such is the purpose of the contingency fund—but because the Government are deeply immersed in asset stripping other former nationalised companies, they realise that this could be the tip of the iceberg and that hundreds of millions of pounds might have to be returned to pensioners.
I have received many letters on the subject. Some are from traditional Conservative supporters who will not be voting Conservative at the next election. The Government are in their dying days. They could do something honourable before they go. After the general election, the Minister will not be dealing with the matter from the Dispatch Box. I certainly hope that an incoming Labour Government will resolve the matter. The Government have behaved like a very shady double glazing company—
Mrs. Dunwoody: Without the windows.
Mr. Martlew: Indeed. The Government have taken the money without providing the service, and they have been caught out. Trading standards officers would write to any organisation that acted in such a way and say, "Look, you are wrong. You should give the money back." The Government are telling pensioners, "Yes, we are wrong, but we are not going to give you the money back. If you want it, you have got to sue us for it."
How can we expect any other organisation or private pension company that is found to be in breach of regulations by the pensions ombudsman to take any notice of such a judgment when the Government, who set up the
266
system, refuse to? The Government have undermined the ombudsman system. I hope that they realise that the significance of the matter goes far beyond the case before us. Other organisations will ask why they should take any notice of the system when the Government do not. The matter reminds me a little of the Deputy Prime Minister admitting that he used to delay his payments when he worked in the private sector. Such behaviour sets the wrong example to the rest of the country.
I am very angry, my constituents are very angry and there is no excuse for what has happened. There is no doubt that it is immoral. People who are not receiving a fantastic pension to start with have paid in money. They were low paid workers and they are receiving very low pensions—the standard of living of some of them is just above the social security level and actually saving the Government money. Why can the Government not accept that the money should be given back to the pensioners to enable them to spend their retirement in some comfort? The matter concerns people and the right thing to do. The Government are a disgrace.
Although we should not have needed today's debate, it has given the Minister the opportunity to put everything right and to be thought of as an honourable man who has done the decent thing. There are 40,000 people out there who would applaud him if he stood at the Dispatch Box today and said that the Government are wrong, that they are sorry, that the delay of 10 years is unacceptable, but that they will end the delay, put the matter right as soon as possible and ensure that the bus pension fund pensioners get the money that they deserve.
11.31 am
Ms Glenda Jackson: I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for not being in the Chamber when the very first word in this extremely important debate was uttered.
I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing this Adjournment debate, but on being so instrumental in introducing for the very first time on the Floor of the House what, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) pointed out, can only be termed the debacle of the bus employees superannuation trust pension scheme.
I intend to be brief because much that needs to be said about the Government's drab, indeed squalid, treatment of the BEST pensioners and pensioners of other privatised industries has already been defined in passionate detail by the extraordinarily wonderful speeches made not only by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North but by my hon. Friends the Members for Crewe and Nantwich and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). They all spoke in great detail about what has produced this debacle—and with great passion on behalf of their constituents.
The pensions ombudsman's report into the handling of the BEST trust scheme prior to the privatisation of the National Bus Company makes grim reading. The ombudsman uses the phrase "a breach of trust" of which pension fund members were the victims. He refers to the then pension trustees as being "threatened" and of "big sticks" being wielded. He talks of "fraud" and
"an improper use of power",

267
all with the Government's full knowledge and consent.
My hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North, and for Crewe and Nantwich referred to the role that the trustees have played. It is true that the ombudsman's report finds against them and the company. It is equally true, however, that Ministers were on hand as every threat was made, every ultimatum was issued and every amendment was made to the pension arrangements of up to 80,000 National Bus Company employees. It all occurred without the knowledge or consent of those employees.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich referred to insider trading. The activity defined in the ombudsman's report would normally be associated with the cut-throat City takeover battles of billion pound multinationals. Fraud, breaches of trust, threats and unlawful activity should have no part in the pension arrangements of men and women who, having worked hard all their lives, seek nothing more than security in their well-earned retirement. Let us be clear, the pensioners who are the subject of today's debate are not seeking charity. They are not scrounging. Nor are they asking for handouts. As employees of the former National Bus Company, they gave years of dedicated service, believing—indeed, trusting—that, having worked for their pension entitlements, they would be theirs by right.
We are engaged today in a debate on the bus employee superannuation trust not only because of the actions of the trustees or the company, but because of the actions of Ministers. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that this debate was not about the merits of privatisation, but he would agree with me that the Government's dogmatic dependence on privatisation and their antipathy towards anything prefaced by the word "public"—be it public transport, public good, public interest or public welfare—directly threatened the future of the BEST scheme. The Government's dogma of privatisation directly led to the activities described in the pensions ombudsman's report and resulted in a loss to the BEST pensioners of at least £168 million.
What did such a dogmatic policy of privatisation and deregulation, which cost the BEST pensioners so much, achieve for the bus industry and the passengers who depended on it? Bus wars on our streets, a 30 per cent. drop in passenger journeys and a 21 per cent. increase in fares. The policy was costly not only for BEST pensioners but for the entire country.
As hon. Members have said, not only have BEST fund members seen the pension fund that they worked so hard to build pillaged by the Government; there is the £30 million that has been removed from the National Bus pension fund, the £55 million from the National Grid employees' pension fund, the £55 million from the Rosyth dock workers, the £500 million from the British Rail pensioners' surplus—the list is almost endless. Time and again, the pension rights of Britain's workers have been used to sweeten the bitter pill of Tory privatisation policy.
Indeed, only this week, the dead hand of privatisation began to hover over the pension rights of another set of public transport employees. The London Transport pension fund is valued at more than £2.5 billion, and more than 90 per cent. of London Transport's 18,000 employees are members of the scheme, yet they too see the pension entitlements that they worked for under threat—not from the vagaries of the equities market, but from the Government.
268
In the light of the BEST beneficiaries' experience, what guarantees are there for the members of the London Transport pension fund? Will their fund be protected? Will any surpluses be safeguarded? It is not an exaggeration to say to every London Transport employee that the next time they see a Conservative poster with gleaming red eyes, they should remember the gleaming blue eyes that are focused on their pension fund. If the BEST pensioners could not trust the Government with their pensions, why should LT's pensioners?
What does it say about this Government that privatisation, the cornerstone of their political agenda over the past 18 years, had to be built on the ruined dreams of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers throughout the country? Ministers talk of privatisation as their great policy success, but what sort of success is it that cannot be guaranteed without depriving those who have worked all their lives for their country of the pension entitlements their country promised them?
Ministers talk of an economic miracle, but it would seem that the economics were based on that old miracle otherwise known as the three-card trick, with British pensioners as the victims. Those pensioners did not work exclusively for themselves. They were not the fat cats who donate so much to the coffers of the Conservative party. They did more than just table a couple of questions for a month's pay. In working for our nation's public industries, they worked for us all, for the entire nation.
The ombudsman's report on the BEST fund refers to a lack of trust. The trust those pensioners and other public sector workers placed in the Government that, once their work was completed, they could rest in comfort and dignity, has been grossly betrayed.
11.40 am
The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): Historians, like Opposition Members this morning, have the benefit of hindsight when commenting on past events. The House will appreciate that with litigation in prospect on the recent determination by the pensions ombudsman I have to weigh my words carefully in replying to this debate.
It may help the House if I describe the background to the decision taken in 1986 on the best way to protect the accrued pension benefits of NBC employees.
The bus employees superannuation scheme was what is called a defined benefits scheme: that is, the rules of the scheme defined the benefits that are expected to be payable to the member. It is important to note that, even in a defined benefit scheme, the benefits for employees specified in the rules are not unequivocally guaranteed by the employer. The trust deed and rules of the typical defined benefit scheme allow the employer to refrain from paying contributions that cannot be afforded or are higher than necessary.
The unilateral right of the employer to suspend or terminate contributions to the scheme is necessary, not only because of the risk of the company being faced with severely unfavourable circumstances but because of the risk that the trustees might demand a higher level of contributions than was reasonable.
The privatisation of the NBC 10 years ago differed from earlier transport privatisations in that it involved the privatisation of a nationalised industry into a large number

269
of separate units, rather than as a whole. The NBC had two pension funds. The larger of these, covering the majority of NBC employees, was called the bus employees superannuation trust and is the subject of the pensions ombudsman's recent decision. The funds had built up large accrued liabilities in respect of employees' past service with the NBC or its predecessor companies.
There was great debate and concern during the passage of the Transport Act 1985, and during discussion of the detailed arrangements for the privatisation, about how these accrued benefits for past service would be secured. The question was, following the demise of the NBC, who would stand behind the funds if they had insufficient assets at some future date to secure benefits or—if the funds were not to be continued—what alternative arrangements should be entered into to secure benefits.
As some hon. Members will recall, there were strong demands for the Government to give a formal guarantee of the funds. To have done that would have meant that the Government assumed a greater responsibility for the fund than the employer had done in the past.
However, the Government recognised the strength of feeling behind the demands and the need to provide reasonable protection for members' accrued benefits. There were lengthy discussions in which the NBC, the trustees of the funds—including trade union representatives—and the Government all took part and in which all sides had the benefit of legal and actuarial advice in considering the options for achieving that aim.
In those discussions the Government offered an undertaking, which, though short of a formal guarantee, would involve the NBC making funds available to cover any deficiency in the fund at the date it was wound up following an actuarial valuation on a reasonable and prudent basis.
Against that background, a number of options were considered at the time, including for example the possible continuation of the funds as "closed funds". The point to note about a closed fund is that there is no employer standing behind it with the consequent risk that the assets of the fund have to stand alone in meeting its liabilities.
We should bear it in mind that the trustees in 1985–86 were faced with great uncertainty about how far the fund's assets would be sufficient to meet its obligations to members. Although an interim valuation of the fund, available to the trustees at the end of 1985—just before the relevant decisions—indicated the possibility that the fund was moving into surplus, the last full formal valuation, available at the beginning of 1985, had shown the fund to be in deficit.
It is not unreasonable or surprising that the trustees in making their decisions placed great value on arrangements which secured members' accrued benefits against these uncertainties.
A clear and very relevant illustration of the general uncertainty the trustees faced is what might have been the consequences for the fund of the stock market collapse of October 1987, when the value of equity investments fell by 30 per cent. Fortunately for the bus employees fund it had already changed the emphasis of its investment policy
270
from equities to index-linked gilts, but only as a consequence of implementation of the 1986 decisions and ahead of the purchase of insurance.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am interested in this argument because the Government used the closed fund without any difficulty in certain other privatisations. Is the Minister really suggesting that it was not made clear by the Government to the trustees that if they did not accept what was on offer, the Government would cease to pay the contributions? If that was the case, was that not simply straightforward blackmail?
Mr. Watts: Not at all. The trustees had the option of taking the view that the fund would have adequate assets to meet its liabilities and to continue it as a closed fund. However, as I have been explaining, because of the uncertainties about the fund's ability to cover the future liabilities, the trustees opted for the insured option which guaranteed the accrued benefits for members of the fund, to their advantage.
Those concerned in 1986 concluded that the balance of advantage was with an option which involved using the fund to purchase annuities from an insurance company. That meant that an insurance company would assume the obligations of the two funds, including the payment of pensions to individuals, in return for a capital payment from the funds' assets.
The insurance option was therefore explored. One of the further issues that had to be considered was the basis of indexation of accrued benefits up to the point when the pension was in payment. The existing rules of the bus employees superannuation trust provided for indexation on the basis of equivalence to changes in national average earnings. However, there was great uncertainty about whether insurance companies would be willing to underwrite at any realistic price insurance on that basis because of the uncertainty it involved.
It was possible to envisage insurance on the basis of indexation linked to a formula of retail prices index plus a specific figure, which might turn out in practice—as did turn out generally to be the case—to be as beneficial as, or even more beneficial than, a link to national average earnings.
I can now outline for the House the main elements of the agreement, the deal or the scam, as Opposition Members have described it, reached between the trustees of the fund, the NBC and the Government in 1986. It had four essential elements: the accrued benefits of members would be secured by the purchase of insurance and the fund would be wound up; to facilitate the purchase of insurance, the rules of the fund would be changed to provide for indexation of accrued benefits at RPI plus 2.25 per cent., if insurance on that basis could be purchased more cheaply than insurance on the basis of a link to earnings; the Government's undertaking, which I have already mentioned, to make good any deficiency in the fund at the date of wind-up; and finally, and crucially for subsequent events, it was agreed that that undertaking would be balanced by a change in the fund's rules which

271
provided that should there be a surplus in the fund at wind-up, that surplus would be paid to the NBC and thence to the Government.
Mr. Martlew: Why was it necessary to include a clause to provide that any surplus should go to the Government rather than the pensioners?
Mr. Watts: It was necessary because otherwise the agreement would have been a one-way bet at the expense of the taxpayer for the pensioners involved in the fund. In that case, if the fund was in deficit, the taxpayer would step in and provide funds, but if the fund was in surplus—having already secured the accrued benefits by insurance—that benefit would also go to the pensioners. That would have meant the Government stepping in—as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said—and using the taxpayer's money to secure greater benefits for the pensioners than had ever been available to them under the original terms of the scheme.
Mr. McNamara: Surely the whole point at issue is that the agreement would not have been necessary had not the Government set out on their course of action. Under the old scheme, it would have been possible for the trustees to go back to beneficiaries and the contributors and say that they were in difficulties and then the problem would not have to be dealt with in such a way. That option was removed by the Government's decision to privatise. In fact, it is the Government who are on a two-way bet in their favour, not the beneficiaries.
Is the Minister saying that he does not accept the ombudsman's statement that there was a fraud and that the trustees were subject to coercive action by the Government? In that case, he is saying that he does not accept the ombudsman's findings.
Mr. Watts: It is precisely because we do not agree with the decision of the pensions ombudsman that we believe, and are advised, that there are important matters to be considered at law and that is why we have acted as we have. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we had not privatised NBC, none of the changes would have been necessary, but he must accept that the trustees, in fulfilling their obligations to the members of the fund, had to take as a given the fact that the industry was being privatised, and that NBC—the employer that had been contributing to the fund—would no longer exist and, therefore, had to agree arrangements that secured the benefits for pensions in payment and for those whose pensions were deferred.
Mr. McNamara: The ombudsman found that the Government effectively told the trustees to accept the conditions or the Government would not make contributions. He did not find that the Government were not capable of making contributions.
Mr. Watts: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting, as did the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), that the Government should have accepted obligations—to be funded by the taxpayer—that gave greater guarantees and protection to the members of the fund than they had under the original terms.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Before the Minister moves on, will he spell out again exactly what he said—that he does not agree
272
with the ombudsman's decision? That statement is more important than even some of the details we are now discussing. Is he really saying that a Government Minister does not accept the independent opinion of the Parliamentary Commissioner, commonly known as the ombudsman, whose office was set up to examine independently the behaviour of Government Departments? If that is the case, it is even more important than the misappropriation of funds for bus pensions, because the Government would be setting a precedent that could cause them enormous difficulty.
Mr. Watts: It is important to recognise that the pensions ombudsman's decision did not relate to the conduct of my Department.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Really? Which Department did it relate to?
Mr. Watts: The hon. Lady should acknowledge that the complaint was made against the trustees of the fund and that the pensions ombudsman—
Mr. Martlew rose—
Mr. Watts: I must reply to one point before I take yet another.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It is up to the Minister whether he gives way.
Mr. Watts: The decision that the pensions ombudsman made was directed to the trustees. I advance no opinion on the decision that the ombudsman reached regarding the trustees, but I do not accept the varied and wild accusations that have been made by Opposition Members today that the Government are guilty on the basis of the ombudsman's findings about the conduct of the trustees. Important legal issues remain to be resolved and, in our view and on advice, we believe that they are best resolved in the courts.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Martlew rose—
Mr. Watts: I have given way enough, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Carlisle.
Mr. Martlew: You have gone on about the trustees being at fault, but who appointed the trustees?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is addressing me.
Mr. Watts: The trustees in question are those who were the trustees of the NBC fund, not the trustees appointed after the dissolution of NBC. They comprised representatives of the management of the company and of the trade unions. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a detailed list at the moment, although if he would like that further information I will seek to secure it for him and I will write to him.
Mr. McNamara: Under the terms of the privatisation, did not the Government accept all the responsibilities for

273
what went before? Those were the terms. The Government accepted all the liabilities and all the responsibilities in the Bill. Therefore, the Government stand as accepting the responsibility for the fraud on the beneficiaries and the coercion of the trustees.
Mr. Watts: I find that an extraordinary argument. The Government accepted that they would guarantee that the fund at its dissolution had sufficient money to secure the benefits due to existing pensioners and to those who had an interest in deferred pensions. I refute the hon. Gentleman's comments absolutely.
The House will want to note that the aim of the agreement was to secure members' benefits on a satisfactory basis—in short, to provide security for pensions in payment and deferred pensions and certainty for the trustees in the discharge of their responsibilities. It is important to recognise that the agreement achieved that aim. There is no question of the agreement being a pretext for a raid on the funds, because—at the time the decisions had to be made—the most recent complete valuation had shown the fund to be in deficit. It was because of the uncertainty in the minds of the trustees about whether the fund had adequate assets to meet its future liabilities that they sought to reach an agreement with the Government on the best way to secure those benefits.
It is also important to note that the agreement balanced the Government's undertaking—that, in the event of a deficit, the scheme would be placed in funds—with a mechanism, through the rule change on the use of a surplus on wind-up, to ensure that safeguards would be in place to ensure that the taxpayer did not take on a liability only to find that the fund was in surplus. That was a prudent and reasonable safeguard and, if it had not been put in place, the pensioners would have enjoyed a one-way bet at the taxpayer's expense. It was agreed at the time that the mechanism was an appropriate element in the agreement and achieved the aim of securing members' accrued benefits.
I find it difficult to accept any argument that the members of the fund were the losers from this agreement. On the contrary, they gained the security and the certainty that represented, and a basis for the indexation of accrued benefits which—as it has turned out for the vast majority of members—have been more generous than would have been the case if the link had just been to national average earnings.
The agreement that I have just described was set out in a statement to NBC employees in June 1986. It was signed on behalf of the company by its chairman and on behalf of the trustees of the two pension funds by the chairman of the NBC pensions committee—on which, of course, there were union representatives. That statement outlined the belief of the NBC and the trustees that the arrangements entered into
"will provide the necessary protection for payment of accrued benefits—including the attaching index-linking".
The statement also explained the factors that underlay the agreement reached. I refer in particular to two of the points made there. The statement refers to NBC's obligation to the Government—in effect, its obligation to the taxpayer—not to fund surpluses in the funds in the period running up to NBC's dissolution. It also refers to
274
the trustee's recognition of the volatility of the market value of investments securing the benefits provided by the funds, the obligation resulting from the fact that benefits were index-linked and the fact that NBC itself was to be dissolved in a relatively short period. That sums up the kernel of the agreement—it balanced the obligations of all the parties involved, and it balanced security for members' accrued benefits on a satisfactory basis with the, at that time, uncertain possibility of a surplus in the fund being available for payment to the NBC.
I shall now move on to subsequent events. Following the agreement that I have just described, bids were invited from insurance companies. As a result, the liabilities of the funds were covered through insurance with Standard Life, who took on responsibility for the payment of pensions to individuals, and the funds themselves were wound up. I should emphasise that these liabilities have been, and continue to be, met in full.
The House will recall that, in the second half of the 1980s, there was a period of general growth in investment income. The assets of the bus employees superannuation trust were part of this general growth. As a result of this and other factors, the fund at wind-up was in substantial surplus. Under the agreed rule changes that I have already described, a surplus of £103 million after tax was paid to the NBC and passed to the Government in 1990. Some time later—in 1992—a complaint was made to the pensions ombudsman alleging that the trustees of the fund were in breach of trust and not acting in the members' best interests in entering into these arrangements.
It is this complaint that the pensions ombudsman has recently upheld, and following that decision, he has directed the trustees to take all practicable steps to obtain the return of the moneys received by my Department from the bus employees superannuation trust. It is important to note that his determination was directed to the trustees and makes clear that he has not carried out an investigation, nor made a determination, with respect to the National Bus Company or my Department.
Since the Department was not a party to the determination, the option was not available for the Government themselves to test its validity at law by appealing against it to the High Court. Instead, following the determination, the trustees wrote to the Department to ask for our proposals for repaying the surplus or, if the Department was not prepared to repay the surplus, for financial resources to seek its recovery through the courts.
This is not the time nor the place for the detailed legal arguments about the basis for the pensions ombudsman's decision, but, following the approach from the trustees, we have taken legal advice on the complex issues raised by the determination. This is a changing and developing area of the law. Judgments made since 1986—when the decisions I have outlined were made—may have to be taken into account. However, the advice available to us is that there are good grounds for seeking to put these matters before the courts.
Given that advice, it is our duty to taxpayers—who would have to provide a very large sum if the pensions ombudsman's view were upheld—to ensure that the legal doubts about the justification for repayment of the surplus are fully resolved. With the funds wound up, the trustee company has no resources of its own to pursue litigation. As announced in a written answer to the House on 27 November, we have offered to pay the legal costs of

275
the trustees should they wish to pursue through the courts a claim for repayment, and they have recently replied that that is indeed what they wish to do. I give the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North an undertaking that we are not imposing, nor seeking to impose, any delay in those proceedings. It would not be appropriate for us to indicate what we think the timetable should be—that is matter for the newly appointed trustees—but we shall do everything we can to facilitate an early resolution of the matters.
I hope that the legal action now in prospect will as speedily as possible provide a definitive resolution of these matters which can be seen as fair and reasonable. I believe that I have set out the reasons why the Government take the view that the arrangements entered into in good faith by NBC, the Government and the trustees of the fund in 1986 were for the purposes of protecting the interests of pensioners, that the arrangements have secured that objective and that the pensioners have received a better benefit from the fund under the arrangements entered into than if the fund had continued with its existing rules or as a closed fund.
I hope that the House will now understand why I did not accept the invitation—tempting though it was—to merely come here, say sorry and receive accolades from Opposition Members, but rather state that the matters should be considered by the courts. I am sure that when the courts make a decision, it will be important for pensions law in general. I have every confidence that that is the right course of action for us to take.
12.5 pm
Mr. Eddie Loyden: I doubt very much that the House will be convinced by the Minister's remarks. It was brought home to him by my hon. Friends that the Government undoubtedly were guilty, but he made no reference to the fact that the ombudsman found that the Government were responsible and made no attempt to argue the Government's case. Why has the Minister ignored the pleas from Opposition Members to meet the Government's obligations to the pensioners? That is typical of this Government.
I wish to point out to the Minister that those pensioners recently lobbied the Department of Transport to meet the Secretary of State. They stayed there for more than half an hour, but he sloped out of the building at the end of the day without meeting them. That shows how the Government react to the rights of working people and, in particular, to the issue of pensions. We have heard today a weak excuse from the Government, who are trying to avoid their responsibility and to ignore the advice given by the Parliamentary Commissioner. That sums up what the Government are about, and they ought to be condemned for the way in which they have dealt with this problem.
I declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union.
12.7 pm
Mr. Max Madden: First, I apologise for not being here for the beginning of the debate. That was partly due to the fact that the debate started earlier than scheduled. The debate is due to continue until 12.30 pm, and I wish to make some brief comments. Since I have been in the Chamber, I have shared the
276
dismay and concern of other hon. Members at the attitude demonstrated by the Minister to the decisions of the pensions ombudsman. It is without precedent, and quite shameful, for a Minister to come to the House and say that he is unwilling to accept the independent judgment of the pensions ombudsman. As I understand it—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said earlier—the pensions ombudsman said that in this matter the Government had acted in a fraudulent manner.
The Minister seemed extremely reluctant to admit that the trustees of the fund were appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport immediately after privatisation. He is busily trying to shift responsibility away from where it should lie—squarely with the Department of Transport.
Lengthy litigation would create a considerable cost not only for the general taxpayer but for the bus pensioners, who are owed money but will have to contribute to paying for the expense forced on the nation by the Government's unwillingness to accept the independent judgment of the pensions ombudsman that the money should have been paid years ago.
I hope that the Secretary of State will not confirm the view expressed by the Minister but will consider the matter for himself. Is it the most prudent use of public money for the matter to be put before the courts? I believe that it is not.
The Minister has plenty of time—another 20 minutes—and I would be extremely grateful if he would tell us the expected cost of the litigation. How many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of pounds will it cost? There are ramifications for other public industries. I understand that there are British Rail pensioners in precisely the same position, and there are important implications for other public sector industries that have been privatised as a result of the Government's dogmatic policies since 1979.
The chickens are coming home to roost, and unfortunately the cost is again falling on British taxpayers. The Government have lost those important public assets and they want to rip off British taxpayers for a second time by making them pick up the costs of legal action over matters that were an integral part of the legislation that was forced through the House some years ago with Government majorities of 100, ignoring all the criticisms and warnings from Opposition Members.
At that time, the Government, with their usual arrogance, steamrollered through those matters, ignoring every constructive criticism and legitimate question put by Opposition Members. As a result of that arrogance, the Government have some apologising to do. The Minister apologised to us for not apologising. I believe that not only the Minister but all his predecessors and successive Secretaries of State should do more than apologise: they should act on the independent advice of the pensions ombudsman.
There is no need whatever for litigation. The ombudsman's view should prevail and the money should be paid to those former bus employees who are undoubtedly entitled to it. That should be announced by the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency before the general election.
The Government should not shuffle off responsibility yet again. The litigation may not be resolved for years, so the Bill will fall not on this Government but on the next Labour Government. In the best interests of the British

277
taxpayer, British transport and the pensioners who used to work for those important public services, the Secretary of State should announce today that, having considered the matter and listened to the views expressed in this debate, he has decided that legal action is not necessary and that the money should be paid promptly, expeditiously and in full. That would be the sensible and honourable thing to do.
I declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union, to which many of the former bus employees also belong. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), I attended the lobby at the Department of Transport in December with a large number of those former employees, who were eager to talk to the Secretary of State. Instead of having the guts to talk to us and explain why the Government were refusing to hand the money back, the right hon. Gentleman bowled through the lobby, undoubtedly to some chauffeur-driven lunch somewhere in the west end, where he would not be required to offer explanations for incompetence and dishonourable action.
I hope that the decision to embark on costly and lengthy litigation will be abandoned and that, as a matter of urgency, the pensioners will be paid the money to which they are undoubtedly entitled.
12.15 pm
Sitting suspended.

Pensioners' Welfare
12.30 pm
Mr. David Porter: In continuing the vein of this morning's debates, I am pleased to have the opportunity to turn the House's attention to the welfare of pensioners in general. I am delighted that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, my hon. Friend the Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), is here to reply. I have already told him that I wish to raise many issues that impact on pensioners, causing them worry and affecting their well-being. My hon. Friend will not be able to answer all those points, but I want to place them on record so that they can be passed to the appropriate Departments of State.
Periodically, anniversaries and the wartime memories of our older citizens bring home to us the debt of gratitude that we owe to our retired constituents. Those same people have given lifetimes of work and service to families, businesses and communities and to the country. Despite all that is provided in direct help, through payments, health care, local authority provision, taxpayers' funding, many of them feel vulnerable. Some fear that they will not have enough left to live on. They want long-term care for independence and security in the increasingly long periods of their crowning years. Everything from prices to heating, from health care to community care, from crime to transport, is pertinent. All those issues are challenges for us as politicians.
In view of the weather so far this winter, it is worth pointing out that the problem of keeping warm in winter is top of the list of older people's concerns. Every winter, we seem to redesign the cold weather payments scheme because it never quite seems to relate to the particular winter being experienced. Payments triggered at meteorological stations by postcode areas may mean that payments are prompt and automatic to those entitled to them, but the weather can be very varied over short distances and the system is not sensitive or flexible enough.
The wind chill factor is very much part of the present debate. I accept that the private Member's Bill that is before the House this week may not be the answer, but the wind chill factor must be acknowledged. Many of my constituents live on, or close to, the coast. The winds off the North sea that we get for most of the year mean that people feel colder. I know that the payments deal with homes being cold rather than with the people in them being cold, but only the best insulated homes can withstand penetrating winds that can cut into the strongest person, never mind the frailest. That has been graphically shown in the past month. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking at cold weather payments with an eye to being more flexible. Surely technology can produce accurate temperatures and wind chill measurements, even street by street.
We need a better way of encouraging the take-up of help if we are to give it. If Age Concern's figures are right and almost a million elderly people who are entitled to support do not claim it, we are not maximising the help that we make available. The Conservative party has been rightly keen to root out welfare scroungers, but we should also address under-claiming if we are to have a system of support through benefits. Many people have a pride that

279
makes them reluctant to claim their entitlements. That is admirable and I understand it, but perhaps more such payments should be automatic. The automatic triggering of cold weather payments, when the relevant criteria are met, has an appeal, and an efficiency, that could apply to other benefits.
People who are just above the income support level, those who have had no opportunity to build up extra pensions, those who were prevented by war service from so doing, and also people who have worked and saved, all feel at some risk. Some resent how the social security and welfare system helps some people and not others. They often feel that the undeserving are rewarded and the thrifty penalised. The debate and vote in the House on the pay of Members of Parliament brought forth a fresh bout of that feeling.
We must understand such feelings, because the feelings of significant numbers of people are the trends in politics that we have to recognise. Whether such fears are real or groundless is not the point: when people have them, we politicians have to address them. That is why scaremongering for political gain is so irresponsible and hurtful. The allegations in The Guardian late last year, led by the Labour party, that the Government tried to cover up cuts in benefits to war pensioners was merely the latest example of the deliberate distortion, the half-baked twisting, that does so much damage. The deliberate confusion of separate pensions issues can cause real suffering and anguish.
The future of the welfare state is one of the most urgent debates that the country faces. All parties are engaged in variations of radically thinking the unthinkable. So far, the only consensus is that we cannot go on as we are. We can project the number of retired people, but not the European demands on us—especially for bailing out the underfunded German pension scheme—were there ever to be a single currency. We cannot project public demands in terms of health and living costs or the heights that health technology will reach and the bills that will have to be paid for that.
We have discussion papers arguing the full range of ideas from left to right—papers enough to burn and keep warm with. One view is that future national insurance contributions may not be enough, so we should have a funded pension scheme and the voluntary or private sector should replace state welfare. A second view is that all benefits should be abolished and replaced with a basic weekly allowance for all, irrespective of need. To the poor, that would be a subsidy; to the rich, a tax cut. A third view is that we should let universal benefits wither on the vine and redistribute the money to the poorest, but how do we test for the poorest and draw a cut-off line? As ever, the devil is in the detail. A fourth view is that we should divert other spending to pensioners without regard to their incomes.
There is no shortage of ideas, some more acceptable than others, but there is no agreement about the solution. How can there be? While we have this essential debate about the future generations of the retired, we can see how unsettling and alarming such debates may be for those who have already retired. Whether we continue with reform of the welfare state in ways that we cannot anticipate—accepting that we cannot stand still—we must carry with us a majority of those who are the biggest users of the health service: the people who have already contributed the most.
280
Some statistics are encouraging: 24 per cent. of pensioners are in the least well-off fifth of the population compared with 44 per cent. 17 years ago; 88 per cent. of retired people now have incomes above their state pension. With low inflation, pensioners' savings and spending power are being maintained in a way that they could not have been a generation ago, when inflation touched 27 per cent. However, many pensioners dislike, distrust and reject statistics, and I understand that. We are talking about individual human beings, not numbers. They measure the money that they actually have and form a perception of themselves and the quality of their lives.
Mr. David Nicholson: While it is true that there have been helpful trends in recent years, which we welcome, a relatively new concern has become prominent in my correspondence and, no doubt, in that of my hon. Friend: many of the very elderly fear that if they have to go into nursing homes they may lose their homes and sacrifice their family's inheritance. Should not the Government address that as a matter of urgency?
Mr. Porter: I could not agree more. The Government need to inject urgency into their thinking on that issue, which will clearly be part of the forthcoming general election campaign. Whichever party wins that election, the new Government will have to tackle that problem as the number of elderly people continues to increase. The question of the cost of living and how those people will be able to afford it must be addressed urgently. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.
Many of my constituents—and, I suspect, people elsewhere—believe that Irish, French and German pensioners do much better than ours. To some extent, pointing out to them the difficulties of making straight comparisons between countries and asking various questions—such as whether they have the same health care, whether the pension is normally their only form of income, what the spending power of their income is, whether there is provision for adult dependants and what the qualifying age for entitlement is—does not necessarily help. British pensioners come out quite well in accurate comparisons, but some pensioners retain the erroneous perception that they are the paupers of Europe.
During the years of evolution of our welfare and health care systems, we have learnt that however much is put into them it can never be enough: demand and expectation rise relentlessly. The quality of life through material possessions rises continually, as does demand for a share of them. Medical science, technology and medical inflation will always outstrip the taxpayer's ability to keep up. We are therefore right to consider future provision. We are right to confront the dilemma of shorter and more flexible working lives—which are constantly changing owing to technology—and longer, healthier, more mobile retirements and the unharnessed resources of our older people.
Factors such as tightening up on benefit fraud, saving on public spending, targeting welfare more accurately and developing a tax regime that allows the economy to create the wealth to spend are all helpful. It also helps to point out the Opposition's increasingly vague plans to link pensions and earnings and the way in which they have dropped their earlier magic wand promises to pensioners. In addition, it helps to highlight Labour's plans to cut the basic pension to pay for giving everyone a pension at 60. However, we must go further than that.

281
Pensioners have other fears. Both in cities and rural areas, there is a fear of loneliness and isolation. When grandparents were given greater acknowledgement as an integral part of family and community life in a less mobile, more rooted society, those fears were less acute. Pensioners fear physical immobility. It is small wonder that hip replacements are now so popular—some are replaced for the second or third time when they wear out. Many pensioners fear that the transport they need will not exist. Long-time retirees to popular parts of the country, such as my area in East Anglia, often feel more cut off as they become older and perhaps give up their cars.
Local organisations such as DIAL, and associations that help by working with the elderly and disabled, play an extremely effective role in combating that isolation and fear of it. Technologies that help to provide better access to buses and taxis also help, but we could go further. Perhaps tax-friendly assistance could encourage technology to come up with some better ideas to combat that fear.
The fear of not being safe in one's own home or walking the streets is real enough, even if it is not always borne out by the crime figures. The chief constable of Suffolk wrote in the East Anglian Daily Times on 10 September 1996:
"There is a disproportionate fear of crime within vulnerable groups such as the elderly. People are fed a constant diet of scare stories of violence. We are not saying no problems exist. We are simply trying to put these stories in context. Statistically, elderly people are the group least likely to become victims of violent crime. However, surveys show they are the group who most fear being attacked. It is not right whole sections of the community should live in fear because of an inaccurate perception of our society."
As well as real crime, we have to deal with the perception of a tidal wave of crime.
Our continued drive for meaningful sentencing helps a lot. It is a pity that the Labour party has not supported our law and order measures for most of the past 17 years. Real support for the victims at the expense of the criminals—such as making the criminals work for their victims—would reassure those who feel at risk. I still believe that giving the courts the option of capital punishment would be welcome, but that is another story for another day.
As we look more closely at long-term health care and as the eligibility criteria for continuing care come fully on stream, another set of fears arises which needs addressing. Controversy over health has, unfortunately, never been far away in my area. That controversy has often been stoked up, and elderly people alarmed, by my opponents, who think that the national health service is theirs alone—notwithstanding the fact that for most of its life the service has been evolving and developing with more being spent on it year on year from taxpayers' money provided by Conservative Governments.
Our local Anglian Harbours NHS trust will be the first in this country to go out of business—by August this year—having lost all its contracts. There have been fears and threats, real and imagined, and rumours of the closure of our district general, the James Paget hospital, and of community hospitals at Lowestoft, Beccles, Southwold and Halesworth. Those fears have all been fanned like forest fires in a gale by the Labour party and its fronts in
282
the form of various action groups that have alarmed our pensioners. The All Hallows hospital, just over the border at Ditchingham in south Norfolk is outside the NHS and is run by nuns and the London Hospital Management trust. It faces cuts in contracts from East Norfolk and Suffolk health authorities because there are empty beds in the NHS cottage hospitals at Lowestoft and Beccles. It is a dilemma for the health authorities and for our local communities, but the health authorities have shown that they are sensitive to public demands in a local, GP-driven NHS. It does not help older people to be allowed to think that there will be no local provision for them when they need it or to insist on measuring health care on a strict bed count as though that were the only yardstick these days.
The final fear is the sickening feeling among many of my constituents about those who sometimes seem cravenly to hand over all our powers and our Britishness to the European nightmare. Whether the problem involves fishing, beef, lamb or the very pound itself, the generation who gave the best years of their lives fighting German and Japanese tyranny do not, in general, want to see that sacrifice squandered in the creeping way that often occurs. Most of them have had enough—more than enough—whether of being at the so-called heart of Europe or of never being isolated in Europe.
Let us continue with our threefold thrust: we must increase the basic pension in line with prices, encourage private provision on top of that and focus extra help on pensioners who most need it. Let us continue with our low taxing, liberalising, deregulating and privatising of the economy so that we can expand the health and care services for the retired and others in an affordable way. Let us take a hard look at the future provision and do all that we can to enable more people to provide for themselves and their families instead of always thinking that we have to do it for them. Let us harness better the resources of those who live longer and who have more experience of life. Above all, let us work with the retired generations to include them more and carry them along with us more as we—at least Conservative Members—continue to shape the world that our grandchildren and their grandchildren will inherit.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on securing the time for today's debate and on his choice of subject. He is known to speak his mind in this place; he is also known for the vigorous way in which he promotes his constituents' interests. We have certainly seen an example of that today.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on his well-timed intervention on the important subject of long-term care. There is not time to go into that subject in great detail, but I know that my hon. Friend will welcome last autumn's White Paper and the proposed measures to enable individuals to ring fence their assets and provide for their long-term care in retirement while protecting the inheritance that they rightly wish to pass to their children and others.
Anyone watching our debate today will have noticed that, as we discuss the important subject of pensioners' welfare, the Labour Front Bench is empty, there are no Liberals present—[Interruption.] Of course, the Scottish

283
nationalists are here, and one Labour Back Bencher is now present. The poor attendance shows that the soundbite is often given precedence over debates in the House, which is to be deplored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made a number of specific points; I shall pass on his comments to the Ministers involved. He mentioned the Anglian Harbours NHS trust. I am advised that the health authorities do not expect to make significant changes to the location of services, and that it is likely that most clinical and nursing staff will continue to be employed by the new service providers, but my hon. Friend will have to wait for a fuller answer on that subject.
My hon. Friend also mentioned bus services. We now have increased route mileage, but it is the role of local authorities to subsidise socially necessary bus services should they wish to do so. At present, about 15 per cent. of bus route mileage is subsidised in that way. Many local authorities have also exercised their discretion to provide concessionary fares for pensioners. The Government's view, and that of previous Governments, has been that it is better for the local authority, with its knowledge of local circumstances, to decide how best to promote public transport and the needs of vulnerable people in the areas over which they have jurisdiction.
My hon. Friend referred to crime in general and to crime in Suffolk in particular. Crime in Suffolk fell by 3 per cent. in 1995, which will be welcome news to elderly people there, but my hon. Friend's point was that such reductions in crime are not recognised and that a sense of insecurity remains. I accept that there is a good deal in that argument. The police have better powers, there are more police officers and they have the ability to investigate cases more effectively, thanks to measures passed by the Conservative Government, all of which were opposed by the Labour party.
Measures at local level—neighbourhood watch schemes and other projects that try to reduce crime in the local community—have an important role to play. My hon. Friend will know that there are 1,200 neighbourhood watch schemes in Suffolk and that the draft strategy for community safety is currently being prepared. Again, I shall pass on his concerns to the Home Office to see whether anything more can be done to address them.
My hon. Friend raised the important issue of cold weather payments. The Government are committed to helping vulnerable people to receive extra help at this difficult time. So far this winter, we have made more than 5 million payments worth over £43 million. The payments, of £8.50 each, are made to claimants who receive income support or jobseeker's allowance when that is income based. The benefit includes all groups with pensioner premium and other vulnerable groups.
It is worth remembering that, under the Labour Government, there was nothing. The Conservative Government have introduced a system that provides an automatic payment, which is triggered when the average temperature over a seven-day period falls below a certain point.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Minister knows, I have campaigned for many years on this issue. He referred to the automatic payment that emerges from the severe weather payment triggering mechanisms. Does he accept that other countries, such as Ireland, produce an
284
automatic payment that has nothing to do with the temperature and involves those who are in receipt of certain benefits—I think it applies to about 15 benefits in the Republic of Ireland—over the 17-week period? Such a system, if introduced here, would bring a much greater sense of relief to our pensioners and our vulnerable people than does waiting for the current rather vague mechanisms to come into play. In addition, will the Minister tell us what he plans to say in respect of the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill, which is to be debated this Friday?
Mr. Heald: The advantage of our current system is that it is automatic and well focused, in that weather stations in various areas trigger the payment, not only when there are seven days when the temperature is at or below 0 deg C, or freezing point, but when those conditions are forecast. The process is quick and enables people to turn the heating up in the knowledge that a payment is on its way. It is not a broad-brush measure, but targeted, and it has been effective in quickly delivering a much needed benefit.
There was a comprehensive review of the cold weather payments scheme last summer, during which the Meteorological Office was asked to advise. Its recommendation was that there should be 70 weather centres, which are now on line. It also advised us on the links with postcodes, and its expert advice was accepted in full and implemented.
The Meteorological Office also gave advice in respect of coastal areas, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney is especially concerned. It advised that, although such areas may be windy, they are often warmer than inland areas during the winter months. It is interesting to note that, of the 15 weather stations that have not triggered cold weather payments this winter, 14 are coastal and only one is inland.
As my hon. Friend will be aware, postcodes in his constituency are linked to Coltishall and Wattisham and, so far this winter, Coltishall has triggered cold weather payments twice and Wattisham three times, bringing much needed help to his constituents.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) will be aware that the Meteorological Office is advising the Government on wind chill; I do not feel that I can take the matter further today.
Regarding pensioner incomes, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney pointed to the three key strands of the Government's policy, which are: first, to maintain the value of the basic state pension; secondly, to encourage private provision; and, thirdly, to target help on those who are most in need. This year, an extra £1.2 billion pounds compared with 1988 has been focused on the poorest groups. The result is that pensioners' incomes have, on average, risen by 60 per cent. in real terms since 1979.
My hon. Friend also pointed out that expectations are important—people want a system that will provide them with the sort of retirement that they wish for and expect. In that context, occupational pensions and private pension provision are especially important. Britain has £600 billion invested in private pension assets—more than the whole of the European Union. It is important that our pension assets should not be subsumed in or combined with other European pension assets; the Government are determined to fight that and have the support of the Maastricht treaty in doing so.

285
The British people's absolute protection is to have a Government who stick up for Britain in European negotiations. I deplore the fact that the Labour party has said that it would scrap our veto and make us join the European social chapter. Those measures would damage our sovereignty and damage the interests of people who work in this country or who want jobs.
The change in occupational pensions has been dramatic. The proportion of people retiring each year with occupational pensions and other savings income has risen to 63 per cent.—[Interruption.] Yes, I am back on the subject of pensions, but that is fair enough in a debate on the welfare of pensioners. The proportion has risen from 43 per cent. in 1979 to 63 per cent. now.
We have fulfilled our pledge to maintain the value of the state pension, and it is proposed that, in April, its value will rise to £99.80 a week for a couple and £62.45 a week for a single person. Of course, the headline figure is not the full story, because underpinning occupational and personal pensions, investment income and the state pension is the commitment to target help on those most in need. For example, our measures ensure that pensioner couples have access to income of more than £100 a week, with their housing costs paid, and with other concessions of the type mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Equalisation of pension ages at 65, as enacted in the Pensions Act 1995, is an important measure to ensure that state pensions are affordable in future. The changes that we have introduced are in stark contrast to those proposed by the Labour party, which would equalise state pensions at the age of 60, but with a reduced pension of only £40. That £40 a week would be for life, so it is no wonder that there are no Labour Members here this morning.
286
Not only would a Labour Government cut the basic pension by about £20 a week for the single pensioner and £37 a week for a couple, which would do little for the welfare of pensioners, but they would deprive pensioners of income support. Retired people in receipt of that £40 a week would, if single, be treated as being in receipt of £60 a week and, if a couple, £98 a week. To me, that is new Labour, new danger. It is half baked to suggest that people should retire earlier, at 60, on a level of pension that might not be adequate for their future needs—and without the safety net of income support, which the Conservative Government have expanded.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing these important issues of concern to my attention and, as appropriate, I shall draw my colleagues' attention to them as well. He made the important point that many of our pensioners served during the war and gave valuable service to this country, thereby allowing us the freedoms we now enjoy. Many of them are among the older group of pensioners. They had saved all their lives, but the value of their savings was destroyed between 1974 and 1979. Under the Labour Government, inflation averaged 15 per cent. because they were a tax and spend Government—a spendthrift Government—and they have not changed their spots. When pensioners come to think about how to vote at the next general election, they should remember that new Labour is still the party that wants to spend money it has not got, to borrow and to reduce this country to beggary.
I welcome the opportunity to reply to this debate. In government, the Conservative party has protected the interests of pensioners. It will do more in that respect in future years to enable pensioners to realise their expectations—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We must now move on.

Sustainable Waste Management
1 pm
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton): I declare an interest as a joint chairman of the all-party sustainable waste management group. The generation of waste, and its collection and disposal, are of paramount importance to the environment. The Environment Act 1995 was welcome, but the Labour party considered that it could have been strengthened in various ways.
During the passage of the Bill, the introduction of a landfill tax and of packaging recovery regulations was given serious consideration, as were the waste reduction targets set by the European Community and how they should apply to the United Kingdom.
I am interested in landfill because one of the largest landfill and reclamation sites in the United Kingdom, the Welbeck site, is in my constituency. It covers more than a square mile of reclaimed land—reclaimed mostly from colliery spoil and the results of colliery workings. The landfill tax was introduced last October, but a number of questions about it remain unanswered.
The West Yorkshire waste management group of local authorities has raised the matter of the processing of mixed waste from construction sites. The screening and crushing of such mixed waste changes the nature of the material but little. This material can be and is used on waste disposal sites to eliminate the need to quarry new material used for making roads on the sites, to allow vehicles bringing in waste to reach the tips. The material is thus widely sought after.
It is a pity that material from reclaimed or demolition sites which is used for temporary roads is not tax free; it is immensely valuable for this purpose. I hope that the Minister will take up and deal with this point.
It has been the practice for sub-soil used in site restoration, and for waste construction material for site roads, to be provided on landfill sites free of charge. Now, however, we find that building sites are burying unwanted materials, suitably landscaped of course, on their own sites. That means that a source of much valued material for landfill sites is drying up, leading to additional costs. There are also rumours to the effect that fly tipping is on the increase because of the new landfill tax.
The tax was meant to encourage the recycling of waste, because there is not much of a market in the United Kingdom for recyclable materials. The fact that international organisations import low-cost recovered materials means that there is little point in collecting materials here for recycling if they are not eventually to be used. Thus we need to encourage recycling with a stable market in the commodities concerned.
I know of a good example from my constituency. Mr. Steve Gilks, a disabled constituent of mine, got involved in collecting cans, plastics and paper for recycling, using the money raised to help local charities. On 13 December last, he presented a new recording machine to the Normanton talking newspaper for the blind. He told those receiving the gift that it was the result of collecting 300,000 aluminium cans. Between January 1994 and December 1996 he also collected nearly 95,000 tonnes of plastic for recycling.
Mr. Gilks tells me, however, that the bottom is dropping out of this market. He used to get £190 a tonne for plastic; that is now down to £60 a tonne. What is
288
more, the grant from the Department of the Environment to help him with his work of collecting waste has been cut by half. That clearly makes his task more difficult.
Can the Minister explain why people like Mr. Gilks are not given more encouragement by the Department to continue collecting waste for recycling?
I wish to draw attention to the interesting work commissioned by various organisations. I think in particular of the Industrial Council for Packaging and the Environment. The research examines the relationship between food packaging and the food chain in general. The purpose is to design products so as to minimise waste in the home. The packaging industry has been actively involved in discussions of packaging recovery and in setting up Valpak. It is a collective scheme to capture, recycle and deal with packaging. We owe Valpak our thanks for its work in waste management.
When he comes to consider regulations for the waste industry, the Minister must keep in mind all businesses, both large and small, and he must keep to a minimum the number of excluded companies. All businesses must be encouraged to join Valpak or some such scheme. I hope that the Minister will outline the Department's intentions as regards those schemes.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend knows of my interest in this matter and of my enthusiasm for the work of Valpak. He will also know of the stress and strain involved. We need much more positive Government backing for Valpak if the voluntary agreement is not to fall apart. Valpak and other organisations have been working hard towards the best possible answers. There is no single answer to waste minimisation; it is all about striking the right balance. Once waste starts to be moved along motorways, of course, it begins to damage the economy and the environment.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right. As we are aware, the new agency covers all types of environmental issues, but there are fears that the agency's dominant activities will be those that it took over from the former National Rivers Authority and Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. I will put my hon. Friend's point to the Minister. Does he envisage that the agency's resources will apply to ensuring that waste management issues are given sufficient focus, with particular reference to packaging waste, which accounts for one third of household waste? The agency must give as much time to that issue as to some of the other issues for which it is responsible.
The Environment Agency has been advised that it should deliver goals without imposing excessive costs. In some European Union member states, packaging recovery has led to excessive cost. In Germany and Austria, citizens pay around £20 per year in inflated products to reach certain targets. The United Kingdom Government suggest that packaging regulations will cost between £5 and £11 per head of population. In view of the low level of energy from waste in Britain, how confident is the Minister that the recycling targets can be met from an extra cost below £11 per person per annum?
Environmental progress can be achieved only by taking a fully integrated approach to waste management, including packaging waste. If the costs to the UK scheme

289
are to be minimised, how important is it that the legal responsibility for achieving the recovery targets are shared between various participants who lead in marketing packaging goods? We need to have some directive on how to achieve the recovery targets at the minimum cost that is suggested by the Government.
The Government have set a target for the recycling of domestic waste of 25 per cent. of the total by 2000. That can be met only if investment in the infrastructure is encouraged. Local authorities will play a key role in any recycling programme. Recycling performances in the UK are not as advanced as those in many European Union member states. The industry must be given a realistic timetable to meet the first-year obligations for registration and data provision. We can bring about success only by implementing a plan, rather than talking about it.
Will the Minister give some indication as to when he proposes laying the regulations for the packaging recovery industry before Parliament? Does he intend to demonstrate further co-operation with Valpak and the industry by progressing with regulations and using mechanisms to revise the regulations as experience is gained?
I ask for one further point to be clarified: that of wood in packaging, which is not included in any scheme. Friends of the Earth has drawn attention to wood in packaging. Many members in the industry re-use wood for packaging—I refer to pallets. Also, many people in the packaging industry have changed to re-usable plastic crates and trolleys, which is to be commended.
I understand that the European Union has not offered any real guidance on that issue and there may be questions in some EU countries as to wood being included in packaging. When does the Minister expect to report on wood packaging?
I have received many items of briefing material from many sources in the industry, interested organisations and individuals expressing support for and reservations on some waste management proposals. Although that material is welcome, it demonstrates the strength of feeling on the issue. Obviously, I would have wished to continue the debate for longer, but because of the time limit I must conclude by asking the Minister to answer my questions.
1.15 pm
Mr. Robert Atkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) for allowing me to participate briefly in his debate. I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Minister's reply. The hon. Gentleman spoke with the authority that I came to expect when I was the Minister taking through the Bill to which he referred, which became the Environment Act 1995. He was always an authority on the Committee, although I did not always agree with him.
I want to dwell just on the packaging regulations, with which my hon. Friend the Minister is heavily involved, as is the Secretary of State for the Environment. I shall quote from four letters that I have received from constituency companies, which raise particular points. I do not expect the Minister to answer now. He must concentrate on the points made by the hon. Member for Normanton, whose debate it is, but perhaps he could let me know his reaction later.
290
The managing director of Ward Packaging Ltd. in Leyland, which employs 110 people making paper sacks and bags, says that
"under the proposed regulations Ward Packaging will be burdened with an unrealistic administrative regime to identify its recycling targets, and that of its customers, at a very detailed level and at a significant cost. Having identified these targets I will not have the ability to achieve these targets because the packaging produced will not be within my control or that of my customers."
Smurfit Corrugated, a substantial company throughout the United Kingdom, says:
"The problem arises because one part of the Packaging Chain—the big Retailers—might be able to use the considerable amount of used transit packaging that ends up in their stores to offset their obligation against other kinds of packaging, thus avoiding the costs that the other members of the Packaging Chain will have to bear."
Leyprint, a substantial printing company, says:
"it puts up the cost of complying with the Regulations for the other parts of the packaging chain. This threatens the viability of industry-wide recovery schemes like Valpak whose costs will consequently increase. As a result, the UK's ability to meet its recovery and recycling targets may be undermined … with a knock-on-impact on profitability and jobs."
Finally in this context, the owner of a small post office in Penwortham says that the introduction of the regulations will force him
"to raise my prices and lose customers to supermarkets or to cut my profit margin significantly … The Regulations will make my business very vulnerable to closure … as well as depriving people of a local shop."
Set against that, large retailers maintain that
"the regulations will meet the requirement of an effective and equitable method of putting shared producer responsibility into practice.
The Regulations are entirely in line with the industry agreement which was reached on December 15th 1995 between all parts of the packaging chain".
The point with which I leave the House is that, clearly, there is some concern about the perception of what is happening, particularly among smaller operators, who feel deeply concerned about the regulations' implications. I hope that, during his discussions and in eventually making his decisions, my hon. Friend the Minister will take those concerns into account and recognise that it is important to consider every sector of the packaging and production chain in the implementation of financing measures.
1.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate. I appreciate that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) has a particular interest in the matter and speaks as chairman of the parliamentary all-party group on sustainable waste management. He also has a particular constituency interest in the matter in the Welbeck site.
The House will have benefited from the contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins). He has quite a background on the subject and strong credentials on the greening of businesses. I have listened carefully to the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of small businesses. He was right to stress the importance of carrying every sector of the packaging industry with the initiative on producer responsibility.

291
I will deal with the detailed points raised by the hon. Member for Normanton, but I think that it would be helpful if I first set them against the background of the Government's waste strategy. As chairman of the parliamentary group on sustainable waste management, the hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have embraced a strategy that deals with the issues that he outlined—along with many others—within a comprehensive framework, to encourage good environmental practice and, in particular, sustainable waste management.
We strongly support the need for a sustainable waste strategy. At the end of 1995, we published a White Paper entitled "Making Waste Work", which examined the issues involved in sustainable waste management. The strategy set out in that document takes the principles of sustainable development—development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs—and applies them to the issues of waste management. Its main objectives are that we should reduce the amount of waste that we produce, make the best use of the waste that is produced and adopt practices that minimise risks to the environment and to human health. The foundation on which our strategy is built is the need to accept that the waste that we produce always has the potential to harm our environment, and that we must therefore make the production and management of our waste more sustainable.
We have already done much to promote more sustainable waste management. We have introduced new, improved controls on the management of waste through the registration of carriers, and through duty of care and revised licensing requirements. Those measures are designed to minimise the impact of waste on the environment, and provide a sound regulatory basis for the waste strategy.
I noted the hon. Gentleman's concern about fly tipping. He will appreciate that, before introducing the landfill tax, we were keen to ensure that a sound and effective licensing system was in place. We established such a system, and we intend to ensure that it operates as effectively as we expect it to.
In addition to regulation, we have promoted more sustainable waste management options through our support for economic instruments, such as recycling credits and the non-fossil fuel obligation. On 1 October last year we introduced the landfill tax, whose objectives—broadly speaking—are essentially environmental, and, we believe, send the right economic and environmental messages to waste producers. The tax will make those producers aware of the true costs of their activities, and will give them a further incentive to reduce waste production and recover more value from the waste that is produced.
The hon. Member for Normanton expressed concern about the processing of mixed waste from construction sites. He will know that waste from such sites forms a significant component of the waste that goes to landfill. Our overall objective is to reduce the proportion that goes to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent. by the time that we have specified; but, although I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept the need to reduce that proportion, we are always prepared to consider particular cases, and to take environmental merits into account. Along with Customs and Excise, we shall be considering any anomalies that arise as a consequence of the introduction of the tax, although we shall need time in which to undertake the review. While we are aware of the issues
292
raised by the hon. Gentleman, he will appreciate the need to set them against the aim of reducing the amount of waste that goes into landfill, which is one of the less sustainable—although sometimes necessary—forms of waste management.
The hon. Gentleman raised the case of Mr. Gilks, the gentleman in his constituency who spoke to the Normanton talking newspaper for the blind. I am sure that the House applauds such voluntary efforts, which have an important and environmentally beneficial impact. As the hon. Gentleman will know, we provide considerable support for those who undertake such activities—through, for example, the environmental action fund and, in future, the landfill environmental bodies that will come into being as part and parcel of the landfill tax. Encouragement is given to recycling and good practice in a variety of ways, including the producer responsibility initiative referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I promise him, however, that I will examine the particular case of Mr. Gilks and the grant that he mentioned.
Now that I have dealt with those issues arising from the landfill tax, I feel that I should re-emphasise the targets that we have set. We aim to reduce the proportion of controlled waste going to landfill from 70 per cent. to 60 per cent., and to recover value from 40 per cent. of municipal waste, by 2005. By the end of 1998, once we have more reliable data on which to base our target, we shall set a target for overall waste reduction. We have also established a wide range of secondary targets: for example, our aim to recycle or compost 25 per cent. of household waste by 2000. That target, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is an important secondary target. We want to find ways of increasing the amount of recycling by households.
Mr. Sheerman: The Minister probably knows as well as I do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) pointed out, the crucial factor is the active participation and leadership of local authorities. Many of us believe that, if we are to meet the targets that we all want to meet, local authorities must be given more incentives to take a lead and to be active partners with the private sector. They need encouragement, rather than being knocked back by the Department of the Environment.
Mr. Clappison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the need to encourage good practice on the part of local authorities, but I do not think that there are many examples of the Department of the Environment knocking them back. We want to spread good practice wherever possible, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, practice varies from authority to authority.
The hon. Member for Normanton also mentioned producer responsibility, an important initiative that we have advanced considerably. Following extensive consultation with the packaging business, Government and industry have developed a joint approach for enhanced levels of recovery and recycling of packaging waste to be achieved by 2001. That means, in effect, nearly doubling the amount of packaging waste recovered or recycled in the United Kingdom.
Before the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) leaves the Chamber, may I answer the point that he made about Government leadership? I think

293
that the Government have given a lead, but the hon. Gentleman should not doubt that, throughout the process, we have wanted to listen to the voice of industry. We have considered it important to continue to work with industry, and have felt that initiatives should come from it. No one should be under any misapprehension, and imagine that our wish to work with industry and wait for it to develop its views constitutes a lack of leadership. For the reasons outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble, it is important for all the businesses concerned—including the small businesses to which he referred—to be brought on board. We think that we have achieved that, and that industry is now working with us.
Industry has always contended—and the Government have endorsed its view—that, if the United Kingdom is to attain the EC directive targets and comply with the requirements of that directive, the full co-operation and commitment of all sectors of the packaging chain will be needed. Only then will we be in a position to maximise industry's approach to producer responsibility for packaging. We have therefore consulted widely, taking into account a wide range of views from all sectors of industry—including major trade associations and the Confederation of British Industry—and the views of the Packaging Advisory Committee. On 18 December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the modifications that we will be making to the draft regulations that were issued for consultation in July. The amendments reflect the responses to that consultation, and maintain the consensus that has been generated over the past few years. We will lay the regulations before the House very shortly.
I listened to what the hon. Gentleman said about that. It is important for the obligation to extend widely, to as many firms as possible, and, in particular, for "free riders" to be deterred. We have been concerned about that throughout the process. We want a fair, wide-ranging and equitable system: that is the obligation.
The collective scheme—Valpak—is an important part of that. We have made it clear that we will leave it open to firms to choose individual routes if they wish to do so, although the collective scheme is there if they wish to take advantage of it. It is important for the Government not to place industry in a regulatory straitjacket but to allow it as much flexibility as possible to choose its preferred route and to express its views.
As time is running out, I shall respond to the other points made by the hon. Member for Normanton by writing to him. I should, however, emphasise to him and to the House that the Government have a wide-ranging and comprehensive strategy on this matter which is based on targets that we have set. We have ambitions to improve waste management as part of our overall environmental policy. We believe that we have already achieved a great deal, and we have created the mechanisms to achieve a great deal more in the future. That is our ambition.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Time is up.

Tourism (North-West)
1.30 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: Only a few months ago, Newsweek International, a reputable international magazine, carried the front-page headline, "Cool Britannia", and went on to explain how Britain was such a wonderful place for tourists to visit. Those of us who live in the United Kingdom already knew that, but such headlines will increase the growth of tourism in the UK, which has already grown so much. I believe that, as Britain has given away some of its unskilled manufacturing jobs to low-wage economies, we have developed more sophisticated methods of earning money—one of which is tourism, the world's fastest growing industry.
We had an extremely successful year in 1995. There were 24 million visits to the UK—a 14 per cent. increase on the previous year—which brought in £12 billion to the UK economy. The UK tourist industry now employs almost 2 million people, which is 7 per cent. of the work force and a 31 per cent. increase on the figure 10 years ago. The industry has the potential to create up to 1 million more jobs over the next 10 years.
Tourism is a key economic activity in the area covered by the north-west tourist board, which includes Cheshire, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside. Last year, visitors to the region spent slightly less than £1.5 billion, which accounts for at least 3 per cent. of the local gross domestic product. The figure is even higher in some parts of the region, such as in my constituency in the Ribble valley, and in Blackpool.
It is not surprising that so many jobs are dependent on tourism. In the most recent year for which figures are available, Blackpool, for example, attracted 19 million tourists, and even politicians trek there every two years. Its pleasure beach is Britain's No. 1 tourist attraction, with slightly fewer than 7.5 million visitors a year. Two years ago, its rollercoaster—the "Pepsi Max Big One"—was erected as a monument to my political career: it has as many ups as downs, and it takes ages to get up but only seconds to get down. Next year, the pleasure beach will open another ride, called the "Spaceshot", which represents a £2 million investment. We shall have to wait to see whose political career that will mirror.
The north-west also has less glitzy attractions. My constituency has a large area of outstanding natural beauty, which tourists visit to see historic abbeys, market towns and the forest of Boland. I congratulate the staff of the Clitheroe tourist office on their excellent and helpful approach to tourists. They always have a friendly smile when one goes there, and they are well stocked with leaflets and ready with helpful advice on where to go and stay in the area. I also congratulate them on their imaginative Internet website, which is available worldwide.
We have other tourist areas, such as Park Hall, in Charnock Richard, Chorley—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover)—which attracts many visitors.
Mr. Den Dover: Although I accept that Park Hall attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year and is a major regional tourist attraction, is my hon. Friend aware of misgivings in the south-east of my

295
constituency, in Rivington, about North West Water and United Utilities' promotion of the Lever Park Bill, to which I and other hon. Members will object?
We object because Lord Leverhulme, who established the Unilever empire, gave that land, and did not want it commercialised or entry or parking charges made. The Bill's spirit is to over-commercialise the park. I am against such commercialisation—which is appropriate at Park Hall but not at the heritage site left by Lord Leverhulme, whose wishes we should honour.
Mr. Evans: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, and I am aware of that situation. We must be very careful to ensure that we have areas to which we can attract tourists, and other areas that should perhaps be left unspoilt and not over-commercialised. In my constituency, Castle Cement has filed plans to quarry across the road from its current operation. The last thing that tourists would want to see in an area attempting to attract tourists is massive quarrying. That case is similar to the one mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Tourism creates jobs not only in the tourist sector but in non-tourist sectors—including shops, wholesalers and other providers of goods or consumables. It also creates jobs in transport, which is a massive job provider in the north-west. Manchester airport employs 14,000 people directly, and another 50,000 people in the region are dependent on the facility. The airport has plans to expand, which would double the number of off-site workers who are dependent on it. Its planned expansion includes a second runway, which I shall say more about.
London is an important magnet to attract tourists to the UK, but we must not be over-dependent on it. As world tourism increases, I want the United Kingdom to win its fair share of tourists, but I also want the regions to win their fair share of UK tourism. I have often said in the House that the Ribble valley is an extremely beautiful place and that I am proud of it. When tourists go there, I know that they enjoy its beautiful scenery. However, we are not attracting as many tourists as I would like.
For a variety of reasons, too many tourists stay in London, and are not aware of our wealth of historical sites, the beauty of our countryside, our restaurants or the number of things to do if they were to leave the capital and explore the provinces. The M25 must be regarded as a way out of London for tourists, not as a contraption to keep them in it. Therefore, we should ensure that tourists are attracted into the regions. Success in that drive will not only bring delight to those who discover the joys of the provinces, but will help local economies, such as that in the north-west.
In my constituency, for example, there are many hotels, restaurants and pubs which have won national awards. I am sure that visitors from other countries would enjoy visiting such places as the Inn at Whitewell, which this year won the pub of the year award. It is located in the area to which, allegedly, the Queen would like to retire—I suspect, not only for the beauty of the pub but for the beauty of the region. It is a smashing hotel.
We also have a restaurant called Heathcotes, which is renowned across the north-west and has won two Michelin stars, two Egon Ronay stars and other awards. The Gibbon Bridge hotel, in beautiful Chipping, boasts superb food and a beautiful garden setting. Northcote Manor is a hotel and restaurant, in Langho, which boasts
296
a Michelin star and has recently been expanded to accommodate increased demand by tourists in the area. Foxfields hotel is nearby, and the Myton Fold Farm hotel boasts excellent accommodation, and has recently built a golf course.
There are countless other fine hotels and pubs. If I were to try to list them all, the Minister would not have a chance to respond to this debate. However, they prove that one does not have to visit only London to enjoy what Britain has to offer. There are many extremely high-quality services and facilities outside London.
Approximately 200,000 people are employed or self-employed in tourism and hospitality in the regions, which is more than 6 per cent. of the area's work force. In the region, the number employed in those sectors is at least as large as the number employed in defence, aerospace, automotive, textiles and clothing. It is vital that all regions are given at least equal billing with London.
On a practical level, the English tourist board and the British Tourist Authority should ensure that all ports and airports into Britain, including the Eurostar terminal at Waterloo, display advertisements promoting the provinces. There should be kiosks to ensure that people who want to get out of London can do so, and are provided with all the necessary information.
The British Tourist Authority is promoting a package in the United States with Continental Airlines, and uses Manchester airport as the gateway for visitors to Britain. That is a fantastic idea, representing exactly the type of advertising we require to boost regional tourism. However, I should like to see more of it—more advertising like the highly successful campaign in Scandinavia promoting Manchester as a gateway for Swedes and Finns. I think that such campaigns could bring in extra tourism and business.
On a slightly different note, the Government greatly support the industry by helping the BTA and will next year subsidise it to the tune of £35 million. I also thank the Government for their grant of £7.5 million to the Lancashire Tourism Partnership, to help it to boost its tourism strategy. However, I hope that we can find still more imaginative ways to help new businesses and ideas in the area.
I congratulate the BTA on its Internet pages, but I wish that they contained more emphasis on attractions in the north-west. I was impressed by the BTA's clever idea of including a movie map showing film and television locations in Britain, many of which are in the north-west.
My only criticism of the map is that it misses off the film "Whistle Down the Wind". If I have mentioned that film once in the Chamber, I have mentioned it many times. It is set in the village of Downham in my constituency. One of the beauties of the place is that it is still wholly unspoilt, and the same as it was when that excellent film was made many years ago. We also have the Granada Television studios, home of Britain's longest-running and much-loved soap, "Coronation Street". There is a superb themed attraction next to the studios, which attracts many visitors.
On 1 April last year, Manchester airport celebrated 10 years as a public limited company. Since 1985, it has been voted the best United Kingdom airport five times by readers of travel trade magazines, and has been rated the world's best airport in a survey of airline passengers carried out by the International Air Transport Association.

297
They are just some of the awards that it has won. They are fantastic achievements, of which the airport and everyone who works there can rightly be proud.
The airport employs massive numbers of people, and provides indirect employment for many more. It currently serves 15 million passengers a year, and 30 per cent. of all UK holiday flights depart from Manchester. The key to the airport's success is expansion. I believe that it hopes to handle 30 million passengers a year by 2005. That means a doubling of traffic in under 10 years, and millions more visitors to the regions. In turn, the number of jobs created by the airport will be greatly increased.
Manchester airport has started a £550 million, 10-year capital spending programme, which includes a major redevelopment of the terminals, expanded rail links, a high-level fully enclosed walkway between the railway station and terminal 2, an integrated public transport exchange linking the rail and bus/coach stations, and, if the proposal goes ahead, the metrolink extension to the airport. These will all provide employment, and facilitate the arrival and journey on of any visitor.
The major plank of the programme, however, is the granting of planning permission for the second runway. I hope that the announcement today will give Manchester airport, which is already the third largest in the UK, the opportunity further to enhance its reputation as the jewel in the crown of regional airports. As it is one of the top 20 airports in the world at the moment, the expansion will surely put it at least in the top 10, and may give relief to Heathrow slots which are always under pressure. I hope that we shall hear some good news about the second runway at Manchester later today.
I must, however, issue a word of caution. There is much enthusiasm about the expansion of Manchester airport, and a further boost would be to facilitate an open skies policy in the UK. I fully understand how that would attract further carriers to Manchester, which would mean more tourists coming to the region. However, that must not be at the price of encouraging carriers to regard an open skies policy as an open door policy—an invitation to them to walk over us and not reciprocate with any deals.
I warn the chairman of Manchester airport, Labour Councillor Graham Stringer, that he should not turn the issue into a party political matter. He should not abuse his position as chairman of the airport by saying that it is the Government's fault that we do not currently have an open skies policy. No one has done more to help and promote Manchester airport and tourism than the Conservative Government.
Councillor Stringer should perhaps turn his attention to some of the damaging proposals that Labour might implement if the nightmare came true and it formed the next Government. Tourism has much to fear from a Labour Government, who would wreck it by imposing damaging and costly burdens. A Labour Government would sign up to the social chapter and adopt a minimum wage, thus undermining the competitiveness of that industry. The 48-hour directive is already threatening the industry—although we are fighting tooth and nail against its introduction, the Labour party would embrace it.
The cost of extending the rights of full-time staff to part-time and temporary employees—new Labour's tourism tax—would have to be met by consumers, who
298
would face higher prices, and by those who would lose their jobs as a result. A Labour Government would also extend the powers of European Union institutions to interfere specifically in tourism. For example, the party has stated:
"we do see the need for better and more co-ordinated tourism action in EU institutions."
From what we can see of Labour's plans for the industry, it talks tough but, in reality, the only people who would find it tough are those working in tourism. Everyone needs to know that Labour poses a serious threat to the tourism and leisure industry. For those people, it certainly would end all in tears.
Another way to boost tourism in the north-west would be quickly to upgrade the north-west coast main line to ensure that people who start their holiday in London are able to get to the north-west and other regions more speedily. I must applaud the work done by Regional Railways in the north-west, which has sent me a host of pamphlets advertising schemes in operation to show tourists what is on offer and inform them that they can take the train to various events. The rail companies liaise with the promoters of many special events, and put on special trains so that people can reach their destination in comfort.
One bugbear is that travelling to the north-west from London means using the M6. Although I applaud the expansion of that motorway, people travelling on a Friday or Sunday will find their journey extended by at least an hour as they try to get through Birmingham. I hope that we can direct our attention to freeing that bottleneck. Of course, some tourists want to travel from London by car because they have large families or want to travel beyond the region.
I hope that the Minister will carefully consider my suggestions. I know that he is a doughty fighter for tourists. He knows my area well and recognises the importance of tourism for the north-west, not only the present position but the potential for the future. If we continue our commitment to tourism into the next century, it will be good news for those people looking for work in the north-west and who see their future in that industry.
1.46 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this important debate. He is exceptionally well informed on tourism matters, and always works hard to ensure that the interests of his constituents and constituency are brought to the notice of the House.
I am also pleased that the House has another opportunity to debate tourism generally as well as the particular aspects affecting my hon. Friend's constituency so soon after we last did so on 29 November. It is a measure of the importance that hon. Members now place on tourism that this is the eighth debate on the subject in the House in the present Parliament.
The Government have long recognised the economic importance of tourism. Indeed, the Confederation of British Industry recently held a major conference on the future of Britain's tourism industry, which was addressed by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for National Heritage and the Deputy Prime Minister.

299
Tourism is set to be the world's biggest industry by the year 2000. It already generates £37 billion of income annually in the United Kingdom, and employs 1.8 million people. The UK welcomed a record 24 million overseas visitors in 1995, 1.2 million of whom chose to go to the north-west. Our earnings from overseas visitors were £12.1 billion, with £1.4 billion being spent in the north-west.
North-west trade and enterprise councils have identified tourism as one of the main sectors in the region offering good employment prospects. They estimate that the hotel and catering sector is likely to create 25,000 new jobs in the region before the millennium. That reflects the national picture—tourism has created one in five jobs over the past three years. If current trends continue, tourism will be a larger employer than manufacturing by the year 2012.
The latest World Tourism Organisation figures show that, in 1995, the UK's share of world tourism receipts rose from 4.4 per cent. to 5 per cent., reversing a 10-year downward trend. We are now in the top five in the international tourism league, and we must make sure that that improvement is sustained.
I am pleased that the north-west's tourism profile has been greatly enhanced. Former industrial areas have been transformed from derelict wastelands into thriving visitor locales, often using the area's rich industrial heritage.
There are many examples of how the region has responded positively to new opportunities for development. In Manchester, for example, the Castlefield project employs urban rangers to guide visitors and conserve the site, while the success of the Granada studio tours, which my hon. Friend mentioned, has greatly boosted the area. Liverpool's Albert dock and the King's dock have been regenerated as tourist attractions, with 5.5 million visits a year, creating over 2,000 jobs. The Hamilton quarter on the south side of the Mersey is another area in the process of regeneration. Wigan now has a heritage centre that is a shining example of the regeneration that can be achieved through tourism.
Partnership between private business, local authorities and the regional tourist boards is vital in this process. The Government have provided funding through the national lottery and the single regeneration budget. The former has provided £64 million for the new Lowry centre in Salford. Such projects will undoubtedly strengthen the tourism appeal of the north-west. Blackpool has been granted £19.3 million from the single regeneration budget, and Morecambe £4.3 million. In addition, many projects in the north-west benefit from the European regional development fund.
Although Manchester may be disappointed that Wembley has been designated as the site for the English national sports stadium, the city will certainly applaud the Sports Council's announcement that Manchester is to receive lottery awards of £60 million for a 50,000-to-60,000 capacity all-seater stadium and £20 million for a swimming pool complex. Those awards will enable the city to have the necessary facilities in place to host the 2002 Commonwealth games, which will further heighten the international profile of the north-west.
Blackpool remains the largest and most popular seaside resort in Europe. I am pleased that its central and north beaches were able to meet the EU's bathing water cleanliness standard last year.
300
The Department of National Heritage spends almost £1 billion a year, much of it on museums, galleries, the heritage and the arts, all of which are important generators of domestic and overseas tourism.
We have allocated £35 million to the British Tourist Authority for 1997–98, which is a slight reduction on this year, but more than it had ever received before that. That level of funding will allow the BTA to continue its excellent work. We should not forget that the BTA has had great success in attracting funding from the private sector, raising around £16 million this year.
Funding to the English tourist board has been maintained at its previously planned level, before allowing for a reallocation of funds to the Government's new sector challenge fund, giving a net figure of £9.9 million. That will allow the board to continue its important work on improving classification schemes, looking for ways to grow the domestic market, and helping the industry to improve its product.
It may sometimes appear to people in the north-west that we concentrate too much of our effort on attracting overseas visitors to London. My hon. Friend rightly raised that important point. We have indeed given extra money to the Focus London campaign, because research clearly shows that London is our greatest asset in attracting overseas visitors to this country. If Britain is to do well in the world tourism market, we need London to do well. It is the principal gateway to Britain.
However, once visitors have been motivated to come here, we can show what the country as a whole has to offer, and encourage them to travel around and stay elsewhere. In fact, the need to spread tourism more widely has been central to the campaign. I am sure the north-west will benefit greatly from that in the long term.
There is more to the Government's support for tourism than provision of funds. We have completed the programmes set out in "Tourism—Competing with the Best" nearly two years ago. With the Secretary of State's tourism advisory forum, which brings together representatives from the tourist boards, consumer groups, local government and the industry, including the Confederation of British Industry, we are now developing the next phase of our strategy.
The strategy will concentrate on six key areas: championing and raising the profile of tourism; increasing competitiveness; improving the quality of the tourism product; improving service quality; making marketing more effective; and managing the impact of tourism. It will provide a clear statement of our objectives for tourism, and will set an agenda for future action.
For the strategy to succeed, we need the participation of all the key players—central and local government, the tourist boards and all the many sectors of the industry must work together. We will make every effort to ensure that the new strategy fully involves the industry and meets the needs and concerns of all parts of the country, including the north-west.
Tourism is dominated by small enterprise, having around 250,000 small businesses. The Government recognise the key role played by small firms in the economy, providing new ideas, new services and new jobs. Small firms need stability, a growing economy, low inflation and low interest rates. Our policies provide an environment in which they can succeed.

301
Our economy is in its fifth year of sustained growth, and we have had the longest period of low inflation for almost half a century. That is particularly beneficial to tourism, because those are the economic conditions in which leisure and business travel can thrive. Over the past 25 years, average real household disposable income has risen by 45 per cent.
The Budget includes measures to help small business: in addition to the reduction in the basic rate of income tax, corporation tax on small companies is cut to 23p, the business rate on small properties is frozen next year, and the VAT registration threshold is increased. After these changes, the UK tax rate on company profits up to £300,000 will be the lowest in the EU.
We have worked with other Government Departments significantly to reduce the burden of regulation on the industry. We want fewer, simpler, better regulations. To that end, we have simplified the rules on food hygiene, fire safety and electricity in the workplace, we have created a much less cumbersome regime on signposting, and we have extended opening hours for pubs. Our many deregulatory reforms are of particular benefit to small firms. All legislative proposals that affect them now include a small firms litmus test to show the impact of legislation on the sector.
We have been looking particularly closely at the EU working time directive. The Government continue to regard its imposition as unreasonable, and we intend to insist on changes to the treaty to ensure that social measures are never again imposed on the UK in this way.
Of course we must obey the law, but we are determined that there will be no gold plating of this, or any other, European regulation when it is implemented in the UK. We have been discussing with representatives of the industry the possible effects of the directive on their business, and will ensure that their views are fully taken into account. There are derogations for tourism in the directive, and we intend to ensure that the industry receives the fullest possible benefit. No one can doubt the
302
cost of such measures to the industry. The British Hospitality Association has suggested that the cost to its sector might be as much as £100 million.
We continue to resist the imposition of the social chapter, for the same reason. It is not difficult to see why the latest survey of the UK economy by the Organisation for European Co-operation and Development records a steady drop in structural unemployment, and concludes:
"the better jobs and inflation record reflects the UK's greater exposure to market forces and competition."
The well-being of tourism depends on the kind of flexible labour market policies that the Government pursue, which the social chapter would destroy. A study by the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics shows that the UK has the second lowest non-wage labour costs in the EU, with only Denmark's being lower. The UK is the only G7 country to have seen a fall in the rate of non-wage labour costs since 1990.
The majority of research evidence supports the Government's view that a national minimum wage would lead to considerable job losses, particularly among more vulnerable young and unskilled workers. Research by the Department for Education and Employment shows that a national minimum wage set at £4.15 per hour, as advocated by some trade unions, could cost 950,000 jobs nationally if pay differentials were half restored, and 1.8 million jobs if they were fully restored. It is, sadly, significant that the EU countries with a minimum wage and the social chapter, such as France and Spain, have very high levels of youth unemployment.
Our policies aim to deliver the maximum economic and social benefits from tourism. Tourism is a major source of jobs, both now and for the future. It is a major contributor to economic regeneration, and provides valuable income to our cultural heritage, which is so important to the quality of life. Government policies are designed to ensure that Britain strengthens its position as one of the world's leading tourism destinations, and the north-west is well placed to benefit from that continued success.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Bhutan, Nepal and Tibet. [9231]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. Liam Fox): We enjoy excellent relations with the kingdoms of Nepal and Bhutan.
    Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous, while recognising the special position of the Chinese there. That remains our view.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the plight of the Bhutanese refugees in Nepal merits much greater international attention? Is he satisfied that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is sufficiently proactive in seeking a proper settlement by involving an independent panel to verify the nationality status of those seeking to return to Bhutan? Does he agree that we should drop the easy, quick solution of appeasement and that we should not forget the real plight of the refugees?
    Dr. Fox: We believe that the UNHCR is doing an excellent job. It runs camps for about 90,000 refugees in Bhutan in liaison with Save the Children and other non-governmental organisations. The Government have contributed about £475,000 to those camps in the past three years to support the refugees. We take the plight of the refugees very seriously. I raised the issue specifically with Prime Minister Deuba when I visited Nepal last year and again when he visited London this year. We raise the issue at every opportunity, but ultimately it is a matter for the Bhutan and Nepalese Governments.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's proposals to assist the middle east peace process in 1997. [9233]
    Mr. Burden: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east. [9243]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I warmly welcome the agreement on redeployment of Israeli troops in Hebron. The agreement is a vital step in unblocking the middle east peace process: it follows persistent efforts on all sides. King Hussein's intervention was particularly helpful, building on the efforts of the United States and the rest of the international community. It is now important to move on swiftly to other outstanding elements of the interim agreement. The
    304
    Syrian and Lebanese tracks should also be urgently pursued. The peace process must continue to move forward.
    Mr. Gunnell: I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply. All reasonable people will join him in whole-heartedly welcoming the agreement. Does he agree that one of the remaining issues is the timetable which the agreement has set for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the west bank? Is it not important that it includes all areas except the settlements and Jerusalem, which have been left for final status discussions? Does the Foreign Secretary see ways in which the British Government can help to ensure that progress is made on that and the other tracks of the peace agreement that he mentioned?
    Mr. Rifkind: The Hebron deal needs to be followed swiftly by implementation of the other outstanding elements of the interim agreement: redeployment in areas B and C on the west bank, the release of Palestinian prisoners and free passage between the west bank and Gaza.
    Mr. Burden: May I add my welcome to today's announcement of the agreement and express my hope that it means that the building blocks of a lasting peace in the middle east are being put back in place? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that many of the recent difficulties have arisen from prevarication and delay in the implementation of existing agreements? I hope that today's announcement will herald a way of tackling the outstanding issues—many of which he referred to, such as the issue of prisoners, communications between the west bank and Gaza and the withdrawal from rural areas—rather than heralding any further delays in those matters.
    Mr. Rifkind: Clearly, the new element was the election of a different Israeli Government as a result of the Israeli general election, which has led to a period of considerable uncertainty. The decision to reach agreement on Hebron is however a very, very decisive step in the right direction. It means that for the first time Mr. Netanyahu and his Government have formally committed themselves to a crucial part of the Oslo peace process and the commitments that their predecessors were also trying to take forward. It could be the start of a very important and welcome new phase in the negotiations.
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: I accept the views expressed by everyone—I am sure—in the House on the crucial nature of the agreement. Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind in any discussions with Israeli Ministers that there are wider issues too? The future economic development of the Palestinians is crucial, and without free movement between the Gaza strip, the west bank and east Jerusalem, where many Palestinians want to work, it could be threatened. Will he bring all his influence to bear on bringing sense to that matter?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the matter is crucial. I raised it directly with Mr. Netanyahu, both when I saw him in Israel and when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I saw him in Lisbon. We have also encouraged through the European Union a study of the economic needs of the Palestinians in the west bank and of Gaza

    305
    and hope that it will lead to rapid improvements, particularly in access for, and free movement of, those who live in those territories.
    Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that coalition government and a multi-party Cabinet, which is the result of the system of proportional representation that this country should certainly avoid, gave Prime Minister Netanyahu particular difficulties in reaching the agreement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend therefore accept that the Israeli Prime Minister deserves not only congratulations on his persistence and determination in reaching the agreement but our continuing support in bringing the other parties—Syria and Lebanon especially—to the negotiating table, so that further progress can be made?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with my right hon. Friend. The electoral arrangements in Israel certainly gave rise to the difficulties referred to, but its recent constitutional changes also provided for the direct election of the Prime Minister. I am not sure whether that innovation would be more welcome in this country than proportional representation.
    Mr. Janner: I welcome the agreement fully. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Israel is a turbulent democracy and that one of the problems with all democracies, including our own, is that all too often they elect bad Governments for whom we did not vote?
    Mr. Rifkind: I believe that the electorate are always supreme. I appreciate why that consideration may not appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Sir Cyril Townsend: Will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the part played by King Hussein in reaching the agreement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, unless very firm action is taken to prevent the expansion of the settlements and the construction of new ones, much of what we have been talking about will be totally swept away by attacks on the ground?
    Mr. Rifkind: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent knighthood.
    I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that the achievements of the past few days could be overtaken if there were intemperate behaviour, with regard to either expansion of settlements or other actions that might be seen as particularly provocative.
    Mr. Fatchett: I add the Opposition's support for and pleasure at the agreement that has been signed. I offer our thanks to all those who have assisted in that process and especially draw attention to the very positive contribution made by King Hussein of Jordan, which will be widely recognised and acknowledged as a key element in the peace process.
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the agreement has to be seen as one step on the road of the peace process and that the crucial issue is that it is up and running again? Does he also agree that civilised opinion throughout the world would be opposed to all those who tried to prevent the implementation of this agreement? Will the Foreign
    306
    Secretary tell the House what steps he will take to assist the continued development of the peace process, in the clear knowledge that any attempt to halt that process is damaging to the interests of the people of both Israel and Palestine?
    Mr. Rifkind: King Hussein has been a superb force for moderation and progress over many years. His latest contribution deserves the tribute of the House and of all those interested in peace in the middle east.
    For the future, the United Kingdom Government believe strongly that the role of the international community is to assist those who are working for peace. We do not believe that separate initiatives by this country or Europe as opposed to America would be productive. We believe that the western countries can work together and help in a constructive way to facilitate the peace process.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current developments in former Yugoslavia. [9234]
    Mr. Rifkind: Throughout this crisis, the British Government have been pressing President Milosevic in the clearest possible terms to accept democratic principles and to recognise the opposition victories. On 2 December and on subsequent occasions, I called on President Milosevic to respect democratic institutions and the election results. Moreover, we have backed those words with action. We cancelled the December visit to the United Kingdom of the Deputy Prime Minister of the former Republic of Yugoslavia and we have strongly supported the EU decision to suspend the planned extension of trade concessions to Belgrade. We have also invited a leading member of the Serbian opposition to London. We will continue to maintain this pressure for as long as it is necessary.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his encouraging words. As he knows, half a million people have been out on the streets of Belgrade for 55 days protesting against a thoroughly discredited regime. Much as I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks, is he aware that the public in Belgrade are under the impression that Her Majesty's Government have not been as supportive of the opposition as they have been? Will he press the endeavours that he has described to give public and unequivocal support to the opposition, who are undoubtedly reflecting the will of the people of Yugoslavia today?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The cancellation of the visit to this country by the Deputy Prime Minister of the former Republic of Yugoslavia goes beyond the action of any other European Union member state. We strongly identify with all those who are seeking respect for democratic elections and for the result of the elections that have already taken place. There has been some limited progress in the various concessions about which we have heard recently, but we will continue to

    307
    apply national pressure and pressure along with our friends and allies until President Milosevic shows total respect for the democratic process.
    Mr. Wareing: I support the Government's attitude in respect of the manipulation of elections in Serbia. However, can the Foreign Secretary explain why there is a difference between our attitude to Serbia and our attitude to Croatia? Not long ago, the mayor of Zagreb was refused office by President Tudjman; yet, while sanctions are threatened against Serbia, Croatia is rewarded with a place in the Council of Europe. What is the explanation?
    Mr. Rifkind: We certainly do not have double standards. Along with other member states, we were cautious about Croatia's application to join the Council of Europe, and it perhaps took longer than had been anticipated. We attach importance to the significant events to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the disturbing events in Belgrade in recent weeks show where most of the blame lies for the appalling misery that has been inflicted on the former Yugoslavia in recent years? Do not those events justify the warnings that some of us gave as long ago as 1991?
    Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that there has ever been any disagreement about the disgraceful way in which Mr. Milosevic encouraged many of the problems that existed in not only his country but Bosnia-Herzegovina to evolve. In so far as there were differences of view, they were not about the origin of many of the problems but were about the best way to address them in subsequent years.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Looking a little further on Yugoslavia, is not one of the most substantial obstacles to the return of normality to that country the presence of so many anti-personnel land mines, which were scattered indiscriminately by all sides in the conflict? What steps are being taken to clear those land mines, which take their toll of civilians rather than soldiers? In view of the increasing support for a ban from former senior military commanders and other notable figures, why will the Government not take a lead and, once and for all, abandon the production, use, export and sale of all anti-personnel land mines?
    Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the statement by a Red Cross official this morning welcoming the Government's policy. That policy is simple and straightforward: we support a multilateral, universal ban on land mines, as called for in several quarters. We welcome the support given to that policy, as does the Red Cross.
    Mr. Robin Cook: May I associate the Opposition in full with the Government's criticisms of the refusal by President Milosevic to accept the democratic outcome of elections? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, if it is the case that the public in Belgrade are not aware of those criticisms, it may be because television is totally under the control of President Milosevic? Have not the events of the past few weeks demonstrated how much further the president must travel to guarantee the freedom of the
    308
    broadcasting media and the independence of the supreme courts? Finally, can the Foreign Secretary confirm that there can be no question of President Milosevic receiving the aid that he was promised in the Dayton agreement unless he carries out his obligations to deliver democracy to Serbia and to deliver war criminals to the international tribunal?
    Mr. Rifkind: I very much welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. One of the most important ways in which freedom is suppressed in that country is by control over the media, and one of the successful examples of international pressure has been the efforts led by the United Kingdom to allow the reopening of the independent radio station that Mr. Milosevic closed in December. That station is now functioning again and, through that means and others, the people of that country are gaining access to news of what is going on in the world.

    Indonesia
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current British relations with the Indonesian Government. [9236]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): Indonesia's size and strategic location make it a major player in south-east Asia and a growing market for British exports. The Government attach great importance to the bilateral political and economic relationship.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister justify to the House today the reasons for the Government's agreement to the export of 50 armoured vehicles and associated water cannon to Indonesia? Will he explain what monitoring the Government will undertake of their end use and will he tell the House what he intends to do if those materials are used for the purposes of repression? Will he give a clear indication that the Government do not support the repressive regime in Indonesia?
    Mr. Hanley: As the hon. Gentleman and the House know, all sovereign states enjoy the right to self-defence under article 51 of the UN charter and all applications to export defence equipment are examined regularly on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria and internationally agreed guidelines. The human rights issue is a key factor and, as the House will know, not all applications are approved. Details of licenses approved and refused are placed in the Library of the House of Commons by equipment category. We have refused entirely at least 11 licences for Indonesia since October 1993 and made partial refusals on a further three applications.
    As for UK-supplied water cannons, the water cannon is an instrument of crowd control and is used for that purpose in many western countries. Water cannons provide an alternative to more lethal methods deployed in the past and we expect them to be used in accordance with international guidelines.
    Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Indonesia is not only a friendly country but the fourth

    309
    most populous country in the world, that it is developing well as a future tiger economy and that its interests in our exports are in not only military and police equipment but a range of goods and services—not least the successful Health Action Asia delegation, which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health led to Indonesia last year?
    Mr. Hanley: I very much agree with my hon. Friend.
    On water cannon, we have raised with the Indonesians our concerns that UK-supplied crowd control equipment should not be used indiscriminately or to disperse peaceful demonstrations in violation of the universal human rights of freedom of speech, organisation and assembly. My hon. Friend is right to state that Indonesia is the fourth most populous country in the world, and it is an important country with which to do business. Isolating Indonesia would not help at all.
    Sir David Steel: The Minister has just told us that the Government support the street demonstrations in Serbia. Is he aware that the street demonstrations in Indonesia have been suppressed by water cannon, as shown in photographs that I am sending him today? Will he study those photographs and change his mind about the further export of water cannon?
    Mr. Hanley: No one would condone the excessive use of force, but in the face of violent rioting there is a legitimate requirement to protect life and property.

    European Union (Frontier Controls)
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with his European counterparts about frontier controls within the European Union. [9237]
    Mr. Rifkind: The intergovernmental conference has discussed possible developments of justice and home affairs on a number of occasions. We have made it clear that we will take whatever steps are necessary to maintain our frontier controls.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in addition to the need to block entry to this country by drug dealers, terrorists and other undesirable elements, we need to control the migration from eastern Europe and beyond by people who are motivated by economic factors rather than genuinely seeking asylum? Will he assure the House that, during the IGC, he and his Home Office colleagues will continue to resist vigorously any pressure to sign up to the Schengen treaty, accession to which would hopelessly compromise our existing controls and would, I suggest, put the security of this country at risk?
    Mr. Rifkind: I can give my hon. Friend that unqualified assurance. We have no intention of acceding to the Schengen controls. Our commitments under the single market relate to the free movement of EU citizens, and it is crucial for us to maintain controls as regards citizens from third countries. We have every intention of maintaining those controls in the years to come.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will not agree to anything within the EU
    310
    that will ensure that the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain is treated any differently—apart from customs union matters—from the frontiers between Spain and Portugal and between Spain and France?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that this is an important matter. The hon. Gentleman may have seen press reports that suggest that the Spanish are considering restricting the use of Gibraltar passports, but we have made it clear that that would be totally unacceptable. The general response from the Spanish has been encouraging, and I expect a formal reply to our representations in the near future. We will study that reply carefully.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that we will resist all the pressure from a number of our more federally minded European partners to make all borders come down and to have one immigration policy? Does he think that it is a mockery for a political party that espouses being tough on borders and tough on immigration policy then to agree quietly to get rid of all our immigration policies by having a pan-European one, as is happening with the Labour party?
    Mr. Rifkind: Yes, there is a particular problem for those who say that they do not believe in any permanent opt-outs. The United Kingdom has opted out of controls such as the Schengen policy. If one believes that opt-outs are purely temporary, it is simply a question of when one abandons frontier controls—not a question of the principle. So far as the Government are concerned, these frontier controls are permanent and will not be removed.

    Council of Ministers Secretariat
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the current secretariat of the Council of Ministers and associated staff, engaged in political co-operation within the European Union, were in post in December; and what estimates he has made of the staff consequences arising from adopting recent proposals in respect of extending activity relating to political co-operation. [9238]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Davis): Two thousand, five hundred and twenty-nine staff were employed to the Council secretariat in 1996. The task of the secretariat is to help the presidency in administering and co-ordinating the work of the Council of Ministers in all its functions. The secretariat has informed us that 29 of these people work directly on common foreign and security policy. It is not yet possible to assess changes to the secretariat after the IGC is concluded.
    Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that the proposals from the Irish presidency for consideration at the revision of the treaty at Amsterdam include specific proposals for enhancing the profile of the Secretary-General in re foreign and security policy matters, increasing planning staff and giving the presidency powers of diplomatic representation, supported principally by the secretariat and the Commission, which would thereby and of their own account have increased diplomatic powers in third

    311
    countries? Would that not be the end of co-operation and the development of a pan-European Foreign Office in its own right?
    Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman has a point in terms of the intentions of some of our European Union colleagues. Perhaps it would be worth while if I explained briefly what our intentions were and what we have proposed, because there is great support within the Union for the British proposal.
    The main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's first question concerned the secretariat. Our proposal is to reinforce the planning cell, so that when there are differences of view between different parts of the Union it is because of a difference of interest—making it reasonable to exercise the veto and withhold consensus—rather than of analysis. Our proposal would add about five or six people to the current foreign service planning personnel.
    On representation, we have made it very clear that so-called Monsieur or Madame Pesc should be entirely subordinate to the Council and therefore remain within the control of the nation states; as such, it will not undermine co-operation.
    Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend agree that an important aspect of political co-operation is that agreements once made should be rapidly implemented? Can he therefore tell us what steps the Government have taken to ratify the Europe-Israel trade agreement and what progress is being made among our partner countries to take the same action?
    Mr. Davis: The trading provisions came into effect on 1 January last year, and are currently being taken forward.

    Legislative Council
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take the Chinese Government's decision to abolish the Hong Kong Legislative Council to the International Court of Justice and the Security Council. [9240]
    Mr. Rifkind: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement on the provisional legislature that I issued on 20 December 1996, a copy of which has been placed in the Libraries of the House. I said that we would be willing to join China in submitting the question of a provisional legislature to independent legal settlement, for example to the International Court of Justice. The Chinese Government have not accepted that proposal.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for a serious, if belated, answer to a serious question. Does he agree that the Chinese decision to abolish the Legislative Council is contradictory and damaging to the joint declaration and to democracy in Hong Kong? That decision derails the through train of democracy, allows the Chinese to impose their own terms on franchises and qualifications for standing and bodes ill for an easy transition. Will he raise the matter in every available forum of world opinion and say that, if the Chinese do not agree, as he said in his November statement, to put it to the international court, they must have something to hide, and that is unacceptable?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The requirements of the joint declaration and the Basic Law
    312
    envisage an elected Legislative Council, and I do not believe that it can be seriously proposed that a hand-picked electorate of 400—the body that chose the provisional legislature—in any way meets those requirements. We have made our views clear, and the Democratic party in Hong Kong has welcomed the British Government's response to the Chinese action. Good statements have been made by the United States and several other countries, and the Chinese can be in no doubt about the serious view of their action taken not only by the United Kingdom but by the international community.

    Human Rights (Commonwealth)
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure maximum compliance with human rights in other Commonwealth countries. [9241]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We support fully the Harare declaration and the Millbrook action plan.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Government be resolute and strong at the forthcoming 52nd United Nations Commission on Human Rights meeting in Geneva in a few weeks to secure a clear resolution about reinstating human rights in Nigeria, and do they consider the Amnesty 10-point programme an acceptable basis for bringing Nigeria back into line in the family of civilised nations in the Commonwealth?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The Government are doing everything they can to bring Nigeria back into line. The conduct of the Nigerian Government is currently wholly unacceptable. The United Nations forum, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is one of the ways in which we shall seek to bring them back into line.
    We also fully support the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which recently visited Nigeria and which has made four specific proposals. It recommended the prompt restoration of accountable civilian government, the immediate release of all political prisoners, including Chief Abiola, the rapid resolution of the case of the 19 Ogonis, who face the same charges as Ken Saro-Wiwa and his associates faced, and a review of prison conditions. Her Majesty's Government will do everything they can to ensure that those conditions are fulfilled.
    Mr. Butterfill: Does my hon. Friend agree that human rights are best guaranteed by the election of democratic Governments, not only in the Commonwealth but elsewhere in the world, particularly in the middle east? Does he agree that, if there were democratic Governments in the middle east—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question refers to Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister make it clear to the Government of Jamaica that there is widespread revulsion in the House—as shown by large numbers of signatures on early-day motions—at the continual suppression of human rights in Jamaica by the violation of the rulings of

    313
    the judicial committee of the Privy Council that prisoners should not be held on death row for more than five years? That is evidenced by the harsh and brutal treatment of prisoners, the inhuman conditions in which they are kept and the denial to them of access to medical attention. Is it not hypocritical of the Jamaican Government to sign British Commonwealth declarations about human rights everywhere else, but to suppress human rights in Jamaica?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that conditions in Jamaican prisons are unacceptable. No prisoner, either in Jamaica or elsewhere, should be kept on death row any longer than is absolutely necessary. All judicial processes to review a sentence of death should happen speedily. We shall continue to press the Jamaican Government on those matters.

    Intergovernmental Conference
    Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in the intergovernmental conference. [9242]
    Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the intergovernmental conference. [9247]
    Mr. David Davis: Negotiations in the intergovernmental conference will continue under the Dutch presidency on the basis of the draft revision of the treaties submitted by the Irish presidency. The Dublin European Council reaffirmed the target of completing the IGC at the Amsterdam European Council.
    Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend think that the antics of the so-called Euro-sceptics and their friends in the Murdoch and Black press strengthen or weaken his hand in the negotiations at the IGC?
    Mr. Davis: Madam Speaker—[Interruption.] That question was clearly drafted by my officials!
    My attitude towards negotiations in the European Union starts and finishes with the interests of our country, and nothing else.
    Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister aware that, last month, the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee praising the European Commission's efforts to combat fraud in the European budget? Will the Minister take this opportunity to praise the European Commission's efforts to ensure that the single market works effectively in all countries?
    Mr. Davis: This country has been at the forefront of the battle against fraud, and of the battle to make the single market work.
    Mr. Churchill: When the Gadarene swine are in full cry, is it appropriate to adopt a wait-and-see policy? Is it not about time we jettisoned that policy and campaigned against a single European currency, which is against the interests of the United Kingdom and against the interests of the European Union as a whole? Is it not significant
    314
    that the country that claims to be most in favour of a single currency—at least in political terms—is Germany, although popular opinion there is overwhelmingly opposed to Chancellor Kohl's view?
    Mr. Davis: I will resist the temptation to tell my hon. Friend to wait and see. Irrespective of whether we are in the first round, the single European currency matters enormously to Britain. The way in which it is designed and set up matters enormously because our markets are, to a large extent, in the European Union. That is why the Government's policy is the policy that is best for this country.
    Mr. Robin Cook: Can the Minister explain why, during the recess, the major statement on the intergovernmental conference was made by the Health Secretary? Did he hear the Foreign Secretary tell the "Today" programme that he rang up the Health Secretary because he wanted to be certain about what his views were? Does not he find it rather odd that the Foreign Secretary should be obliged to ring around the Cabinet to find out the latest views on Europe? Does he really think that Britain can provide a lead in Europe when every statement from Cabinet Ministers is not about serving the national interest but about serving their interests in the Tory leadership race that they expect to start very soon?
    Mr. Davis: On the division of labour among Front-Bench spokesmen on European policy, I hardly think that the right hon. Gentleman has a monopoly of criticism. It was his leader, not the right hon. Gentleman, who leapt to re-present Labour's policy when we made it clear at Dublin that if there were a Labour victory at the next general election, on 1 May, there would be six surrenders in six weeks. That is what this country must defend itself against and our Health Secretary believes just as much as I do that it must be resisted.
    Sir Roger Moate: As my hon. Friend clearly agrees with the Health Secretary's call for a renegotiation of our relationship with the European Union, is it not equally logical that, just as the original negotiations were put to the people in a referendum, the results of those renegotiations should be put to the people in a referendum?
    Mr. Davis: Another helpful question. The IGC will, almost by definition, be a renegotiation. The British Government will present to the IGC a vision of a decentralised, deregulated and competitive Europe that is in the interests of this country and its people. The people of this country will recognise that at the next general election.

    Burma
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to support democratic forces in Burma. [9244]
    Mr. Hanley: We continue to take action, nationally and with our European Union partners, to put pressure on the ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council to implement democratic reform and full respect for human rights in Burma.
    Mrs. Fyfe: In view of Aung San Suu Kyi's statement at Christmas that repression in Burma is getting worse,

    315
    will the Minister say whether there are any European Union proposals to impose sanctions? Is there any truth in the rumour that the United Kingdom and France are seeking to delay sanctions? If there is, how much worse does the situation in Burma have to become before he agrees to impose sanctions?
    Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom has set out its policy to Parliament on many occasions. Our priority is to support democratic reform and respect for human rights in Burma through the policy of critical dialogue. We believe that that will achieve more than total sanctions. We have recently adopted a European Union common position on Burma, which has imposed a ban on entry visas for senior members of the ruling council and for senior military and security force officials, as well as a ban on high-level bilateral visits to Burma. Combined with our suspension of non-humanitarian official aid, that means that we are doing a great deal to try to help persuade the ruling junta that it should accept democratic principles. We continue to raise our concerns bilaterally through our ambassador, Robert Gordon, in Rangoon. I summoned the Burmese ambassador only last month to urge dialogue with pro-democracy groups.
    Sir Cranley Onslow: The House will be glad to have heard what my hon. Friend said, but will he go further? Is it not time that we discouraged British tourists from going to Burma and supporting that regime?
    Mr. Hanley: The European common position does not ban tourism. We have no plans to discourage, or encourage, tourism to Burma. If our citizens were to find travel there dangerous, our policy might change but, at present, we believe that it is up to individuals to decide. We take great pains to try to inform individuals not only of the risks involved were they to go to Burma but of the nature of the regime that they would encounter.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome what the Government have been doing, but does not the Minister think that more should be done to side with people who stayed with us in the fight against Nazism in the last war and to support the Karen people?
    Mr. Hanley: I thoroughly agree about support for the Karen people, who have suffered something akin to genocide. We greatly deplore that and we have supplied considerable humanitarian aid in the border regions of Burma, and will continue to do so.

    Ministerial Meetings (European Union)
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official meetings he attended in the European Union in 1996; and in how many meetings he discussed the expansion of the Community. [9245]
    Mr. David Davis: Last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary attended nearly 30 official EU meetings, including eight General Affairs Councils and two European Councils. The enlargement of the EU was a frequent subject of discussion at nearly all of them.
    Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the European Union we must concentrate on creating jobs and
    316
    opportunities for business in Europe so that we can use Europe's market potential to our advantage and that of all European peoples? Does he agree that the danger is that Europe, instead of trying to bring in other countries and expand, is trying to become a federalist super-state? The British view and the Government's view must prevail if we are to achieve the job opportunities in Europe that we want.
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend is right. Employment is the most important issue in Europe at the moment and the best model for improving employment in Europe is that of free trade, deregulation and low taxes—the British model.
    Mr. Llew Smith: When discussing the possible expansion of the European Community, did the Minister bring to the attention of the countries involved article 107 of the Maastricht treaty, which makes it obvious that it is illegal for democratically elected and accountable Parliaments to try to influence the undemocratic and unelected central bank? As the unelected central bank will have so many powers over our economy, did the Minister say that if we were to accept the article, the vote and the democratically elected Parliaments would become increasingly irrelevant?
    Mr. Davis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. One issue very much at the forefront of the concerns of some of the would-be accession countries such as the Czech Republic is the effect of monetary union. The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic referred to monetary union as the most important event in Europe's history in the past 50 years.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Were the European Union to be expanded, would not the common agricultural policy and the system of structural funds become totally unviable? Given that proposition, can my hon. Friend give an assurance that those two issues will be at the top of the list of priorities in the forthcoming discussions?
    Mr. Davis: Indeed I can. Reform of the CAP and of the structural funds is, if anything, more important than the intergovernmental conference in allowing the enlargement of Europe to the east and south. If those two measures are not reformed, it will place a critical—indeed, unbearable—burden on the taxpayers of Europe. Therefore, the two issues are very much at the top of our list of priorities.
    Ms Quin: I congratulate the Minister on his new right honourable status.
    How many of the meetings referred to in the question have dealt with quota hopping and the working time directive, which are apparently make-or-break issues for the Government at the IGC? Will the Minister list the countries that support the Government's line on each of those issues?
    Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Lady for her gracious congratulations. Some people have said that PC is not a description normally applied to me.
    One of the difficulties that we must face is that much of the movement in a negotiation takes place in the last few days. I do not expect other countries to volunteer

    317
    support for our position until the last few days—when they realise that they must do so to deliver a result. I take it from what the hon. Lady says that she is not suggesting that we give up the interests of British fisherman to get a result in Europe.

    Foreign Language Services
    Sir Jim Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the BBC World Service about reductions in foreign language services in the next financial year. [9246]
    Mr. Hanley: No proposal for language service closures has been submitted or is under discussion with this Department.
    Sir Jim Spicer: I thank my right hon. Friend for the increased grant to the World Service of the BBC this year and, incidentally, I thank him and my other right hon. Friends in the Foreign Office for the increased grant to the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Does he understand that the BBC World Service holds a unique position and that we all take pride in its work? Will he give an undertaking that, in the years ahead when we still constitute the Government, we will increase that grant, year on year?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right—the BBC World Service is an important national asset and the Government have a strong record of support for the service. Real-terms funding has grown by 53 per cent. since 1978–79. In foreign language services, 43 languages excluding English are currently being used, compared with 39 language services in 1979 and 37 in 1989. Therefore, the 3.1 per cent. increase in cash terms over 1995–96 was a vote of confidence in the World Service. We also increased the money from the know-how fund and paid extra money towards the three relay stations. I believe that the World Service is now well suited for its needs and should be able to carry out its expansion within current financial plans.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the Minister fully satisfied with some of the services in the far east? There has certainly been some curtailment in regions such as China—regions that we would greatly like to influence and with which we will have to trade in future. Should not there be an expansion in such areas so as to increase United Kingdom influence?
    Mr. Hanley: As I have said on several occasions, we have expanded the service—indeed, the new transmission arrangements in Thailand will help to spread the service still further. I believe that the service is still growing. Obviously, it must look at each service according to the demand for that service and, therefore, we cannot guarantee that there will always be the same number of languages, but the recent pattern has been one of expansion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the service is well received in the far east and I was pleased recently to announce an extra service so that people in northern China could hear the service even better.

    Ministerial Meetings
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet his counterparts from the United States of America and former dominions to discuss greater integration within the framework of the World Trade Organisation. [9248]
    Mr. Rifkind: I am planning to meet my American and Australian counterparts soon to discuss a variety of issues.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the United States and the former dominions—Australia, Canada and New Zealand—not only share a common language and a common legal system, which makes business so much easier between them, but are going through a period of growth, in contrast with continental Europe, which is experiencing decline? Does he agree that the last thing that companies in my constituency, such as Fairmile Fencing, which exports to the United States of America, and people at work in my constituency want is, first, a trade war between the European Union and the United States and, secondly, a Labour Government who would surrender the four areas of veto that we currently have and create in the United Kingdom the levels of unemployment that are currently being suffered in Europe?
    Mr. Rifkind: I am certainly clear in my mind that companies throughout the United Kingdom, including the one to which my hon. Friend referred, welcome the breakdown of economic trade barriers between north America and western Europe and are conscious of the fact that the United Kingdom leads Europe in reducing unemployment and providing job opportunities for its people.
    Mr. MacShane: Is it not a fact that, at the world trade conference, Great Britain and the United States found themselves on opposite sides of an important fence? The United States wanted the World Trade Organisation to set up a working party on child labour and the British Government sided with authoritarian countries that said that child labour should not be discussed. May I invite the Foreign Secretary, in his last few weeks of office, to consider donning the mantle of William Wilberforce? As Wilberforce led a great campaign to outlaw slave labour in the last century, let Britain take a lead in campaigning against and outlawing child labour in the next century.
    Mr. Rifkind: The British Government have a position that has been agreed with all our European partners; the United Kingdom does not stand alone on this issue. We deplore, as much as the hon. Gentleman does, the use of child labour. It has been pointed out that these are issues for which the International Labour Organisation exists, and should be raised with it. It is not sensible, in our judgment, or in the judgment of most other countries, to be tempted into dealing with these matters via the World Trade Organisation. That organisation has important responsibilities, as has the ILO. Those respective responsibilities should be recognised.

    Middle East Peace Process
    Sir Robert Hicks: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives the United Kingdom Government propose to take to promote the middle east peace process; and if he will make a statement. [9250]
    Mr. Rifkind: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier.
    Sir Robert Hicks: Although I welcome the Hebron agreement, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would still be sensible to defer ratification of the Euro-Mediterranean association agreement between the European Union and Israel until all the objectives of the Oslo accords timetable have been met?
    Mr. Rifkind: No, I do not agree. I believe that the Hebron agreement that has been reached shows the support of Israelis and Palestinians for taking forward the peace process. I can therefore see no justification for seeking to delay ratification of the EU-Israel agreement; I believe it should be implemented as soon as possible.
    Mr. Faulds: Is not the lesson of the recent agreement between President Arafat and Mr. Netanyahu that even the most reactionary and racist forces in Israel are open, and do respond, to international pressures? Should not we in that case use those more frequently?
    Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman should take into account the fact that Israel is a healthy, vibrant democracy. If the elections in Israel resulted in a Government who have proved more difficult with regard to the negotiations, that is a challenge for the middle east and the international community. But we should never disregard the fact that Israel's are an elected Government.
    Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend put pressure on the Government of Syria to show some interest in peace in the middle east, and on the captors of Ron Arad to release him after eight years of captivity?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have the greatest sympathy with my hon. Friend's points about Mr. Arad. I have raised that question on a number of visits and in our contacts with political leaders in the middle east. It is still not certain whether he is alive, but we shall continue to devote our efforts to assisting those who are trying to establish his fate; and, if he is still alive, to having him speedily released and returned to his family.

    Former Yugoslavia
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the demonstrations for democracy in Belgrade; and if he will make a statement. [9251]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We welcome the decisions yesterday by the electoral commissions in Belgrade and Nis to restore the opposition victories in the recent local elections, but we continue to urge President Milosevic to
    320
    implement fully and without delay the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe report on those elections.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware of the tradition of democratic and humanitarian opposition in Belgrade? The conflict that took place before the break-up of Yugoslavia was essentially a conflict in Belgrade in which Serb fought Serb, including the forces of Milosevic. What role is played in Serbia by people such as John Kennedy, prospective parliamentary candidate for Halesowen and Stourbridge, who, when I was in Belgrade in 1992, was as much disliked by the independent television service as was Milosevic himself?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: With regard to the serious part of that question, I am indeed aware of the long history of democratic opposition in former Yugoslavia, particularly in Serbia. I trust that such democracy will shortly be restored and that proper democratic election results will be honoured. There are optimistic signs of that, but we must remain extremely alert to any backsliding.
    As for Mr. Kennedy, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman ask him.

    Indonesia
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Indonesia with particular reference to East Timor. [9252]
    Mr. Hanley: I refer the hon. Lady to my answer to the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) and add that we regularly discuss our concerns about East Timor with the Indonesian Government.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Do not the Government realise that no Labour Member has any confidence in the Government's professed concern for human rights in Indonesia or East Timor? When the Minister talks about such things, it is nothing but meaningless platitudes, particularly in the light of the National Audit Office report on British aid to Indonesia and the police training programme, which was backed by the Government. Why was the Home Office so concerned about that programme's human rights implications that it pulled out and left it to the Foreign Office? Why was there no human rights component in that police training programme? Why did Colonel Hindarto, trained under the British aid programme, go on to commit human rights abuses, including torture, in Indonesia and East Timor?
    Mr. Hanley: The hon. Lady refers to the NAO report. I remember saying to her just a couple of months ago that I hoped that she would stand by it, as I would stand by it, and the Government do so. It must have disappointed her because it made it clear that the concerns about links between aid and arms sales were unfounded, that none of the projects examined included the procurement of military equipment, and that none of the contracts or memorandums of understanding was conditional on the purchase of British goods or services beyond those necessary for the project. Therefore, in referring to the report, the hon. Lady confirms merely that our policy has been above board.

    321
    Successive Governments have believed that training with Indonesian personnel has been good for development in Indonesia and for the appreciation of human rights, but of course not every course contains a human rights element. Training of military personnel and police has helped to improve that appreciation through better management. Academic training continues as well. In the past five years, under the Chevening award scheme for police training, three students have followed courses in police studies, business administration, banking and finance. That is perfectly sensible.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that he does not respond to the blandishments of Labour Members about unilateral arms sales bans? He may know of the possible order for Westland, which will affect the jobs of constituents in Yeovil and most of Dorset. It is surprising to hear that the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is urging the Government to ban such arms sales to a nation that is friendly with the UK.
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is right. There is no European Union or United Nations embargo on arms sales to Indonesia, nor would one be justified. All applications are tested by us personally. Every application is considered before it is approved. As I have mentioned, since 1993, we have refused at least 11 licences for Indonesia. Details are in the Library.

    United Nations
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British Government policy towards the United Nations. [9253]
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We remain wholeheartedly committed to the UN's purposes and principles.
    Mrs. Jackson: Does the Minister agree that the UN peacekeeping force in Angola, including the British contingent, has been vital in maintaining peace in Angola, in clearing land mines and in improving the security of the people who live there? Is he happy with the UN proposal to pull out of Angola in one month's time? What is he doing to ensure that a peacekeeping operation continues, thus ensuring the viability of peace in Angola?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that the UN's role in Angola has been significant. It is important that its work
    322
    is not lost, but the need for a continued presence is a matter for the UN members involved to discuss between themselves. I am not clear whether that presence will need to continue, or whether the job will be deemed to have been done.
    Sir Jim Lester: What is the new Secretary-General likely to seek to achieve in terms of reorganisation? How quickly could we get countries that have not paid their dues and demands to pay them to the UN, so that it no longer operates with a shortage of money, which has been its biggest problem in the past five years?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me a chance to say two things. First, I welcome the opportunity of congratulating Kofi Annan on his appointment: in the view of Her Majesty's Government, he is an excellent choice for the job, and we are confident that he will succeed in carrying through the reforms of the United Nations that we seek.
    As for the financing of the United Nations, I am much encouraged by the United States Administration's statement of their intention to pay the arrears that they undoubtedly owe. I must add a word of caution: that is subject to ratification by Congress. Nevertheless, it is certainly a move in the right direction.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: The Minister seems to be unaware that the United Nations peacekeeping force in Angola is to be removed simply because the money has run out. Is that not disgraceful? The removal of the force could return Angola to a state of civil war, just because of a lack of money. Will the Minister tell the House that he will get in touch with the United Nations, and ensure that the lack of money cannot be used as a reason for withdrawing a legitimate and workable peacekeeping operation?
    Sir Nicholas Bonsor: It is a marvellous feature of the Opposition that, although they always decry our colonial past, they are the first to try to persuade the Government that we can run the world single-handed. I am not in a position to tell the United Nations what it must do, but I will certainly do all that I can to ensure that the arrears owed to it are paid, and that it is reorganised so that it can become more efficient.

E. Coli (Pennington Report)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the interim report from Professor Pennington's expert group, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. The whole House will wish to thank Professor Pennington and his colleagues for the speed with which they have reported. Quite properly, they wish to reflect further on some of the issues before finalising their report by the end of February.
Professor Pennington was asked to examine the circumstances that led to the outbreak, and to advise me on the implications for food safety and general lessons to be learned. He has focused on four key areas: research, surveillance, enforcement and the handling of an outbreak. This outbreak has raised some fundamental questions about current food safety procedures in relation to the threat posed by E. coli 0157. E. coli 0157 should be seen in its proper context: it is much more virulent than most other causes of food poisoning, and requires a smaller infective dose than other organisms such as salmonella.
On research, Professor Pennington recommends work in two main areas—knowledge of the prevalence in livestock of the particular type of E. coli that caused the recent outbreak, and more accurate methods of typing E. coli strains using DNA fingerprinting. I have given instructions that that work should be done as a matter of urgency in consultation with the relevant research bodies, including the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food. We have a wealth of clinical information from the treatment of about 1,000 patients during the outbreak. I therefore propose to commission an analysis of that information, which will help to develop our knowledge of the natural history of the infection and assist the management of outbreaks. I am asking Professor Pennington to consider that in his final report.
To back up research and help the understanding and control of food poisoning outbreaks, good surveillance, data collection and disease analysis are clearly essential. Although the report does not indicate that the current mechanisms caused any difficulties in the present outbreak, it suggests that more systematic arrangements in Scotland would be helpful.
The report therefore recommends that urgent consideration be given to introducing improvements to surveillance and that proposals be worked up to permit electronic reporting and analysis of data. I fully support those recommendations, and my Department is already taking action to make more systematic the way in which food poisoning data are reported from laboratories in Scotland. I will make resources available for the establishment of an electronic reporting system.
Professor Pennington makes several recommendations on enforcement. Existing arrangements on food hygiene are based on European Union directives, brought into force by regulations under the Food Safety Act 1990. The codes of practice under the Act were widely consulted upon and, of course, they were laid before the House.
Professor Pennington recommends urgent consideration of the legislation and action, through licensing, to ensure that equivalent standards of hygiene apply to premises
324
principally selling to the final consumer as to those premises subject to the Meat Products (Hygiene) Regulations. He also recommends urgent action to ensure physical separation of raw and cooked meat products by using separate counters, refrigerated equipment and separate staff. Pending the outcome of consideration of the legislation, he recommends that the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food should be asked to review its guidance on cross-contamination. I have asked it to do so.
The recommendations have far-reaching implications. I have instructed my officials to examine the practical implications of the recommendations and, in doing so, to consult consumers, health professionals, environmental health officers, processors and retailers. It would be helpful to Professor Pennington to have more detailed information on the practical aspects. Therefore, with that in mind, I have asked the Meat and Livestock Commission—the Government's statutory advisers on the industry—to carry out an urgent study of the issues so that Professor Pennington can take them into account in his final report.
Professor Pennington made three recommendations on the codes of practice under the Food Safety Act 1990, all of which my colleagues and I accept. He recommends first a review of code of practice 16, which relates to the food hazard warning system. That system, operated by the Government, is to warn environmental health departments of possible or actual food hazards on the basis of information from other areas. Professor Pennington concludes that the difficulty for food authorities is setting the balance between dealing with routine matters at local level and advising central Government of emerging problems.
As code of practice 16 is currently written, the decision to notify central Government is a judgment made locally. Professor Pennington suggests that it may be better to define an "isolated incident" as one which is contained within the boundaries of the food authority. It should, however, be incumbent upon that authority to notify central Government the moment that it has evidence that food distribution is beyond the local authority boundary. It would also be essential to retain the "major local incident" provision so that central Government are informed immediately even if the problem is contained within the authority's area but involves a significant number of people, an organism such as E. coli 0157 or a problem such as botulism.
An allied recommendation is that the code should place greater emphasis on risk and assessment of all factors relevant to protection of the public. That key addition would cover such matters as the organism's virulence, the extent of the food's distribution, the consumer group's vulnerability and the confidence that could be attached to product recall. The revision would make it clear that careful assessment of the risk involved is fundamental to informing decisions.
Professor Pennington also recommends a review of code of practice 9, on food hygiene inspections, to ensure better targeting of resources on high-risk premises.
I accept all those recommendations. Good lines of communication from local to central Government and timely release by local outbreak control teams of information to the public are crucial, as the paramount consideration must always be the protection of public

325
health. Similarly, I agree that there should be careful targeting of resources on the high-risk premises. This guidance for enforcement officers will be reflected in the revised codes of practice which will go out to consultation shortly.
Professor Pennington makes observations on the potential for cross-contamination in slaughterhouses, focusing specifically on the slaughtering of cattle in a clean condition. My Department is pursuing this issue with the Meat Hygiene Service, which is well advanced in preparing practical guidance on the definition of acceptable standards of cleanliness in animals presented for slaughter.
Hazard analysis improves food safety by focusing on critical points in the preparation and handling of food. Professor Pennington therefore recommends that the implementation of these requirements be accelerated, particularly for high-risk premises which handle raw and cooked foods. I agree. My Department will urge environmental health departments to take early action on it, so that hazard analysis covers all high-risk premises in their area as soon as possible.
Finally, on enforcement, Professor Pennington recommends, in the longer term, a review of the health risk condition contained in the Food Safety Act 1990, which governs, among other matters, the actions taken by environmental health officers in emergencies. The key question is whether the present position unreasonably inhibits environmental health officers in, for example, taking decisions under the emergency prohibition provisions in section 12 of the Act to close premises merely on suspicion of connection with an outbreak. I have asked my officials to examine the practical operation of the emergency powers available to EHOs as a matter of urgency and in doing so to consult consumers, health professionals, environmental health officers, processors and retailers.
On handling an outbreak, Professor Pennington recommends that every health board and local authority should make sure that they have in place joint plans, as required by the existing Scottish Office guidance, setting out mechanisms and procedures for dealing with them when they occur.
Professor Pennington also emphasises the importance of having one person leading the team, which should be able to act and take decisions as it sees fit. I agree on the importance of clear leadership and with Professor Pennington's expectation that this would most likely come from the health board. I also agree that the local authorities and the health boards must delegate to the team maximum powers to take the necessary action.
I propose to invite health boards and local authorities in Scotland to review their procedures and let me have their response to Professor Pennington's interim recommendations by the time he produces his final report.
Professor Pennington also suggests that the Scottish Office should review the present guidelines on the investigation and control of outbreaks and endorses the creation of a Scottish Office team under the chief medical officer as was done for this outbreak. I agree.
This has been an extremely serious and tragic outbreak, one of the worst of its sort in the world. I am grateful to Professor Pennington and his colleagues for producing
326
their interim report so quickly. I have set out today the Government's response to the interim recommendations. This is a matter to which the Government will attach the utmost priority in the coming months.
Mr. George Robertson: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement and pay tribute to Professor Pennington and his expert team for the speed with which they have prepared the report for us. Given that it is, however, an interim report, we shall look forward to reading the full one in the next couple of months and to seeing the considered conclusions on what is, by any standards, a very grave issue.
Let me say at the outset that I welcome many of Professor Pennington's recommendations, in particular those on licensing procedures, emergency planning and the aspects of food regulations that he considered. I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted so many of those recommendations.
We of course welcome the extra money promised for research, but will the Secretary of State confirm that Professor Pennington asked the Government for research funding as far back as last November but was denied it? Why is it only now, after 16 people have died and more than 400 have been affected by this most horrifying of illnesses, that the funds are being made available and the research is being belatedly done? Is it not a classic example of the way in which the Government have treated every food crisis that they have faced—ignoring medical advice, reacting to events rather than shaping them, and always too little, too late?
On a specific but central issue, will the review of the food safety guidelines examine our concerns that the present guidelines, particularly on the publishing of information on outlets that might be affected, are skewed towards the commercial interest at the expense of that of the consumer? Professor Pennington's report—the public will appreciate that we have had only a few minutes to consider it—says clearly in paragraph 4.2.13:
"There is a risk that in certain circumstances the existing guidance might restrict the dissemination of information to the public."
It goes on to say:
"It is clear that any advice in the Code should indicate that where Risk Assessment suggests a risk to public health exists then disclosure of information is relevant."
He clearly implies that the current guidelines are restricting information to the public. Will that lead to an immediate review of the guidelines? Will those commercially biased guidelines, which led to consumers still buying contaminated foodstuffs long after the outbreak had been detected, stay in place in the interim? That would be intolerable, given what we know and what Professor Pennington has said.
Does the Secretary of State accept that Professor Pennington's inquiry cannot address the role of the Scottish Office and, more importantly for avoiding a repetition of such an emergency, the role of Scottish Office Ministers in the handling of this tragedy? The public expect those issues to be dealt with by the fatal accident inquiry, but does the Secretary of State accept that that public inquiry is unlikely to begin its work for some months—not until after the general election? That delay does not mean that Ministers should not give us a full and frank account now of their role in this affair.

327
Above all, will the Secretary of State answer the central question, to which he has signally failed to give a credible answer so far: what advice, if any, did his Minister responsible for health—the Minister of State, Scottish Office—give on the publication of the list of outlets? To be fair, the Secretary of State told the House in his first statement on the issue that, once he became aware of the problem with the list of outlets, his advice was to publish it. However, by then the decision to publish had already been taken by Lanarkshire health board. Given that the Minister responsible for health must have been aware of that list and the controversy surrounding it long before then, what was his advice to the local authorities? Why were the public of North Lanarkshire and central Scotland kept in the dark for so long? By the first weekend, the bacteria had spread beyond North Lanarkshire and Forth Valley health board had been involved. Will the Secretary of State explain why the Scottish Office did not instruct the local agencies to issue the information to the public? Is not it true that his Department's official, with the support of the acquiescence of the Scottish Office Minister responsible for health, told local agencies that the guidelines prohibited publication?
Let me say, in all seriousness, that the reason why we continue to ask questions has nothing to do with partisan advantage; it is that Ministers keep dodging our questions and refusing to answer them. Is it not time that the Secretary of State finally stopped passing the buck and gave us a full and frank account of his Minister's role in the crisis and gave the public the answers that they deserve?
Finally, is not the more general lesson to be learnt from this whole tragedy that in matters of food safety the interests of the consumer must always take precedence over profit? Why will Ministers not establish the food standards agency that we and so many others have proposed to ensure that food safety has the priority that the public expect?
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his courteous remarks and his thanks to Professor Pennington. I also thank him for his welcome for the interim recommendations in that report and the Government's response to them.
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman in the friendliest possible way that this really is not the territory for party political point scoring.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Of course it is.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Of course it is." The report deals with a complex and difficult situation in which a number of people have died. It raises complicated issues of food safety and regulation and it is important that it is examined carefully.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points in respect of research funding. He asked me whether the Scottish Office had refused to fund the proposals that we have said today that we will support. We did not. However, Professor Pennington was asked to reformulate one proposal that he put to the Scottish Office. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that we do not fund research simply because of the nature of the subject—E. coli 0157. The nature of the research and what it intends to achieve has to be considered and the Government act on the basis
328
of expert advice. As I have repeatedly told the House, we are spending more than £2 million on research into these matters. As I have told the House, the specific research that has been recommended by Professor Pennington will be carried out.
The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the research is simply reacting to events is correct in so far as it arises from recent experience and will help us, but he was incorrect to suggest that we have not been prepared to support research that is soundly based and has been commended to the Government by their advisers.
In regard to publishing information, the hon. Gentleman described the code of practice as being "skewed towards the commercial interest". The code of practice was laid before the House. The Food Safety Act 1990 was subject to considerable debate and there was a consensus across the Floor of the House about the value of that regulation. I do not believe that hon. Members would not have objected to a code of practice that was "skewed towards the commercial interest".
I gave the hon. Gentleman advance notice of the report in which Professor Pennington deals with that point and demonstrates that it is possible to interpret the guidance in respect of publication in a way that might result in people not making information available because of concern about damaging commercial interests.
North Lanarkshire local authority decided not to publish information on the basis of the code of practice, but Forth Valley health board and Falkirk local authority decided to publish the information on the basis of the same code of practice. So there is an issue of interpretation. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether that would be addressed. As I said in my statement, we shall accept Professor Pennington's recommendations in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman said that the report could not address the role of the Scottish Office. It does so. Just for the sake of clarity, in respect of the conduct of the Scottish Office and the local authority, Professor Pennington concludes that overall the procedures worked well. The outbreak was a major one, concerning a particularly virulent organism, and there are of course lessons to be learned. Professor Pennington commends the procedure that was established under the chief medical officer in the Scottish Office for dealing with the outbreak.
The hon. Gentleman says that the fatal accident inquiry will not be available for some months. He knows that that is because there are criminal proceedings and the matter is sub judice, which makes it even more difficult for me to go into some of the detail on which he seeks to press me. The fatal accident inquiry cannot take place until such time as the criminal proceedings have been followed, and he knows that.
The hon. Gentleman criticised us for having a fatal accident inquiry as the form of public inquiry. Given that there are criminal proceedings, we will be able to proceed with a public inquiry under the Fatal Accidents and Sudden Deaths Inquiry (Scotland) Act 1976 more rapidly than we would have been able to had we adopted the hon. Gentleman's preferred solution, which was a public inquiry as a stand-alone procedure, as was conducted after the Dunblane tragedy.
The hon. Gentleman really must stop seeking to score points against my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I have set out what happened on two occasions. If he

329
wishes me to spell it out again, the answer to his question why the publication of the list of outlets was delayed is that the decision was taken by North Lanarkshire council, which is controlled by his party. He should be in a position to ask his party leaders why that decision was taken. I imagine that they would give him the same answer as I have given: the officials of that council, like my right hon. Friend and my officials, acted quite properly and in the public interest. They deserve better support from the hon. Gentleman than he is giving them.
Sir Hector Monro: We all welcome Professor Pennington's report, but may I suggest that my right hon. Friend awaits the outcome of the fatal accident inquiry and the publication of the full report before he embarks on legislation later this year? It seems that the report's great emphasis is on the fact that there should have been early co-operation and co-ordination between the local council and the local health board when the scare, which latterly turned out to be a disaster, occurred. Should he not immediately introduce guidelines so that such failure does not happen again?
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. It is essential that we get this right. I received Professor Pennington's report on new year's eve and read it on new year's day. We had a meeting of officials on 3 January. The Cabinet sub-committee established by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the following week and we have acted speedily. Professor Pennington says that his recommendations are interim and that they may change, but I am sure that it is right for us to get on with consultation.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and his colleagues criticised me for establishing Professor Pennington's expert group on the basis that it would not be independent. It does not fall foul of sub judice provisions and enables us to take immediate action in respect of wider issues. I hope that all hon. Members and people outside the House will use this opportunity to contribute to ensure that we get the best regime of regulation. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) that it should be based on partnership. I commend the material that has been submitted by the hon. Members for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) and for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), which I have passed to Professor Pennington. It is exactly the kind of constructive contribution to this debate that we would like.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: As the families of too many of my constituents have discovered, dying from E. coli is a horrible way to die. In view of the long delays that people in my constituency will face due to the trial and the fatal accident inquiry, will the Secretary of State issue forthwith for rapid consultation the changes that are needed in the codes of practice on the closing of shops and the publication of information? The present misleading, misguided codes are prejudicing action in Lanarkshire, and no doubt elsewhere.
Mr. Forsyth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive way in which he has helped my office and kept it informed. It has obviously
330
been extremely difficult for him as the hon. Member who has been affected by this dreadful outbreak. As I said in my statement, we will consult immediately on the recommendations in Professor Pennington's report on those codes of practice. It is important that we get them right, but I do not believe that there is an environmental health officer in the country who is not following this statement carefully. I have taken steps today to ensure that they are all aware of the statement in the House and that they all receive copies of Professor Pennington's report so that they can act on the basis of that experience and advice in order to avoid the difficulty pointed out by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the public will be greatly reassured by the comprehensive nature of the interim report by Professor Pennington and his colleagues and by the Government's positive reaction to it? On a specific point about surveillance, my right hon. Friend talked about an electronic reporting system. How long does he expect it will be before that is set up? Can he tell the House generally how he anticipates that the final report and the Government's response to it will be handled in the House?
Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. On surveillance, I expect the electronic reporting system to cost about £250,000. I do not know how long it will take to put it in place, but we want to see that happen as speedily as is practicable. Obviously, we have had these recommendations and I have accepted them and we now need to ensure that the necessary work is put in hand to carry them out. I do not wish to tie Professor Pennington down to a time scale, but I expect to receive his report by the end of February. I expect that hon. Members will want to study it carefully. It will have wide-ranging implications for not just Scotland but the whole of the United Kingdom. It is for hon. Members to indicate the way in which they would like us to proceed. Whether there should be a statement or a debate is a matter best assessed at the time. Obviously it will require serious consideration by the House.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, in making the recommendations for further research, including research to help gauge the prevalence of and forecast future outbreaks of E. coli 0157, Professor Pennington found that the strain in the present outbreak belonged to the same sub-clone as that which caused the West Lothian outbreak—due to the contamination of the pasteurised milk supply—and the Grampian cluster of cases in 1994? Given that the West Lothian outbreak was the largest of its type in the world, will the Secretary of State accept that this was not just research generally into E. coli 0157? Is there any overlap or similarity between the research that Professor Pennington is recommending in this report and the research that was requested by Professor Pennington and his team at an earlier stage and which was batted back to him?
Mr. Forsyth: I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with the detail about this. I can tell him, for example, that one of the projects rejected was in respect of a piece of equipment. Another piece of research that is recommended—I am not familiar with the detail—is

331
specifically related to this outbreak. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of the milk case in Lothian and the connection there. In making his recommendations, Professor Pennington took account of the experience of that outbreak.
Mr. Phil Gallie: This has been a terrible episode in Scotland's history, albeit a short-term one. I commend my right hon. Friend and Professor Pennington on the production of the report, but I am slightly concerned about the comments made on enforcement. Butcher businesses across the country are often small, family businesses and they have a very good record. I noted the comments on enforcement and I would hate to think that we would rush into making legislative changes to licensing without tremendous consideration. I ask my right hon. Friend to take that point on board.
Mr. Forsyth: I made a point of talking to the Meat and Livestock Commission yesterday about Professor Pennington's recommendations. Throughout the industry, it is understood that it is in the interests of the industry as well as the consumer to have the highest standards and to put the protection of public health first. Equally, it is in the interests of protecting public health for regulation to be sensible, enforceable and practicable. Therefore, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to give proper consideration to the issue, but we must ensure that we have practical and effective steps in place to enable, for example, the separation of raw and cooked meat. I know that that view is shared by butchers, producers and everyone else in the industry. We simply cannot afford to have virulent organisms transmitted with the tragic results that we have seen in Lanarkshire.
Mr. Sam Galbraith: I welcome Professor Pennington's suggestion that in future any outbreak is managed by one person and that that person should come from the health board. I suggest that we look no further than the director of public health and that would take us some way towards reintroducing the medical officer of health. Does the Minister agree that had such a system been in place we might not have had the delay in the publication of the outlets, which was one of the major problems in the management of the outbreak?
Mr. Forsyth: I am reluctant to jump to conclusions about the judgments that were made in this case. The officials were acting in difficult circumstances and the speed with which the organism was transmitted and the numbers of cases multiplied was considerable. All the evidence I have seen persuades me that everybody involved acted in good faith. The hon. Gentleman put forward a proposal to bring back the medical officer of health role in the context of the post-1974 reorganisation. He and the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) have set out that proposal in a well-argued short paper which I have passed to Professor Pennington with a request that he consider it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one person should be in charge. Professor Pennington says that that person should probably be the health professional. I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman's view that the one person should always be the health professional, but that is a matter for Professor Pennington to reflect on further. There are circumstances—for example, particular types of
332
outbreak—in which having one person in charge may not be appropriate. Some argue that the position should be left flexible and open, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's representations will play an important part before we reach a conclusion on that issue by the end of February.
Dr. John Reid: May I take this opportunity to thank everyone who was involved in responding to the epidemic, including all the officials and especially the health workers who acted so magnificently? I welcome Professor Pennington's report and the comprehensive way in which he has addressed the issues. May I especially welcome his comments on the reappraisal and review of section 16 of the code of conduct, of the guidelines and of the emergency powers of prohibition in the hands of environmental health officers? All the existing codes of conduct, guidelines and powers enshrine the dilemma, which has to be worked out by officials, between protecting the public interest and protecting commercial interests.
Does the Secretary of State accept that although Parliament never intended that commercial interests should predominate when the matters are weighed in the balance, our experience of E. coli, BSE and other epidemics shows that when officials have to make a decision, commercial interests can on occasion predominate over public health? Will he give an assurance that if the review illustrates that that can happen, and to make sure that public health is always "paramount"—the word he used—consideration will be given to separating the public health issue through an independent food standards agency?
Mr. Forsyth: I agreed with a large part of what the hon. Gentleman said until he got to the last bit, as there was a break in his logic. At the end of the day, an environmental health officer has to make a judgment and guidance is given as to how that judgment can be made. It is difficult to make that judgment, as it depends on the circumstances—none of us here knows all the circumstances in this case—and it may or may not be the judgment that other people with the same facts might make. I do not see how the existence of a food agency will affect whether or not people make the right or wrong judgment in particular circumstances.
Although Professor Pennington's report suggests that we should look at the wording of the code of practice—a matter underlined by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid)—I do not see that it is possible to argue that the wording resulted in a particular judgment being made that reflected commercial interest. In Falkirk, a judgment was made to publish the information, but that judgment was not made in the case of North Lanarkshire. It is certainly true that there is scope for clarifying the wording, and that is what Professor Pennington has recommended. I will be consulting on that, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that recommendation and the Government's response. But it is wrong for people not to recognise how difficult these situations are, and it is wrong to believe that it is possible to write a set of rules that will guarantee that a particular course of action is taken on every occasion.
Mr. John Garrett: Why have the Government recently cut £2 million from the budget of the Food Research Institute in Norwich, when that

333
institute was a pioneer in studying the causes and effects of E. coli infection? In retrospect, was that not a mistaken judgment?
Mr. Forsyth: I do not answer as the Minister responsible from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who would have taken that decision. I must put my hands up and say that when the Tony laboratory in Aberdeen was threatened with closure, I was among those who argued for the retention of research into not just E. coli but other food-related issues in Scotland. It may be that what happened in England had something to do with the reversal of the previous decision that was taken early last year, whereby we decided, as a result of proposals put forward by scientists in the north-east, to retain more of the research in Scotland. I am sure that I have the support of Opposition Members who represent Scottish constituencies in that respect.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Bearing in mind the fact that it is the duty of the Government to ensure that public health should always takes precedence over private commercial considerations, is the Secretary of State trying to tell us that neither he nor any of his Ministers had any responsibility whatever for the delay in notifying the general public about the infected food outlets, including the outlets in my constituency? That delay led to the deaths of several people. How on earth can there be full confidence in Professor Pennington's inquiry when the inquiry team includes one of the Secretary of State's senior officials who was closely involved in handling the matter under investigation?
Mr. Forsyth: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. That is precisely what I am telling him. His attack on the integrity of the Pennington group is unworthy. The group includes the chief medical officer and other professionals, and several people from outside who would not in any way be associated with any report or investigation that did not examine the facts and issue an objective and professional response. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will think that his question was unwise, to say the least.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I acknowledge that the Scottish Office and the Pennington committee followed up the plea that I made in Hamilton that they should consider the experience of the alleged—I choose that word carefully—Redhouse dairy outbreak in West Lothian and that they saw Mr. Alec Campbell and Mr. Crawford Morgan, representing the council, who had experience of that agonising affair? Any outbreak of E. coli is an agony.
Will the Secretary of State reflect on what several West Lothian councillors and officials have said: that they would have acted much more quickly and would have been able to do more had they not been inhibited by the actions and demands of the insurance companies? The insurance companies' wishes were an extremely serious matter, because the damages could have been enormous. In the course of the further inquiries, could the role and the requirements of the insurance companies be examined?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. That aspect has not been considered by Professor
334
Pennington, although he certainly took account of the experience with the West Lothian outbreak in making his interim recommendations. The new point with respect to the insurers is one on which I would welcome further information, and I shall certainly ensure that it is investigated.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said earlier that he accepted that I had been informed about the matter on the Wednesday, when the information had not been made public, and that I had said that it should be. The publication of information that may or may not be right and that may cause damage to businesses is certainly a consideration, but my view at the time was that the public health interest must be paramount. It is, of course, easier for a Secretary of State to say that and to take responsibility than for officials operating where there are difficult judgments to be made.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) will acknowledge, the provision in the code is often interpreted as meaning that the information has to be accurate because it might damage businesses; but it has to be accurate also because, if made public, it might have an important effect on public health. For example, if the wrong set of batch numbers were given to the public for tins of food infected by botulism, the result would be catastrophic. Professor Pennington points to the essential question of interpretation.
Hon. Members saw the code, it was consulted on, and everyone accepted it. Now that we have had the experience both in Lanarkshire and in the constituency of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), we must learn the lessons and make a change. That is precisely what we intend to do.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Can the results of all that careful work be made available to seek to protect the health of people in England and Wales as well? In that connection, has my right hon. Friend had, or does he intend to have, discussions with English and Welsh Ministers?
Mr. Forsyth: I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friends the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Health. They have worked speedily in the ad hoc group that was set up, involving other Ministers, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Lord President, to ensure that we have a United Kingdom response to and awareness of the experience in Scotland. Work is already under way on a number of initiatives that will inform the actions of my right hon. Friends as we proceed and receive a response from the consumer and health interests that will want to take part in the discussions.
Mr. Alex Salmond: May I put it to the Secretary of State that the job of Opposition Members is to ask key questions in the House on matters of public concern? It is his job to try to answer them, and not to complain about being asked a question every time it touches on the performance of Ministers or officials.
I welcome Professor Pennington's report, as I welcomed his appointment. The wide-ranging nature of his recommendations show the gaps and weaknesses in the current system.

335
Concern has been expressed that a fatal accident inquiry will not necessarily examine the performance and policies of Ministers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, at some point during the fatal accident inquiry, he and his Ministers will face questions about when they had information and what action they took, and that they will do so even if they are no longer in office when it takes place?
It is clear from the Pennington report that Scotland has a particular problem with E. coli 0157. The problem existed well before the tragedy in Lanarkshire and Forth Valley—we had the outbreak in West Lothian and the cluster of cases in Grampian. In paragraph 2.2 of his report, Professor Pennington says:
"No information about the prevalence/incidence of the sub-clone in Scottish cattle or other animals"
is now available. Is not that statement a damning indictment, given the fact that the total funding of Scottish research into this particularly Scottish problem amounted to £500,000 during a six-year period?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that one of the areas of research in which Professor Pennington recommends that work should be undertaken is exactly the area for which he and his Ministers turned down a research proposal some months ago which would have cost £40,000? Will he pledge that never again will lack of funds prevent Scottish scientists from addressing this public health problem, which, as the report says, has a particular Scottish dimension?
Mr. Forsyth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am happy to stand at the Dispatch Box and deal with criticisms of Ministers and Government policy. I am also happy, as a Minister, to attend any fatal accident inquiry, either before or after the election.
What the hon. Gentleman said about research into E. coli in Scotland is not correct. I do not know why he lays emphasis on the importance of my answering questions, if he will not listen to the answers and keeps asking me the same question. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman for the third time that, as he knows, research is commissioned, in the main, by other Departments and not by the Scottish Office. The Scottish Office is not in the lead: we are a united kingdom. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a £2 million research programme into E. coli, yet he persists in making this point.
It is true that there is a higher incidence of E. coli in cattle in Scotland, and we are anxious to discover why that should be.
Mr. Salmond: Now.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman might like to know that when the chief executive of McDonald's came into my office the other day, I tried to press him to buy Scottish beef and to put Scottish beef in his hamburgers. One of the reasons that the chief executive of McDonald's gave for having difficulty in doing so was that he kept hearing the hon. Gentleman saying that Scotland has a higher incidence of E. coli 0157. The hon. Gentleman should know that the highest standards are applied in the beef industry and to the production of beef in Scotland.
We are prepared to move forward on research that we are told by experts is appropriate. We have commissioned further research as a result of Professor Pennington's
336
recommendations. The hon. Gentleman should start thinking about the wider public interest instead of making narrow, nationalist, partisan comments.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I intend to call hon. Members who are rising, but I ask for brisk questions and brisk answers, because time is moving on.
Mr. Norman Hogg: May I support my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) in saying that there is a strong case for looking at how crises of this sort are managed by those in authority? I draw a parallel between what has happened in this case, which occurred in my local authority area, and what happened in Aberdeen 33 years ago, when Dr. Ian McQueen was visibly very much in charge of the situation. The management and direction of policy were never in doubt. Will the Secretary of State examine the Aberdeen experience, even though it was 33 years ago, because valuable lessons could be learned?
Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have already asked for information on that. As he said, the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden and for Kirkcaldy have been pressing on that. I was brought up in the north-east and I remember the outbreak very well. With the passage of time, it may appear now to have been more easily handled than it did at the time. There were criticisms about pubs being closed and so on; there was some controversy. The hon. Gentleman's basic point that there should be one person in overall charge is powerful and is reflected in the existing guidance. Professor Pennington suggests that that person should, as a rule, be a health professional rather than an environmental health professional. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise such issues.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is always fair-minded. I do not know what will be the outcome of the fatal accident inquiry, but I think that the behaviour of some of the Scottish National party councillors in his constituency, and the way in which they have sought to carry out a witch hunt against officials performing their task, was disgraceful. There is nothing in the Pennington report about the conduct of officials; that is for another day, after the criminal proceedings. The last thing that we need is people attacking public officials to make party political points. I hope that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who takes an interest in this matter, will dissociate himself from such behaviour.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the Government's record on food safety appalling? The number of deaths from food poisoning has risen from 94 in 1990 to 203 in 1995. Have not outbreaks of E. coli poisoning increased fivefold since 1990, when the Food Safety Act was passed? This is not a Scottish problem. There was an E. coli outbreak in my constituency over Christmas. There were no deaths, thank goodness, but nine people were affected. The source of the infection was never found. Is not there a compelling case for a food standards agency separate from the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department and a parallel agency to deal with England and Wales? Is not such separation essential?
Mr. Forsyth: If there is a powerful case, I do not know what it is. Professor Pennington has not made such a

337
recommendation. It is for the hon. Gentleman to make that case. I do not understand how a quango would ease the conduct of investigations to identify the source of E. coli 0157. It is a very virulent organism, and as few as 10 can transmit the disease. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this is a United Kingdom problem; indeed, it is a worldwide problem. The tabloid press will call it a super-bug, which is a good way to describe its characteristics. It is easily transmissible and has damaging effects, especially on elderly people and children. It is not very new Labour of him to blame the Government for every problem. He is right that there are more and more cases of food poisoning, but I do not think that it is the Government's fault. He is right that the Food Safety Act was passed in 1990; it was welcomed by Government and Opposition Members. No political party has a monopoly on trying to achieve the highest standards of public health.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a broader note, if I heard the Secretary of State aright, he said that existing arrangements on food hygiene are based on European Union directives. Given the all-embracing power of European over domestic legislation, does he believe that those European directives are seriously flawed or that the Food Safety Act does not match their requirements? If there is a discrepancy between the European legislation and the domestic legislation, in the interests of the consumer should not the problem be addressed?
Mr. Forsyth: I certainly think that the announcements that I have made today and Professor Pennington's report make it clear that there is scope for amending the codes of practice and considering the regulations and the legislation in light of our experience of this outbreak. As a general principal I believe that the House should decide what is right for our country and take the necessary measures. If there are constraints in terms of European legislation, we need to remove them, not feel inhibited about doing what we believe is right for our country.
Mr. Adam Ingram: The Secretary of State informed the House that, in accordance with existing guidelines, joint plans between the health boards and the local authorities should have been in place to deal with such outbreaks. If we can infer from that statement that such joint plans are not in place, surely the Scottish Office has been remiss in ensuring that its own guidelines have been properly adhered to.
Mr. Forsyth: I did not make any implication at all. I simply sought to inform the House of the facts, which are that Professor Pennington's report includes the recommendation that arrangements should be made for the local health board and the local authority to act together, with someone in charge. I did not imply that that was not the position in Lanarkshire—that is a matter for
338
the fatal accident inquiry. I reported to the House that the Scottish Office guidelines require that to be done. I did not say that it was not being done; I merely reported what the professor had recommended and what the guidelines provided. I told the House that I would be asking all local authorities and health boards to let us know precisely what arrangements they had in place by the time Professor Pennington concluded his report. I would expect our professional local authorities and health boards in Scotland to be complying with the existing guidance and to take account of Professor Pennington's recommendations.
Mr. George Foulkes: Why does it take a tragedy of this magnitude to get any action out of the Government when official statistics show that there is an epidemic of food poisoning in Scotland? In 1970, 858 cases were notified, but in 1995 that figure was more than 9,000, and in 1996, it was more than 10,000. Is not the reality—the problem—that the Government's passion for deregulation, as articulated by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) earlier today, is entirely incompatible with proper health and safety?
Mr. Forsyth: No, it is not, and the hon. Gentleman would do well to read the paper produced by the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, the introduction to which touches on some of the reasons why there are more cases of food poisoning.
Mr. Foulkes: Deregulation.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says that it is deregulation. In part, the increase reflects people's lifestyle—the food they eat, how they eat it and the fact that they are eating out more often. It is a complex subject. The hon. Gentleman asserts that the increase is due to deregulation. I challenge him to give an example of deregulation in that area since 1990—there has been no food deregulation. I was the Minister responsible for health and safety—we got rid of 40 per cent. of the regulations. In so doing, and on the advice of the Health and Safety Executive, we enhanced safety in the workplace. People's behaviour, not regulations, results in better standards. Regulations based on goal setting as opposed to prescription are more likely to affect people's behaviour in a way that minimises risk and damage, whether through injury at the workplace or through infection.
Mr. Foulkes indicated dissent.
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he thinks he knows more than environmental health officers, the Health and Safety Executive and other professionals, I suppose no one in the House will be surprised that he holds that opinion of himself. The Government have received that advice and the hon. Gentleman would do well to take account of it.

Appeal Tribunals
4.34 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the increasing concern expressed in the House about the standard of answers to parliamentary questions. I realise that the answers are not your responsibility, but I know that you are concerned that correct procedures should be followed.
I refer to an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) by the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), in November last year. The Minister said:
"The independent tribunal service has no plans to close any other venues."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 386.]
That means any venues other than the nine he had mentioned in the answer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) received a letter from the independent tribunal service saying that a meeting would be held in Chesterfield on 14 January to consult in connection with those future arrangements. What actually happened at that meeting was that the people there were informed that the tribunal service in the area was to be closed, which seems to run contrary to the provisions contained in the parliamentary answer on 4 November.
In these circumstances, should not the Minister come to the House to make a statement about the nature of his parliamentary answer? That would allow us to follow up some of the matters of substance connected with the closure of the tribunal, which will cause great problems in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends in the area.
Madam Speaker: I do not have the Hansard of November to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have not been informed that a Minister is seeking to make a statement on that matter, but the hon. Gentleman could put down further questions. He could even seek an Adjournment debate on the matter, which would give him ample opportunity—at least 15 minutes—to air his views and to get an answer from the Minister.

Overseas Development Co-operation
4.36 pm
Mr. Hugh Bayley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980.
This Bill has all-party support, and I thank the hon. Members on both sides of the House who are here to support the Bill today.
There is a great deal in the work of the Overseas Development Administration and its officials in which we should take quiet pride. We should take similar pride in the work of voluntary development agencies such as Oxfam, both projects supported by the ODA and those supported by independent charitable giving. However, that does not mean that the £2,000 million a year that the House votes to the ODA is always well spent.
In its report on the Pergau dam, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs revealed not only that the millions of pounds of British aid committed to the project had been used to support the pursuit of a British arms contract with Malaysia, but that, in the words of the permanent secretary to the ODA, the aid had been spent in a way that was "an extremely bad buy" in development terms. In fact, it has been calculated that the Pergau dam will cost the Malaysian people £100 million more than alternative means of generating electricity.
The National Audit Office report on aid to Indonesia, which will be debated by the Public Accounts Committee next week, reveals ineffective use of British aid—for example, a £5 million investment in the Ombilin coal mine which showed a negative return—and inappropriate use of aid, such as two cases in which aid projects were supported by the Foreign Office in order to help to secure British arms exports.
The purpose of the Bill is simply to improve the quality of British aid both in terms of effectiveness, by targeting aid on poor people in poor countries, and in terms of appropriateness, by prohibiting the use of the aid budget, directly or indirectly, to promote the sale or supply of military equipment. The Bill will also set clear social, environmental and human rights standards that will have to be met by all British aid projects.
I do not in this speech want to dwell on the cut in the real value of the aid budget. The case for changing the priorities of the ODA is the same whether that budget grows or declines. But when it is declining in value, it is more important than ever to ensure that every penny of it is well spent.
This weekend in Bangladesh, the Prime Minister promised more aid for rural areas of that country. I welcome that statement. Bangladesh is one of the poorest countries in Asia, and it has suffered a cut over the past five years in United Kingdom bilateral aid—from £55 million to £47 million a year. But the question that this House must answer is: where will the extra money for rural development in Bangladesh come from? The Red Book which we considered in last night's debate on the Finance Bill makes it perfectly clear that it will not come from the Treasury. It would be wrong to take the money from development programmes in other countries that are as poor as Bangladesh. It must come from aid to high and middle-income countries.

341
In recent years, however, the reverse has been happening. Over the life of this Parliament, the proportion of the British aid budget going to poor countries has fallen from 80 to 69 per cent. British aid to India has been cut by 23 per cent., while aid to Indonesia, a country with an average income three times higher than that of India, has increased by 79 per cent.
Recently, the ODA published its latest volume of British aid statistics, which reveal some shocking anomalies in British aid spending over the past five years. St. Helena, a middle-income territory with a population of just 7,000, received £44 million in overseas aid—twice as much as the poorest Commonwealth country in Africa, Sierra Leone, which has a population of 4.5 million. The Cayman islands, the offshore banking capital of the Caribbean, with a higher gross domestic product per capita than the UK, received £7.67 per person in British aid, while Jamaica, the poorest Commonwealth Caribbean island, received £5.33 per person in aid over the past five years.
In the same period, India got 53p per person; Hungary, with a standard of living more like ours than like India's, received £2.65; and Singapore and Hong Kong, which both have a higher per capita GDP than the UK's, received more aid per person over the five years than Vietnam, the poorest country in Asia.
The Bill seeks to end aid to high-income countries; to phase out aid to middle-income countries, using the sort of graduation strategies recommended by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in its report on the ODA's fundamental expenditure review; and to use the money instead to increase aid for sustainable development for poor people in poor countries.
This is entirely consistent with the ODA's published mission statement, which reads:
"ODA's purpose is to improve the quality of life for poorer people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering."
I accept that there are reasons of national self-interest that lead the Government to spend public money on other things, such as promoting trade with emerging economies, encouraging democracy in central and eastern Europe, and
342
fulfilling our historic obligations to British dependent territories. But those aims are not consistent with the ODA's mission statement, and they should be paid for from other sources—perhaps directly by the Foreign Office, in the same way as it funds the BBC World Service and the British Council. Or perhaps Parliament should vote the ODA a separate budget for these specific purposes.
My support for overseas aid for the world's poor is based partly on compassion and a belief that we should help human beings who are less fortunate than ourselves—a basic mark of civilisation—and partly on self-interest. A Bob Marley song uses the lyric:
"A hungry man is an angry man"—
and an angry man is a dangerous man. If it addresses the causes of that anger, the ODA can make the world safer for people in developing countries and in Britain.
I am a realist. I realise that the Bill is extremely unlikely to reach the statute book this Parliament, but I want to start the debate now and to return to it in the next Parliament, after the general election.
I warmly welcome the concern for the world's poor shown by the Princess of Wales, and by the Princess Royal in her support for Save the Children, but the House cannot delegate the debate, or the responsibility for overseas development policy, to the royal family. We are responsible for public expenditure, for scrutinising Government policy and for providing the legislative framework for that Government policy. The Bill proposes good and necessary legislation, and I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Bayley, Miss Joan Lestor, Mr. Peter Temple-Morris, Sir David Steel, Mr. Mike Watson, Mr. Cynog Dafis, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Dr. Joe Hendron and Miss Emma Nicholson.

Overseas Development Co-operation
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATION
  Mr. Hugh Bayley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 February, and to be printed [Bill 70].
Orders of the Day
  Crime (Sentences) Bill
  As amended (in the standing Committee), further considered.
  Crime (Sentences) Bill
    New clause 7

      TESTING AND TREATMENT ORDER
      '.The Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 shall be amended in Schedule 1A by adding the following paragraph—
      "7.(1) This paragraph applies where a court proposing to make a probation order or a combination order is satisfied—

      (a) that the offender is using a Class A drug;

      (b) that his use caused or contributed to the offence in respect of which the order is proposed to be made; and

      (c) that his use is such as may be susceptible to treatment.

      (2) The court shall not form such an opinion as is mentioned in sub—paragraph (1) above unless it has obtained a pre-sentence report and a drugs test.
      (3) The probation order or combination order shall, subject to sub—paragraph (6) below, include a requirement that the offender shall submit to drug testing and drug abuse treatment by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualification or experience with a view to the reduction or elimination of the offender's drug use.
      (4) The testing required by such an order and by sub—paragraph (2) above shall be by provision of a sample of urine for the purpose of ascertaining whether he has any drugs in his body.
      (5) The treatment required by any such order shall be such one of the following kinds of treatment as may be specified in the order—

      (a) treatment as a resident in such institution or place as may be specified in the order;

      (b) treatment as a non-resident in or at such institution or place as may be so specified: or

      (c) treatment by or under the direction of such person having the necessary qualifications or experience as may be so specified.

      (6) A court shall not by virtue of this paragraph include in a probation or combination order a requirement that the offender shall submit to testing or treatment for his drug use unless it considers that such a requirement is appropriate in all the circumstances and it is satisfied that the arrangements have been made for the testing and treatment intended to be specified in the order.
      (7) The court shall review the offender's progress four weeks after making the order, and thereafter at intervals of not more than four weeks and not more than four months.
      (8) While the offender is under treatment as a resident in pursuance of a requirement of the probation or combination order, the probation officer responsible for his supervision shall carry out the supervision to such an extent only as may be necessary for the purpose of the revocation or amendment of the order.
      (9) Where the person by whom or under whose direction an offender is being treated for dependency is of the opinion that part of the treatment can be better or more conveniently given in or at an institution or place which—

      (a) is not specified in the order; and

      (b) is one in or at which the treatment of the offender will be given by or under the direction of a person having the necessary qualifications or experience.

      he may make arrangements for him to be treated accordingly.
      (10) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in subparagraph (9) above are made for the treatment of an offender—
      344

      (a) the person by whom the arrangements are made shall give notice in writing to the probation officer responsible for the supervision of the offender, specifying the institutions or place in or at which the treatment is to be carried out; and

      (b) the treatment provided for by the arrangements shall be deemed to be treatment to which he is required to submit in pursuance of the probation or combination order.".'.—[Mr. George Howarth.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question proposed [13 January], That the clause be read a Second time.
      4.46 pm
      Question again proposed.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I remind the House that with this we are discussing new clause 13—Court to be aware of provision in custody for certain dependent offenders—
      'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to make available to any court passing a custodial sentence upon any offender whom the court believes to be dependent on drugs or alcohol an assessment of the provision available in any prison or other custodial institution to which the offender is liable to be committed of facilities for providing treatment appropriate to his condition.'.
      Mr. Clive Soley: When this debate was adjourned on Monday, I was speaking about the need to consider the needs of people when we imprison them. I was critical of the Minister and of the Government for having no concept of the purpose of prison. I am pleased that the debate was adjourned, because today I was supported, in effect, by none other than the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who said this morning on the Radio Four "Today" programme that we needed to think more carefully about what we were doing with prisons. He said that prison was an expensive way of making bad people worse.
      I am frequently impressed—or, if you like, amazed—by the way in which the Government go in for all sorts of tough language about crime. They say that they are going to lock people up, and the Home Secretary's favourite phrase is, "If they don't want to do the time, they shouldn't do the crime." The Government seem to believe that, if they come out with such politically correct statements and throw a lot of public money at the problem by building more and more prisons, somehow or other crime will go away. It does not, and cannot, work like that.
      We are wasting a vast sum of public money on building prisons that will not deter crime. When the Government discover that they will appease neither the tabloids nor members of the public who seem to think that more and more prisons are the answer, capital punishment will be reintroduced, as has happened in the United States. That also does not work.
      To give the Home Secretary credit, he has made it clear that he does not support the reintroduction of capital punishment—not least because, if a person is wrongfully convicted, we cannot undo the damage once that person has been executed—but the Government are still not thinking about the purpose of prison. We lock people up without any concept of treatment.

      345
      I was addressing new clause 13, which deals with drugs and alcohol. It was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), and states that we need to be able to show courts what prisons or other penal institutions can offer people who are sentenced, so that the court will know. I gave a number of examples, citing in particular an alcoholic with whom I had worked many years ago as a probation officer, and the difficulty even then of securing appropriate treatment programmes in prison. There were some, but not enough. As I said on Monday, there were many more facilities for such people outside prison.
      Sadly, a large number of those facilities have now gone. As the Minister conceded on Monday, the Government must now recognise that, if we acknowledge that the majority of those committed to prison have a history of alcohol or drug abuse—that does not necessarily mean that they are addicted to drugs or alcohol; it merely means that alcohol or drug abuse plays a part in the commission of their offences—it is surely time that we thought about the problem in a rather more sophisticated way, and took the action towards which we were moving in the 1970s.
      We should try to assess every prisoner on the basis of his needs, so that we can produce a treatment programme for prisoners that at least attempts to make some use of their time in prison. At present, we are still locking people up without any real concept of what we are doing, other than keeping them off the streets for a time.
      We are tending to institutionalise people, so that the only thing they learn in prison is how to live in an institution. It should be no surprise to us that, when people are fully institutionalised, they cannot survive outside for long: they commit other offences, and return to prison—or, in many cases, to hospitals of one kind or another, including psychiatric hospitals. We know that from years of research in this and other countries.
      Could the Minister not see his way to asking each prison to produce for the courts that refer to them the treatment facilities that they can offer prisoners, especially those with a history of drink or drug problems? I stress that I am not just talking about the full-blown alcoholic; I am talking about the sort of person who appears all too often in prisons and in court, who, in response to fairly peremptory questioning, will say that, before he committed the offence, he had a few pints with his mates. That is a common picture—the fairly low-level offender who offends quite frequently after going out drinking late at night and then wandering the streets. His offence may be car theft, criminal damage or burglary, but he will end up in prison.
      We know that that is a problem, and we know that such people are more at risk when they have been drinking. That does not necessarily mean that they will not offend when they have not been drinking, but they are much more likely to do so when they have. If we could do something to help them to cope with the problem, we might make more progress.
      The Government have, after all, conceded that anger management programmes and the like are useful in prison, although there is a limit to what such programmes can achieve. Surely, if we acknowledge the usefulness of those programmes, we should acknowledge the usefulness of treating alcohol and drug abuse, which has a much
      346
      longer history. If we accept—as hon. Members on both sides of the House accept—that there is a problem of drink and drug abuse preceding offences, it ought to be possible to assess the drink and drug history of a prisoner as soon as he is admitted, and to start directing treatment programmes towards him.
      It is not just a matter of having a good drug unit in a prison—as we do—or, indeed, a good alcohol unit. Some prisons have outstanding records in such treatment programmes. My point is that there is a low level of alcohol and drug abuse that we are not addressing. It is, at best, addressed from time to time by small group therapy sessions in prisons, depending on the availability of skilled prison officers, probation officers or visiting psychiatrists who can lay on such programmes. We are not dealing with the problem in a serious way.
      That is why, in Monday's debate, I was so critical of the Minister. I wanted him to say, "Yes, we will devise a programme in which every prisoner, when he or she enters prison, is assessed in a more sophisticated and thorough manner for such problems." The current programme is too superficial.
      Each prison should examine its staff resources to determine what they can offer people with drug and alcohol problems. The same programme could not be offered in every prison, but I should hope that some prisons would develop skills in dealing with prisoners with certain types of problem.
      We should be prepared to consider moving people around the prison system for that purpose, although I understand the difficulties involved in doing so—such as keeping prisoners near their homes to maintain home links. Nevertheless, we could develop a much more sophisticated policy in offering prisoners treatment, rather than continuing the absurd approach of simply locking up criminals, throwing away the key and hoping that that will solve the crime problem.
      I remind the Minister that, although the Home Secretary thinks that he is riding a wave of public opinion in favour of tough sentencing, such waves do not last. In 1979, the Tory party came to power with a strong commitment to get tough on crime and to lock up people. The short, sharp shock was the idea of the day. Lord Whitelaw, who was the Home Secretary after the 1979 general election, came in talking about such a shock; however, within a year or two, the policy had been abandoned, because the Government discovered that it did not work.
      After the failure of that policy, successive Conservative Home Secretaries were accused within the Conservative party of being too soft on crime. The right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), a previous Home Secretary—who has now taken up a position with the Prison Reform Trust; I welcome the appointment—was one of the Home Secretaries criticised for being too soft on crime.
      The current Home Secretary says that he will get tough on crime, lock up criminals, throw away the key and build splendid new prisons, at a cost of millions of pounds. However, it is only a matter of time before he discovers that that is the most appalling waste of public money and that it will only delay the onset of further offending, by keeping people off the streets for a short time and then releasing them with as many problems as they had before, if not more.
      The Minister is not an insensitive man, and he is prepared to think about these matters. I ask him to give careful consideration to new clause 7, because it

      347
      demonstrates the type of thinking that we should be doing and gets away from simplistic nonsense, which I suppose has been fuelled by the proximity of the general election. If Ministers think that the public are fooled by tough talk, they are wrong. Crime levels are still rising; therefore—no matter how tough the talk or the sentences—the public will continue to feel that the Government are failing on law and order.
      We must pay far more attention to crime prevention and detection, and to the conviction of offenders. After we convict and imprison offenders, we must have sensible education and social policies to reintegrate them upon their release back into society. We are doing very little of that now.
      Mr. John Hutton: New clauses 7 and 13 are very sensible provisions to improve the Bill, and they should be incorporated into it. In his comments on new clause 7 in Monday's debate, the Minister—perhaps unintentionally—struck a rather complacent tone. He implied that the new clauses were not necessary, because sufficient powers were available to magistrates and other courts to require convicted defendants to undergo treatment for drug or alcohol dependency.
      The Minister was right to mention those powers. As I am sure he is aware, however, the new clauses, particularly new clause 7, in two respects provide significantly greater confirmation of those powers than provided for in paragraph 6 of schedule 1A of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, which also confirms the powers.
      First, under the provisions of paragraph 6 of schedule 1A, before the court imposes such a treatment order, it has to be satisfied that the person being convicted is dependent on drugs. If the Minister studies new clause 7, he will note that that test would no longer have to be satisfied.
      I am aware that paragraph 6(9) of the schedule tends to broaden the concept of dependency by referring to a person simply having a propensity to misuse a serious drug, even though that in itself is a rather vague concept. The new clause cuts through such difficulties by making it clear that, if the defendant is using a class A drug, the power to compel him to undergo treatment is exercisable. That is a significant improvement.
      Secondly, new clause 7 is more extensive, and therefore, I think, more effective. It provides the power to compel a person who has been convicted to undergo testing. As I understand it, paragraph 6 of schedule 1A of the 1973 Act provides that the court can compel a person to undergo treatment but has no powers to compel that person to undergo regular testing.
      Of course, many people will argue that it is difficult to formulate an effective treatment programme if it is not accompanied by a power to require the person undergoing that treatment to be tested regularly in order to establish his or her level of dependency on drugs. If the test reveals that the person is using drugs continually and illicitly, the treatment programme is unlikely to be effective. The Minister might have inadvertently got the wrong end of the stick when he tried to dismiss the relevance of the new clause by saying that the necessary powers were already available to the courts—they are not.
      348
      In those two significant respects—compelling a defendant to undergo testing and broadening the court's powers to require a person to be tested—new clause 7 would significantly improve the provisions of the 1973 legislation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) spoke extensively about the problems that our prisons face in dealing with drugs. There is a huge problem, which I am sure the Minister recognises. Of course, there is a huge drug problem in society at large so perhaps we should not be surprised by signs of drug abuse in the prison population, too. If we are to tackle the problem of drugs in prisons, it is hugely important that we are not complacent and do not rest on our laurels, saying that the existing legislation cannot be improved and that the necessary arrangements are already in place.
      The Addictive Diseases Trust, which now calls itself the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust and which is doing excellent work in some prisons, estimates that drug abuse in prisons is widespread. It also estimates that more than 50 per cent. of prisoners have a chronic and often severe addiction, but very little specialised intensive addiction treatment is available in prisons. It estimates that, in some prisons, as many as 80 per cent. of prisoners are using drugs. Many inmates who were not addicts when they entered prison have become addicted—often under pressure from drug pushers—by the time they are released.
      The drug culture in many prisons is sinister, not only because it directly challenges the authority of the prison governor and staff but because it establishes a counter-culture, in which power is wielded by drug pushers who use their control of the supply of drugs and their consequent influence in profoundly unhelpful and damaging ways. In this context, it is important that we constantly examine how we respond to the problem of drugs in prison and whether more work cannot be done by the Home Office and the Prison Service. The drug culture is a direct challenge to the way in which we run our prisons.
      Anyone who has visited a prison and talked to prisoners knows how grim the reality is in prison. That is not to say that many prisons are not trying to develop effective strategies to deal with drug abuse, because they are, and we should congratulate the Prison Service on its work in that respect. Nevertheless, the picture is pretty horrifying in many prisons.
      I do not whether the Minister read The Guardian of 10 August 1994. It may not be his usual reading—it is not usually mine—but it contained a letter from a prisoner. I read it at the time, and it struck me as painting an horrific picture of drug abuse in prison. 1 shall quote from it, as it is relevant to our debate.
      The prisoner in question, who was serving a long sentence, described his drug taking—he was taking them intravenously—in this way:
      "The syringe that we used today had been used approximately 100 times before by approximately 15 different prisoners.
      It is a disposable insulin syringe, which I will describe briefly for you: the rubber at the end of the plunger has disintegrated completely through constant use. Instead of a rubber, we have a small piece of black polythene from a dustbin liner wrapped around the plunger and held in place by cotton thread.
      The plunger itself is snapped in half and so the barrel of the syringe has been cut down accordingly. Each time the syringe is used, butter is smeared on to the polythene to facilitate the plunger to be depressed.

      349
      The needle, of which we have only one, has been cut in half with nail clippers to remove a blockage. We use a matchbox to sharpen it.
      It is not possible to clean either the syringe or the needle in between injections as this would entail removing the polythene and tying it all back on again. Thus the risk of infection is monstrously high … The highest number of prisoners I have seen using a similar syringe, one after the other, is nine."
      The prisoner says that he considers himself lucky to have contracted only hepatitis B and hepatitis C through the use of shared needles in prison. He has managed to avoid becoming infected with the HIV virus, but I suspect that he will not be successful for very much longer.
      The prisoner also writes:
      "Despite many efforts to bring my addiction to an end, the sheer availability and the large number of addicts in prison mean that I consistently fail. There is no means of rehabilitation for addicts in prison and every reason for the addicts—particularly long-termers and lifers—to conceal their addiction."
      That is a pretty grim and depressing picture, although things may have improved a little since 1994, when that letter was written.
      For example, I am aware that the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust is now running a number of drug rehabilitation programmes in prisons such as Downview, Coldingley, Pentonville and Wandsworth. That is an excellent sign of progress, but there are still not enough rehabilitation programmes within the prison estate. It would be interesting if the Minister could say—perhaps not today but in the future—how many programmes there are and what their likely success rate is.
      When Judge Stephen Tumim was the chief inspector of prisons, he commented favourably on the drug rehabilitation work being done at Downview. After his inspection, he recommended that the Home Office provide sufficient funding properly to evaluate the impact of that programme and the extent to which it had a more general application across the prison estate.
      Taken together, new clauses 7 and 13 take us in the right direction. It would be a catastrophic mistake, in terms of the very purpose and function of prisons and certainly in terms of securing value for money for the taxpayer, if we continued to do so little about the problem of drug abuse.
      As much as half of all property-related crime may well be drug-connected. There is undeniably a connection between drug abuse and property-related crime. The need of drug addicts to feed their habit, which may require £500 or £600 a day for heroin or crack cocaine, is having a huge impact on crime in many of our communities.
      Drug problems are present not just in the inner cities, but in towns and cities across the country, and even in some rural areas. When offenders are sent to prison, we have a unique opportunity to try to correct their pattern of drug abuse. If we do not take that opportunity, the likelihood is that they will show up in prison again two or three years after being discharged—sometimes sooner than that—because their drug addiction was not effectively addressed while they were in prison. As the RAPT evidence has shown, there is a risk of drug abuse problems getting worse rather than better in prison, and feeding through to higher crime levels.
      The two new clauses would take us forward. They would require more work from the Home Office in establishing rehabilitation programmes in prison, and
      350
      would give the courts useful additional powers that they do not possess. I urge the Minister to think again about his position on the new clauses. He may feel that the wording is not perfect, although it draws heavily on the wording of schedule 1A of the 1973 Act, so it may be hard to criticise the new clauses for that. The new powers available to the court would take their testing and treatment powers in a positive direction. I therefore hope that the Minister is prepared to be more positive than he was on Monday.
      Mr. George Howarth: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on their excellent speeches. With his customary knowledge of these subjects and his huge experience, gained partly in the probation service before he came to the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith gave some useful insights and an effective critique of the lack of thought behind the Minister's speech on Monday. I shall say more in a moment about the deficiencies in the Minister's reaction to the new clause.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness made some very useful points. I associate myself with his congratulations to the Prison Service on the work that it already does to rehabilitate drug offenders. From my experience of visiting prisons, I know that a lot of work is done. There is an increasing realisation that prisoners must be forced to confront their behaviour, particularly their addictive behaviour, towards certain types of drug. That is successful. The problem is that there is no systematic rehabilitation programme for drug offenders in prison.
      Drug abuse in prison is still too common. Everybody, from Her Majesty's chief inspector to the Prison Service, acknowledges that the problems are severe. I do not want to bandy statistics about, but every hon. Member, irrespective of their opinion of the Bill or the new clause, would be horrified by the amount of drug abuse that still goes on in prison. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness made that point well, and I join him in congratulating the Prison Service.
      My hon. Friend also made the good point that the House must consider the opportunities that exist prison by prison for people to confront their drug abuse and get into a programme that gives them a chance to get away from drug abuse and into a cleaner life style. We have had a useful debate, and my two hon. Friends have made constructive contributions.
      5.15 pm
      I should like to refer to what happened on Monday. On Tuesday morning, I was travelling to Staffordshire to campaign with a colleague. I picked up a paper, only to find that the Home Secretary had apparently said that the Government had chosen not to move the 10 o'clock motion, thereby terminating Monday's debate, because of the delaying tactics of the Opposition.
      I read the entire Hansard report of our debates on the new clauses on Monday, and I found no evidence of any hon. Members on either side of the House wasting any time. Those comments show gross disrespect to the Chair. If any of my hon. Friends or I had practised any delaying tactics, we would have been called up by the

      351
      Chair. Perhaps I should correct the impression that I have just given; the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) occasionally wasted the House's time, but the Opposition were not responsible for it. That is his responsibility and he will have to deal with his Front Bench.
      It is not true that we were wasting time. If the Government had had patience, we could have reached Third Reading on Monday night, or perhaps in the early hours of Tuesday. There would have been no problem with that. Theirs was the decision to terminate the debate, and theirs is the responsibility for the Bill not yet completing its Commons stages. The Opposition bear no responsibility for that. The Home Secretary should be ashamed of trying to play cheap politics when we are making constructive suggestions.
      The Government's opposition to the new clauses is based on a confused interpretation of what is happening in prisons. The Minister has some contradictory and muddled arguments about the purposes of our new clauses and their effects. On Monday, he said:
      "The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is absolutely right to sing the praises of drug treatment as an alternative to prison and to say that there should be such treatment in prison".
      That is fair enough. He went on to say:
      "schedule 1A to the Powers of the Criminal Courts Act 1973, supported by the Criminal Justice Act 1991, provides all the necessary legislation to give the courts the power to pass community sentences that are conditional upon following drug treatment."
      However, the Minister failed to provide supporting evidence for those assertions. He did not take into account the need to mandate those offenders in prison to treatment. There is no compulsion—a point that he also made. The purpose of new clauses 7 and 13 is to mandate treatment during community and prison sentences. If, as he asserts, all the necessary legislation has been on the statute book since 1991 and
      "nothing more needs to be added",
      why, by the end of 1996, could the Home Office not provide even a rough estimate of the amount of drug rehabilitation in prisons? I shall happily give way if the Minister wants to provide evidence, but the evidence to support his contentions simply does not exist.
      I was told in a recent parliamentary answer that the only information available on drug rehabilitation related to time spent in detox. Although we recognise the value of detox, there is clearly a desperate need for rehabilitation programmes that force offenders to address their drug use. Although detox has a valuable role, we cannot get people off drugs simply by the physical process; they have to understand why they need to come off them, what their habit is doing to their lives and the potential of their becoming clean and free of drugs.
      On Monday, the Minister made a rough estimate that
      "There are now between 50 and 60 schemes in prisons."
      He made no estimate of the number of prisoners undergoing treatment. Nor do any of the schemes force prisoners into treatment. He cited a scheme in Plymouth
      "where the Devon probation service is running a drug assessment and stabilisation programme."
      He praised the scheme's success, and I join him in that. He continued:
      "It appeared that all those who were on the programme were not simply avoiding prison, but wanted to get off drugs and had been offered an opportunity to do so."
      352
      However, the success of one community scheme in no way supports his argument that nothing more needs to be done. He does not appear to have grasped the size of the problem or the inadequacy of the Government's current response.
      Let me refresh the Minister's memory. In 1995, there were 37,164 registered addicts. Empirical evidence suggests that around half all property crime is committed by people seeking to fund a drug habit. That is not an excuse; nobody would excuse any crime committed for that reason, but many drug users commit crimes to feed their habit.
      Yesterday, I spent some time in Staffordshire. The police confirmed that drugs are a major cause of crime in the county. The Merseyside police and the Metropolitan police have made the same point. Any chief constable in England, Wales and probably Scotland would confirm it. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis recently estimated that, in London, the proportion of drug-related crime is closer to 60 per cent.
      We need to have an idea of the scale of the problem to evaluate the inadequacy of the Minister's response. In 1996, there were 158 establishments holding prisoners, but according to the Minister's own figures, there are only 50 to 60 drug rehabilitation schemes in prisons, so less than 40 per cent. of the prison estate has a scheme in place. There is no universal standard across the Prison Service, and although most prisons have a drug problem, only around 40 per cent. of prisons have any means of dealing with it. There is no room for complacency, as some 60 per cent. of prisons have no means of rehabilitating those involved in drug abuse. It is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. New clauses 7 and 13 seek to do so in a responsible and intelligent way.
      There are no universal standards across the Prison Service. I have no clear idea—nor, I suspect, has anyone in the Home Office—that one scheme works better than the others. There are contentious issues involved, such as those surrounding the use of methadone, and some schemes need to be evaluated more thoroughly. Unless we conduct evaluations and set and adhere to universal standards, the problem will continue.
      People still go into prison without a drug habit, pick up a drug habit there, and come out addicted. Unless we can apply universal standards across the Prison Service, the problem will continue. The complacency of the Minister's response is a matter for serious concern.
      The Prison Service has no estimate of the time spent on rehabilitation or the number of prisoners who pass through existing schemes. There is a similar problem in the community outside. There are no national standards for rehabilitation, so there are significant regional variations. If an addict lives in an area where rehabilitation schemes are available but does not know where to go for treatment, he will not have the opportunity to get off drugs and into a drug-free life style. Given the scale of the problem nationally, we have to address it in a co-ordinated way by applying standards across the country and by providing opportunities for people to get out of drug abuse.
      Sentencing practices lack consistency across the country, even within prison catchment areas. That highlights the need for guidance and direction from the Home Office towards diversion into treatment, or treatment in prison, as appropriate.

      353
      The provision of treatment for drug-using prisoners who wish to kick the habit will solve only part of the problem. The Minister seems to think that provision for less than 40 per cent. of the prison estate will satisfy the needs of all prisoners who wish to address their addiction. Frankly, that is inadequate. The Minister appears to have overlooked the options that force offenders into treatment. On Monday he said:
      "Treatment has been stimulated further by mandatory drug testing in prisons. However, it is not necessarily possible to accelerate further the process … because prisoners who have drug treatment or who enter drug-free wings are essentially volunteers."
      That is true. The Minister implied that enforced treatment simply would not work, but the evidence, if he bothered to read it, is that enforced treatment can be just as successful as voluntary treatment. A Home Office report by Michael Hough entitled "Drugs Misuse and the Criminal Justice System" published in 1996 noted:
      "legally coerced treatment is no less effective than treatment entered 'voluntarily'".
      Treatment that includes an element of compulsion can be highly cost effective. American research suggests that every ․1 spent on treatment saves ․7 in criminal justice and other social costs. Schemes that focus on early intervention and intensive supervision of drug-addicted offenders can lead to immediate savings in criminal justice costs.
      In addition, the costs of mandatory drug testing—the introduction of which we supported—may have unintentionally acted as a drain on resources for rehabilitation. To date, no evidence has been put forward to support the Minister's claim that mandatory drug testing has stimulated rehabilitation; as the Opposition suggested on Monday, it may be quite the opposite. A small but definite trend in the statistics show that there is a shift in drug abuse in prisons away from the use of cannabis towards the use of opiates such as heroin and cocaine.
      On Monday, the Minister stated:
      "I do not want to sound complacent, because for years there was very little progress on drug treatment in prisons. We witnessed the ridiculous spectacle of people who may not have been drug users but who came out, typically, as heroin addicts."—[Official Report, 13 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 110–11.]
      I agree with him. Unfortunately, what he described is still happening. He speaks as if, as a result of the introduction of mandatory drug testing, all the problems have gone away—they have not; they are still there. We have tabled new clauses 7 and 13 because we believe that more action must be taken.
      5.30 pm
      The Minister's logic seems remarkable. He accepts anecdotal evidence that, prior to the introduction of mandatory drug testing, offenders entered prison without a drug habit but left "typically, as heroin addicts"; now we have substantial evidence to demonstrate the disturbing shift to opiate use, he disputes it. The logic of that escapes me, so I hope that he will spend some time explaining it to the House.
      There is evidence that, between 1 March and 30 September 1996, the percentage of random drug tests showing positive for opiates increased from 5.94 per
      354
      cent. to 6.35 per cent. That represents—I think that the Minister now accepts this figure—an increase of about 7 per cent. in the proportion of prisoners testing positive for opiates. If we project that on to the prison population as a whole, the number of prisoners regularly using opiates has increased from about 3,192 to 3,595.
      A report in the journal Druglink published in June last year stated:
      "The inmate population is well aware of the mechanics of urine testing and already there is an alarming degree of anecdotal evidence of drug mis-users favouring heroin (an opiate) over cannabis in certain situations, as it does not show up in tests so long after use."
      The Minister suggests that he does not understand a number of our proposals, but he ought to understand that such a shift is taking place and that inmates understand what they are doing when they move from soft to hard drugs. In some respects, rightly or wrongly, they do so to evade capture.
      The Minister rightly pointed out that amphetamines, when not injected, are class B drugs and would therefore be excluded from the provisions proposed by new clause 7. I accept that, but he ought to take into account two facts. First, the new clause's purpose is to target the most problematic and addictive users, who tend to have opiate-based addictions that often involve other drug types. Typically, they may prefer to use cocktails of drugs on occasions. Secondly, the Minister's observation in no way weakens the argument for either new clause 7 or new clause 13. Indeed, if anything, it is an argument for increasing the powers in them.
      Not enough thought has been put into the Government's opposition to our proposals. All we got from the Minister on Monday was a knee-jerk reaction: if the Opposition propose it, it must be wrong. The general public are sick and tired of the Government's negative approach and of important problems such as drug abuse in the prison system and elsewhere being used as a political football. When the Opposition come up with a good idea, the Government simply reject it, yet the public rightly want co-operation on such matters. If we make useful suggestions, the Government should simply take them on board.
      If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, there are problems with the new clauses, we can put them right during subsequent stages of the Bill, "But no, it is unnecessary," says the Minister. Even when we prove that action is necessary, he still does not relent. The new clauses may be imperfect. If there are drafting problems, we are willing to co-operate in putting them right in another place—but no. The only defect of new clauses 7 and 13 is that the Opposition rather than the Government have proposed them. That is a pathetic way of dealing with such problems and certainly not one of which I want to be part.
      We hope that those who sent us to the House will note that, although we have tried to play a constructive role by suggesting improvements to the Bill, particularly where it affects those who are abusing drugs, the Government have not wanted to co-operate. I hope that, in future, even in the Government's dying days, we can co-operate on such important issues and make progress. On the evidence of Monday's response—I hope that the Minister is prepared to make a constructive response today—that will not happen. It is wrong to play politics with such issues and

      355
      not to listen to constructive suggestions, and the public will note that, if such an attitude prevails, the sooner the Government leave office, the better.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I must comment briefly on what has been said today and on Monday. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) suggested that the approach to treatment in prisons is unco-ordinated, and the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) said that very little is being done. I take issue with that. I said that there are between 50 and 60 schemes in operation in prisons. In fact, there are 59. They are by necessity very diverse. Drug treatment is relatively new to prisons, and many of the services being provided are themselves relatively new. One cannot, overnight, install drug treatment or rehabilitation schemes throughout the prison system as though they were something physical, such as central heating.
      Mr. Hutton rose—
      Mr. Sackville: I shall not give way; we have spent a long time debating these new clauses.
      The services need to be brought in, and the right ones need to be found. All sorts of methods are being used, from total abstinence—the Minnesota method as it is called—in a group of prisons, including Downview, right through to detoxification units and services run by Phoenix house. Those are very different services, and we shall see in time which are the most successful. It is my impression that all of them are having a considerable effect. They are being well used, and I am optimistic. We should not be so negative about what has been achieved through the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister who is in charge of prisons in getting such services up and running.
      It has been suggested that additional powers are needed. I remind the House that a judge can order that a sentence be served in the community by a person who has been convicted so long as he or she follows a drug treatment programme. That programme may or may not include mandatory testing. The decision is essentially not up to the judge; it is up to the provider of the treatment to decide—the decision must be acceptable to the judge as a precondition—whether it contains mandatory drug testing. I suspect that most programmes would contain it.
      The programme that I have held up as a model—the one in Plymouth, which is not the only model—does contain mandatory drug testing. If any person following that treatment does not fulfil all the programme's requirements, they are in breach and they are in gaol. That is the important thing. It is really up to the provider of the treatment to be the first person to indicate when such a breach has occurred.
      I have great respect for the knowledge of the hon. Member for Hammersmith in these matters, given his long professional background and the fact that he has a well-known prison in his constituency. I accept that this place occasionally obliges even the most sensible and serious hon. Members to trade insults across the Floor, but if I did not I might take considerable personal offence at being told that I am complacent about drugs. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that I was co-founder of the all-party drug misuse committee and was its secretary for
      356
      three years. I founded that committee 11 years ago, and in the same year published a slim volume on the subject of heroin misuse called, "Heroin: Threat to a Generation" of which I shall be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy.
      In the past year and a half, since taking on my present job, I have been round the country visiting every drug prevention initiative run by the Home Office. I have talked with most of the drug action team chairmen and I have been as far afield as Ankara and Bogota in pursuit of new agreements between this and other countries to address the drug problem. I seriously believe that, on this issue, I am perhaps one of the least complacent Members of Parliament.
      Mr. Soley rose—
      Mr. Sackville: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind I shall not give way.
      For the reasons I have outlined, I am pleased to say that there has been good progress—although we need to go further—in providing drug treatment in prisons. It cannot all be done overnight. I am also pleased to say that I believe that all the powers are available to courts to issue conditional sentences, which are an excellent means of diversion from prison for those with a drug problem. Although the new clauses may represent a good opportunity to discuss this serious problem, I do not believe that they are necessary, and I am unable to commend them to the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 296.

      Division No. 39]

      [5.41 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Allen, Graham

      Chidgey, David

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Church, Ms Judith

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Clapham, Michael

      Ashton, Joseph

      Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Barron, Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beckett, Mrs Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Beith, A J

      Connarty, Michael

      Bell, Stuart

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Benn, Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Benton, Joe

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cummings, John

      Blair, Tony

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Blunkett, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      Bradley, Keith

      Cunningham, Dr John

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dafis, Cynog

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Darling, Alistair

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Byers, Stephen

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Cabom, Richard

      Davis, Terry (Sham Hodge H)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Denham, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dewar, Donald

      357

      Dixon, Don

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Dobson, Frank

      McAllion, John

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dowd, Jim

      McFall, John

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McKelvey, William

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Eastham, Ken

      McLeish, Henry

      Ennis, Jeff

      Maclennan, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fatchett, Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Faulds, Andrew

      McWilliam, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Fisher, Mark

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Flynn, Paul

      Mandelson, Peter

      Foster, Derek

      Marek, Dr John

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Martlew, Eric

      Gapes, Mike

      Meacher, Michael

      Garrett, John

      Meale, Alan

      George, Bruce

      Michael, Alun

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Gilbert, Dr John

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Milburn, Alan

      Godsiff, Roger

      Miller, Andrew

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Gordon, Ms Mildred

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Hall, Mike

      Mudie, George

      Hanson, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hardy, Peter

      Murphy, Paul

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Henderson, Doug

      Oakes, Gordon

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hoey, Kate

      Olner, Bill

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Orme, Stanley

      Hood, Jimmy

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

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

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Pope, Greg

      Hoyle, Doug

      Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Ingram, Adam

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

      Radice, Giles

      Jamieson, David

      Raynsford, Nick

      Janner, Greville

      Reid, Dr John

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Rendel, David

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Keen, Alan

      Sheerman, Barry

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Short, Clare

      Khabra, Piara S

      Simpson, Alan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Skinner, Dennis

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

      Smith, Chris (Islington S)

      Lewis, Terry

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Soley, Clive

      Litherland, Robert

      Spearing, Nigel

      Livingstone, Ken

      Spellar, John

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      358

      Steel, Sir David

      Wallace, James

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Stevenson, George

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Stott, Roger

      Wareing, Robert N

      Strang, Dr Gavin

      Watson, Mike

      Straw, Jack

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wilson Brian

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Winnick, David

      Thurnham, Peter

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Timms, Stephen

      Worthington, Tony

      Touhig, Don

      Wray, Jimmy

      Trickett, Jon

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Turner, Dennis

      Tyler, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Vaz, Keith

      Mr. Kevin Hughes and

      Walker, Sir Harold

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Colvin, Michael

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Congdon, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Amess, David

      Cope, Sir John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Couchman, James

      Ashby, David

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Atkins, Robert

      Curry, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Day, Stephen

      Baldry, Tony

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Devlin, Tim

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Bates, Michael

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Batiste, Spencer

      Dover, Den

      Beggs, Roy

      Duncan, Alan

      Bellingham, Henry

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bendall, Vivian

      Dunn, Bob

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Biffen, John

      Dykes, Hugh

      Body, Sir Richard

      Eggar, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Elletson, Harold

      Booth, Hartley

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Bowis, John

      Evennett, David

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Faber, David

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Brooke, Peter

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Forman, Nigel

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Forth, Eric

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Burns, Simon

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Burt, Alistair

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Butler, Peter

      Freeman, Roger

      Butterfill, John

      French, Douglas

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Carrington, Matthew

      Gale, Roger

      Carttiss, Michael

      Gallie, Phil

      Cash, William

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Channon, Paul

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Garnier, Edward

      Churchill, Mr

      Gill, Christopher

      Clappison, James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      359

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gummer, John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hague, William

      Nelson, Anthony

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Newton, Tony

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Norris, Steve

      Harris, David

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hawksley, Warren

      Paice, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Patten, John

      Hendry, Charles

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pawsey, James

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

      Porter, David

      Horam, John

      Portillo, Michael

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Howard, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Howell, David (Guilafd)

      Redwood, John

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Renton, Tim

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Richards, Rod

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Riddick, Graham

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hurd, Douglas

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Jack, Michael

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

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jessel, Toby

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rowe, Andrew

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Ryder, Richard

      Jopling, Michael

      Sackville, Tom

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Scott, Sir Nicholas

      Key, Robert

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Herefd)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Knox, Sir David

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Kynoch, George

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lamont, Norman

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lang, Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfld)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Legg, Barry

      Soames, Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lidington, David

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Lilley, Peter

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Lord, Michael

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Luff, Peter

      Spring, Richard

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Sproat, lain

      MacGregor, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Stanley, Sir John

      Maclean, David

      Steen, Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Stephen, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stern, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Stewart, Allan

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Streeter, Gary

      Malone, Gerald

      Sumberg, David

      Mans, Keith

      Sweeney, Walter

      Marland, Paul

      Sykes, John

      Mariow, Tony

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, John D (Strangfd)

      Mayhew, Sir Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Merchant, Piers

      Taylor, Sir Tedd

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Thomason, Roy

      360

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Watts, John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Wells, Bowen

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Whittingdale, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Tredinnick, David

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Trend, Michael

      Wilkinson, John

      Trotter, Neville

      Willetts, David

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wilshire, David

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Viggers, Peter

      Wolfson, Mark

      Waldegrave, William

      Wood, Timothy

      Walden, George

      Yeo, Tim

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Young, Sir George

      Waller, Gary

      Ward, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Mr. Roger Knapman and

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Sebastian Coe.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 14

      CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
      '—(1) Where a person of not less than 14 years of age is convicted of an imprisonable offence, the court by or before which he is convicted may make an order that he shall be subject to corporal punishment.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall, by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, make rules for the administration of the sentence of corporal punishment.'.—[Mr. Marlow.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I tabled the new clause with the support, after a short trawl, of 29 of my hon. Friends. I am committed to the powers and sovereignties of the House and, in general, I do not believe that any international involvements or commitments should stand in the way of the House doing what it believes to be right for this country in this country.
      It may seem to some bloodthirsty, even Neanderthal, to propose anything as mediaeval as the reintroduction of corporal punishment, but unfortunately—as everyone in the House must know—most of our citizens, especially the law abiding, the old, the poor and defenceless, are daily threatened by an escalating savagery and barbarism that is much more bloodthirsty and Neanderthal than corporal punishment while their tormentors, who so readily and callously destroy peace of mind and quality of life, have nothing to fear. As we all know, crime—particularly hooligan crime—is getting worse. As yet, no effective solution has been proposed, still less enacted.
      That is fine for us in this place who, by and large, have a good standard of living. We are privileged, and we have a choice as to the area in which we live. We are cocooned in our relative prosperity. But for many of our constituents, life is hell. It is different out there. If hon. Members had to live in the intimidatory conditions imposed upon many of our constituents, we would be less precious, less squeamish and less elitist in our approach to the problem. As the problem has worsened, we have wrung our hands—but otherwise looked away.

      361
      6 pm
      We have a duty that for too long we have neglected. We need to make an urgent impact, and to do that we must be imaginative. We must break away from the parrot cries—one of which we heard earlier from the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)—about the need for better rates of detection. Of course we need better rates of detection, which will help. But we need effective deterrents—deterrents that truly deter. We need effective treatments—treatments that reform. By no stretch of the imagination are either of those available yet.
      I recommend two approaches. First, for those who have gone off the rails for the first time, I recommend the judicious development of a system of outward bound training. Those who, perhaps, have had a bad start in life or who have taken a wrong turning can be sent on a course into the mountains to work with and take responsibility for others as part of a team. They can be challenged and, perhaps, they will succeed. If they satisfy the rigorous training conditions, they can pass out with an award of esteem. For many of our confused and alienated young, such a scheme could establish a basis of purpose and confidence in their lives on which they could build to become useful and satisfied citizens, rather than being sucked deeper into a vortex of a criminal sub-culture.
      Those who are more hardened and contemptuous of society—and only them—I would threaten with the new clause. Corporal punishment should be made available to the courts in place of imprisonment, with a system of corporal punishment introduced later by statutory instrument. At whom would I target this punishment? Basically, anti-social youth—the mugger, the ram-raider, the vandal, the graffiti artist, the hooligan, those who seek to intimidate potential witnesses and the tin-pot Napoleons who seek the admiration of their peers by ever more outrageous behaviour.
      Why should we apparently seek to turn back the pages of history? I believe that our first duty is to safeguard the quality of life of many of our citizens whose lives have been made miserable by these malcontents. I believe that no current deterrent or penalty is effective, and I do not believe that any Member of this House can honestly say that corporal punishment would not be a deterrent. I do not believe any historical analysis that suggests that corporal punishment fell into disuse when it was last available because nobody wanted to use it as it was not effective. However, circumstances at that time were different from those of today. At that time, we had a disciplined society—now we do not. Corporal punishment would have a great effect on criminal patterns of behaviour. Bullies are also cowards.
      I do not envisage corporal punishment as a daily occurrence, and some judges and magistrates may be reluctant to impose it. In most of our cities the cane could be kept in the cupboard, but threats—along with reports of the circumstances of its occasional use—would be sufficient for it to work. Some hon. Members may feel that such a proposal is out of date—even barbaric. They have had more than a generation to prove their case and to suggest alternative remedies. They have manifestly failed.
      Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are often told that there is no evidence to suggest that corporal punishment would work,
      362
      and we are asked why we propose it? Does he further agree that there is no real evidence to suggest that corporal punishment would not work as a deterrent?
      Mr. Marlow: Common sense, our experience of history and evidence from other countries in, for example, the middle east—although I am not suggesting that we follow the line taken in the middle east—suggest that such policies are a deterrent.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Has the hon. Gentleman studied the effect of secure training orders on young people? The Government introduced those orders only recently. Is he saying that they have already failed?
      Mr. Marlow: I am not saying that any particular course of action or proposal from the Government has failed, but everyone would agree that the levels of crime—particularly hooligan crime—and disruption on some of our poorer estates are much greater than those of the past. We have a continuing social problem and although some measures are doing some good, we have not solved the problem yet.
      Without the reintroduction of corporal punishment, we will not satisfy the needs of our constituents—whatever pious hopes we have and however liberal we might feel. Something has to be done. The present system is not working and we do not have a solution yet. My final point is that a truth—an unpleasant truth, but a truth nevertheless—that has been proved by history is, sadly, that civilisation cannot be maintained without an element of barbarism to protect it.
      Mr. Llwyd: I did not intend to contribute to the debate, as I have other—if I may say so—more important matters that I wish to discuss later. I have seldom disagreed so vehemently with any hon. Member.
      Mrs. Peacock: Rubbish.
      Mr. Llwyd: I thank the hon. Lady for that—that was typical of her contributions in this House. I disagree root and branch with what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said. He ignored the fact that a large percentage of young people involved in crime are from traumatised backgrounds themselves. They have seen domestic violence—sometimes severe violence—at first hand. They have seen mother being kicked around and father being dragged out by a brother-in-law, and so on. The sanction that the hon. Gentleman now wants is for society to traumatise those young people yet again. He used the word "barbaric", but that is too soft a word for what he intends. I think that his is the authentic voice of darkness and regression in this House. This is nonsense in what is supposed to be a serious debate about penal policy.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: More and more in my postbag, I receive requests from quite mild constituents who wish the return of corporal punishment. These often come after pictures of the battered features of elderly ladies and gentlemen—or, not infrequently, stories about 70 or 80-year-old women who have been raped—appear on the front page of our local newspapers.

      363
      It has been said that corporal punishment does not work. Yet years ago, I practised as a barrister in the courts in the east end of London. On one occasion, we were discussing corporal punishment before the court commenced. The probation officer was vehemently against it, and said that his client that day had been caned on the Isle of Man but was back before the court once again. There then came a voice from the corner saying, "I wouldn't do it again on the Isle of Man". That is the point. Those who have had a dose of corporal punishment do not come back for a second one. It is not a glorious punishment about which they can boast to their colleagues.
      I believe that corporal punishment would act as an enormous deterrent to muggers and those to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred—those to whom the dignity of life of others is of no importance. They humiliate people and steal their prized possessions, and they deserve corporal punishment.
      Mr. Warren Hawksley: I support the new clause. I have argued for corporal punishment on many occasions and I am pleased to do so again. Last year, I introduced a ten-minute Bill that attracted more support than I had expected. I served on the Standing Committee on the Bill now under discussion, but I did not table an amendment. However, in 1984, I believe, on the Criminal Justice Bill, there was a whole day's debate on an amendment that I had tabled on the subject. It is an important subject, about which our constituents are concerned. They believe that corporal punishment would be a deterrent, and to my mind that is extremely important.
      The Isle of Man has already been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) asked in an intervention whether there was a case against corporal punishment. Before I tabled my amendment in 1984, I visited the Isle of Man to see what the position was. At that time, the law was still on the statute book there, but was not being used.
      I was told by the chief constable on the island that when crowds came over from Liverpool and Manchester for football matches, people arriving in the harbour at Douglas would invariably ask his officers on the gates whether it was true that there was still corporal punishment on the island. When they were told that that was indeed the case, the response was, "Don't worry, Guy, we won't cause any trouble while we're here."
      Corporal punishment is a deterrent, and that was demonstrated on the Isle of Man. I strongly believe that we should reintroduce it here. The Opposition will no doubt suggest that it is degrading and that the European Court of Human Rights would say the same. When we talk of degradation, we should think of the victims, and how degrading it is for them.
      There has been another change since 1984, because the Government have been questioning the powers of the European Court of Human Rights. When the renewal came up, serious doubts were expressed, whereas I remember that when I asked the then Prime Minister in 1980 whether she would withdraw our signature from the convention, she said no. I believe that the time is coming when the court will take so different a view from ours on what the law should be that we will withdraw from it.
      364
      On the categories of offenders on whom the courts should be able to impose such punishment, I believe that they should include youngsters who attack elderly people and mug them for only a few pounds. I believe that their treatment of those elderly people is a degrading act, and that corporal punishment would be of great advantage in such cases. When it was known that a court was prepared to order such punishment to be carried out, there would soon be a reduction in such crimes. Even if some benches were initially nervous of introducing it, other benches would quickly prove that it was working as a deterrent. It is with great pleasure that I support the new clause.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: It is no part of the case against the reintroduction of corporal punishment to deny that some young people are recalcitrant, that their crimes against those more vulnerable and weaker than themselves are horrible and that the state has found it difficult to determine a satisfactory system to punish them or to teach them the error of their ways, but the facts do not support the contention that corporal punishment can be brought back to fill that gap.
      The experience of the use of corporal punishment in this country was not the glowing success that is implied by the supporters of the new clause. Corporal punishment has proved ineffective in the fight against crime: when it was available for robbery with violence, before its abolition in 1948, three separate Government surveys found that offenders who underwent it committed more subsequent crimes than similar offenders who received other sentences.
      Mr. Marlow: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about a different age, with different circumstances, morality and expectations. If that is his argument against the reintroduction of corporal punishment, perhaps he would allow a trial period, to see whether it would work in today's circumstances.
      Mr. Beith: I shall go on in a moment to put the case why we should not reintroduce it at all, but I think that I may be permitted to draw on the experience of Britain in the post-war years if others can draw on the experience of the Isle of Man to try to make their point. The comparison that we must make is with the time when corporal punishment existed here.
      Before 1948, the number of robberies with violence had been rising steadily, yet it fell in each of the three years after abolition and did not rise again to the same levels until 10 years later. That suggests that corporal punishment was not a crucial or even useful factor in preventing those crimes.
      6.15 pm
      Many of the young people whom some Conservative Members would consider suitable for corporal punishment have already been the subject of severe physical punishment or attack in the course of their upbringing.
      Dame Jill Knight: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right about that, but the new clause would give the power only to the judge, who would have all the evidence at his fingertips. I have

      365
      put my name to the new clause because I am happy to leave it to the judge to make what he feels to be the wisest judgment in a particular case.
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady has a point. If the power were available to them, judges would be likely to use it very infrequently, because they would be persuaded by the arguments that I am advancing. I am arguing against the reintroduction of corporal punishment, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who said that it would be the reintroduction of a system that has been unfashionable since the days of Palmerston; he delivered a scathing attack on the idea that it could properly be reincorporated into our system. In the inconceivable event—given the Government's stated opposition—that the House reintroduced corporal punishment, it would be used very little by the courts.
      Reintroduction would contravene our international obligations under the European convention on human rights, as was clear from the 1978 Tyrer case and from our experience in relation to the Isle of Man. Those who have begun to try to persuade the Government that we should withdraw from the convention should have regard to the fact that we subscribe to it not simply to set a standard against which to judge what happens here, but to assist the upholding of human rights in countries throughout Europe. To withdraw from the convention would be to withdraw our support for the upholding of human rights in all respects, and that would be an extremely bad step for Britain to take.
      Reintroduction would also create problems in relation to the medical professions and the law. A medical practitioner would have to be present when corporal punishment was administered, which would contravene the World Medical Association's 1975 Tokyo declaration, which laid down that doctors should not participate in, or be present at, any procedure during which
      "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment"
      is used.
      Mr. Hawksley: When I tabled my amendment in 1984, the British Medical Association issued a press statement saying that it would not support it, but I had letters from doctors throughout the country saying that they were prepared to carry out their responsibilities if the law approved.
      Mr. Beith: I have said in another context that one can find some doctor somewhere to support any proposition. In a very different area of argument and policy, I have argued strongly against the idea that two doctors signing a form demonstrates that something is acceptable. That, however, is another subject.
      The medical profession contains a wide variety of people, but there is a prevailing assumption in it, here and abroad, that the skills of medical science should not be used in support of degrading or cruel punishment.
      366
      The true burden of the case is that corporal punishment is not effective: its record would in no way justify the sacrifice of principle and international obligation that would be involved in reintroducing it.
      Mr. Marlow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
      Mr. Beith: No, I am coming to the end of my remarks, because I am looking forward to hearing the official Labour party view, which I take to be strong opposition, although these days one cannot be entirely sure; I do not know precisely what methods are considered appropriate to sweep the squeegee merchants and graffiti artists off the streets, but I hope that that will soon become abundantly clear.
      Mr. Alun Michael: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman, when commenting on the Labour party's policies, would refer to what Labour Members have said and not to the inaccurate phrases used in The Times. We are precise in what we say, and our opposition to this new clause is clear, so we do not need to make a meal of it.
      Mr. Beith: I hope that that opposition will take the form of a short and concise speech setting out in terms that the Labour party will oppose the amendment. Labour Members must be trying to keep a low profile if we have to rely on a mere intervention in my speech, whereas the Government will not be able to keep a low profile. I look forward to a stalwart rebuttal of the case for the new clause from the Government.
      Mr. John Townend: I want to take up Opposition Members' point that corporal punishment is not a deterrent. In recent years, there has been an explosion in crime and vandalism by young people. We are seeing a decay as a result of the ending of caning in schools.
      I can give an interesting example of a headmaster of one of the large comprehensive schools in my constituency, who is now retired and whose school I visited seven or eight years ago. He was well known for his left-wing views—he is certainly not a member of the Conservative party—yet he said to me, "John, you would be surprised that, when it comes to the cane, I agree with your views. I have never used the cane very much. I have used it sparingly, but I believe that I have saved five or six boys from a life of crime, because I caned them at a critical stage in their school career when they were turning into bullies and little thugs." That is very true.
      Ten or 15 years ago, it would have been inconceivable that 12, 14 or 15-year-olds would be capable of stealing not one but five, 10 or 15 cars. I cannot help but believe that it would be far better for them, and far more effective, if they were given six strokes of the cane the first time they were caught, rather than being warned or freed to steal more cars and to put their lives and those of many others at risk.
      Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman referred to the explosion of crime in the past 10 or 15 years. Has it occurred to him that one of the hallmarks of the Thatcher-Major period is the creation of a selfish society, in which avarice is at the forefront?

      367
      Among the consequences of the Government's policies in a range of areas are the growth in crime and the lowering of values.
      Mr. Townend: That is a load of nonsense. Young children who steal cars do not do so to use them. I own a hotel, and I can tell hon. Members that such young people play Monopoly. They go up to the hotel at the top of the hill and steal a blue car, and they bring it down and dump it at the hotel at the bottom of the hill and steal a red car. They steal cars because they think that it is a great game. I am convinced that if they were given six of the best they would not do that.
      What is the ultimate deterrent in schools now that we do not use the cane? It is exclusion from school. Youngsters are excluded and end up on the streets. Is that not an invitation for them to become involved in crime and to commit vandalism? There has been an enormous increase in crime. We cannot possibly have enough places for so many young people. In my constituency, a place for one of those youngsters costs an astronomical £57,000 a year.
      We cannot ignore costs. One of the best arguments for bringing back corporal punishment for youngsters is that it is very cheap. If they are caned the first time that they do something and they do not do it again, we save a lot of money. If they do it again, we should perhaps consider other options.
      I hope that the Government do not argue against the amendment on the ground that we are signatories to the European convention on human rights. We were one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights. When we signed the convention, human rights meant no torture, no arrest without trial, a free press and free speech.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: My hon. Friend will be aware that the convention was never put to the House of Commons. It was signed by the Labour Prime Minister, but no discussion took place in the House—if it had, the document would have been a jolly sight more workmanlike.
      Mr. Townend: My hon. Friend is right. If the founders had stuck to their original intentions, there would have been no problem, but, just like the European Union and every bureaucratic body, the court is always trying to extend its competence.
      We face appalling problems of crime and juvenile crime. It cannot be right that, if elected Members of the House decide to bring back the cane and judicial corporal punishment, we should be prevented from doing so by a foreign court with foreign judges—except for one British judge—with a completely different history and from a completely different culture. It may be acceptable to the Italian people never to have corporal punishment, but I do not see why there must be conformity on this matter.
      In my constituency, people are pig-sick of vandalism, thuggery, old people not daring to go out at night and cars being stolen and vandalised. If we do not do something about the problem in the next 10 years—I say this seriously—we will have what none of us want: an increase in vigilantes. I support the amendment.
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): This has been a short but interesting debate. I listened carefully to my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Hawksley) and for Bridlington (Mr. Townend). My hon. Friends know from which direction I come on these matters, although I confess that my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) thinks that I am going slightly soft in my old age. He has accused me of being an unreconstructed wet, and has threatened to put me through the wringer to dry me out a bit. However, most of my hon. Friends do not take that view of my attitude to these matters.
      I am not satisfied that corporal punishment would, in practice, be a useful punishment today, or that we should seek to provide for it in the Bill. It is now almost 40 years since corporal punishment was abolished as a sentence of the court. My hon. Friends argue that corporal punishment would be a deterrent. If it were to act as a deterrent, it would have to be used regularly, predictably and immediately. Frankly, I do not believe that that would be the case.
      Mr. Townend: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I shall give way in a moment.
      Corporal punishment has a role to play for parents who administer sensible discipline to their children owing to the immediacy of the infliction of the punishment on the youngster who is doing wrong. Judicial flogging in the cool light of day after many months or, I suspect, years later after dozens of appeals—as in some of the cases in the United States—would not be an effective deterrent.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we were able to use corporal punishment in schools—as we always did—it would not be necessary to have judicial corporal punishment, which he condemns?
      Mr. Maclean: That is an entirely different area, into which I will not stray, because we have a lot of other business to conduct. No doubt, a philosophical debate on the merits of corporal punishment at all levels of society—in schools, by parents on their children or judicial flogging—would be an interesting occasion at some point, but I do not want to get into that at the moment.
      Mr. Townend: My right hon. Friend said that if we reintroduced corporal punishment it would have to be used regularly to be a deterrent. Does he accept that it is a deterrent in the Isle of Man, although it is used only once or twice a year on average? It was also an effective deterrent in schools, although the headmaster to whom I referred used the cane only once a term.
      Mr. Maclean: The climate was different when we last had corporal punishment. Many people would assert—although I may not be one of them—that judges in those days were more robust than some are these days and that they had harder attitudes to the punishment of criminals in the 1930s and 1940s. If, in that climate and with that sort of judge, corporal punishment was not used then, do my hon. Friends seriously think that if it was back on

      369
      the statute book today judges would rush to use judicial flogging? I cannot imagine it happening. If judges in the 1940s did not use it, I am fairly certain, without impugning the integrity of any of today's great judges, that few would use it now.
      There is another dimension, and this is not an excuse that I am hiding behind but a practical legal fact, as the infliction of judicial flogging would almost certainly be contrary to the UK's obligations under the European convention on human rights. If my hon. Friends want to debate the convention, they can table a suitable subject that may be selected by Madam Speaker for debate on the Adjournment or on some other occasion.
      I will not now debate the merits or demerits of Britain's signing the convention. We are party to it and the British Government have no proposals to withdraw from it at the present moment. That means that we are bound by the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in 1978 in the Tyrer case, which involved a birching on the Isle of Man, that such punishment was incompatible with article 3 of the convention. It found that the birching imposed on Tyrer constituted degrading punishment within the meaning of article 3 and emphasised that it considered corporal punishment to be "institutionalised violence", with the individual being
      "treated as an object in the power of the authorities".
      6.30 pm
      Mrs. Peacock: I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend, but what about the almost institutionalised violence that many elderly people suffer in their own homes? Rightly, they and their relatives believe that some pain should be inflicted on the young people who cause that damage.
      Mr. Maclean: Such violence is deplorable, which is why we have increased the penalties for those who commit it. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 propose some of the most dramatic action taken since the war to deal with habitual, persistent and violent criminals. Clause 1 introduces automatic life sentences for the most violent criminals. Clause 2 proposes seven-year sentences for the evil people who peddle drugs. Clause 3 deals with persistent burglars who terrorise people by their activities. My hon. Friend supported those measures. The Opposition could not make up their mind, but one day I hope that they may vote for them. That is the action that we are taking. Such penalties, the increasing numbers in prison and our success in getting crime down over the past three years mean that the policies of imprisonment have worked. We will continue those policies.
      Mr. Walter Sweeney: I am sure that Conservative Members warmly welcome tougher penalties for persistent offenders, whether they are violent offenders, burglars or sex offenders, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the short, sharp shock of corporal punishment might deter less-experienced offenders from carrying on with a life of crime, so that they would not reach the stage envisaged in the Bill's first three clauses?
      Mr. Maclean: I have listened to what my hon. Friends have said on that matter. We could have an interesting, and long, philosophical debate on the deterrent value of corporal punishment, but that is irrelevant to today's debate. It is crystal clear that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would be contrary to article 3 of the European convention on human rights. There is no point in speculating on the merits of something that the House could not introduce while Britain is party to the convention. That is why we have concentrated on making the present range of punishments as effective as we can by strengthening the powers of the courts, increasing the sentences of imprisonment that can be imposed on the most violent offenders, increasing financial penalties and toughening community sentences with the rigorous new standards that we have introduced.
      New clause 14 would reintroduce judicial punishment. I have given good, practical reasons why we cannot accept that, without entering into philosophical arguments about deterrence. That and the Isle of Man case are separate from the use of corporal punishment in schools or in the home. I do not want to be drawn into discussing those contentious issues because they are outside the scope of the debate. I emphasise that a parent correcting a child with a smack as an immediate response to misbehaviour is wholly different from a court, perhaps many months after the event, ordering a flogging.
      As there is no prospect of corporal punishment being restored—even if it was, I see no prospect of judges ordering judicial flogging instead of any of the available penalties—we should not whistle in the wind for something that will not happen. We must make our range of penalties tough and punitive. The prospect of a long spell in prison is likely to be a highly effective deterrent. We can already see the success of our "Prison Works" policy, which will take out of circulation many of the persistent and dangerous criminals whom my hon. Friends abhor. I commend that course of action to them and, with the greatest respect, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North that I cannot accept his new clause.
      Mr. Michael: The Minister had a difficult row to hoe in responding to the debate, but he should not have misrepresented our position on the Bill. We have made it clear that we want consistency and progression of sentencing in our courts so that appropriate sentences are given, particularly to repeat offenders. We have explained the best methods to achieve that, especially in Monday's speech by the shadow Home Secretary.
      New clause 14 is a diversion from the serious debates in which we have been seeking to make the Bill more effective and improve its consistency. We will return to some of those important issues when this new clause has been dealt with. The Minister rightly referred to it as whistling in the wind. We oppose it and will vote against it, if it is put to a vote.
      Mr. Marlow: By leave of the House, I have the greatest respect for my right hon. Friend the Minister, particularly for the massive and good work that he is doing in his current job. Although his arguments might convince a minority in this House, beyond the Home Office insiders and professionals, he would not begin to have an audience outside it. He said that the prospect of

      371
      prison is a deterrent, but it manifestly is not for the people for whom corporal punishment would be appropriate. Violence, hooliganism, vandalism, graffiti and the mugging of old ladies are going on apace and are increasing day by day. Prison is there as a deterrent, but it is not working and we need something else.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister made several arguments. First, the European convention on human rights is not supported by and is not an acceptable argument to Conservative Members. It has to go. We have a Government in our own country and we have to decide in our own Parliament. We ran the affairs of a third of the world until 30 or 40 years ago. Surely we are allowed to govern ourselves now. Cannot we make our own decisions? We are a mature democracy.
      Secondly, the Minister said that it would be months before sentences were carried out. That is not an argument against corporal punishment but against the judicial system. Vandals and hooligans should be in court on Tuesday and punished on Wednesday; if they do it again on Thursday, they should be back on Friday.
      My right hon. Friend knows in his heart and in his bones that there is a massive problem out there. He is doing what he can, but the new clause is a weapon that we could use. If he is uncertain whether it will be successful, we could use it for a trial period and suck it and see.
      My right hon. Friend has listened to the arguments and we have had a good debate. It is my intention—the large number of my colleagues in the House reveals that it is also their intention—to give the subject an airing. It is time that we started to fight back and moved to defend the people who are suffering. We are all right; we have a privileged life style, but many of our constituents are suffering and we are not doing enough to help them.
      I see no purpose in pushing the new clause to a vote, but this is the beginning and its time will come.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 1

      MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR SECOND SERIOUS OFFENCE
      Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 17, leave out from 'that' to end of line 18 and insert
      'it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 18, at end insert
      'or, where the offence is an offence under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the court is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.
      No. 32, in page 1, line 23, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which would otherwise fall to be imposed under section 1(2) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing a life sentence.'.
      No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 42, leave out from 'that' to end of line 43 and insert
      372
      'it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.
      No. 33, in page 3, line 6, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which would otherwise fall to be imposed under section 2(2) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing a custodial sentence for a term of at least seven years.'.
      No. 8, in clause 3, page 3, line 31, leave out from 'that' to end of line 32 and insert
      'it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence'.
      No. 34, in page 3, line 40, at end insert—
      '(4A) Where a person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which would otherwise fall to be imposed under section 3(2) above and the conditions mentioned in section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983 are satisfied, the court may if it sees fit conclude that the satisfaction of those conditions constitutes exceptional circumstances which justify its not imposing a custodial sentence for a term of at least three years.'.
      No. 35, in schedule 4, page 60, leave out lines 2 to 10.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 7 and 8 and the lead amendment, amendment No. 6, which are principally the same. I am privileged to have had the support of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who is an experienced criminal Queen's Counsel, and the support of the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who has been a Home Office Minister with direct responsibility for prisons. That is an example of cross-party co-operation on one of the most important sections of the Bill.
      The amendments widen the circumstances in which the courts may pass sentences—other than automatic life sentences under clause 1 and the minimum sentences of seven and three years under clauses 2 and 3 respectively. Courts would not have to find "exceptional circumstances" in order to depart from the mandatory or minimum sentence, but would be able to pass another sentence if it would be in the interests of justice to do so. The effect would be to provide for presumptive sentences rather than automatic or mandatory sentences in the circumstances covered by the clauses. The amendments propose a formulation similar to that proposed by Lord Bingham, the Lord Chief Justice, in a recent interview on the Frost programme in November 1996.
      Clause 1 requires courts to impose automatic life sentences on those who are twice convicted of certain serious violent or sexual offences. Of course, I have no truck with those criminals, but requiring courts to pass automatic life sentences on all serious repeat offenders in all but exceptional circumstances would be unjust. Judges already have the discretionary power to pass life sentences for serious violent and sexual offences when the gravity of the crime or the dangerousness of the offender justifies it.
      To require courts to pass life sentences in cases which they consider deserve fixed sentences seems to contravene the fundamental principles of justice. Unlike a mandatory life sentence, fixed sentences reflect an individual assessment of the case and of the offender's just deserts. The provision to allow departures from the mandatory sentence only in exceptional circumstances will do little to mitigate that injustice. In Committee, the Minister was unable to refer to any example of an exceptional

      373
      circumstance, save that of assisting the police, to which the Home Secretary referred in the Second Reading debate. That is not good enough.
      The circumstances of offences within the categories vary greatly. The White Paper, "Protecting the Public," published in 1996, observed that of the 3,121 people convicted of such offences in 1994, 65 per cent. received custodial sentences. That means that 35 per cent. of the cases were regarded by the courts as not meriting custody when the full circumstances of the offence and the offender were taken into account. Yet the Bill proposes that such offences would trigger an automatic life sentence.
      The White Paper further, and rightly, acknowledged that
      "long sentences are frequently imposed on offenders convicted of violent and sex offences".
      However, it argued that the proposal would increase public safety for two reasons. First, it stated that determinate sentences mean that
      "the offender must be released once that sentence has been served, even if there is every reason to believe that he or she will commit further serious offences".
      When life sentences are passed, however,
      "before potentially dangerous offenders are released an assessment must be made to see whether they still pose a risk".
      Secondly, it stated that an offender released from a life sentence
      "will remain on licence and subject to recall for the rest of his or her life".
      However, the courts can already pass life sentences on such offenders if they consider that the seriousness of the offence or the dangerousness of the offender justifies it.
      The White Paper referred critically to the fact that 10 of the 217 offenders convicted of a second serious violent or sexual offence in 1994 received discretionary life sentences. That point was reiterated by the Home Secretary in his statement on the White Paper in the House on 3 April 1996. Yet it is the Attorney-General who has the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal where it is considered that the sentence was unduly lenient. He referred only six of the 207 cases in which determinate sentences were passed. It therefore seems surprising that the Home Secretary should argue that the courts' sentencing in such cases is inadequate when his fellow Minister, the Attorney-General, evidently considers that that is so in only a small fraction of cases.
      Mr. Maclean: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Attorney-General can refer a case as being lenient only if it stands out from the generality of similar cases in the leniency of the sentence given? There are hundreds of cases on which the Court of Appeal has determined—and which are within the sentencing framework—where it is not possible for the Attorney-General to refer them, and only the House can decide whether the generality of cases is too serious or too lenient.
      Mr. Llwyd: The Minister raises a serious point and I agree with him to a certain extent; the mechanism by which the case initially comes to the Attorney-General's attention is questionable. Surely, what the Minister and
      374
      I have said constitute reasonable arguments for increasing the number of Attorney-General's staff and for having a better and statutory form of supervision and research into the various sentences being handed down. Perhaps the system needs changing—I know not. At present, it is not adequate and does not seem to work.
      The matter was referred to in a lengthy article in The Times of 26 November 1996, which stated that in regard to the annual total of references by the Attorney-General there were 26 in 1990 and 81 in 1995. Most of those references were for grievous bodily harm and robbery—22 and 26 per cent. respectively. Curiously, and interestingly, rape came in a poor fourth or fifth—at 11 per cent. It is important to consider that subject. I agree with the Minister to a certain extent that perhaps it would be reasonable for the set-up for initially referring matters to the Attorney-General to be changed; he cannot be expected to do everything with the staff available to him.
      In serious cases which do not attract a life sentence, offenders normally receive long fixed sentences. Those are followed by lengthy periods of supervision on licence from which the offender can be recalled at any time if his behaviour causes concern. Those arrangements provide substantial public protection. If a serious repeat offence occurs we should ask why, if re-offending was genuinely predictable, the power of recall to prison was not used. If it was not predictable, even with an automatic life sentence the Parole Board might well have decided in favour of release with no consideration given to recalling the offender.
      Automatic life sentences could actually weaken public protection by increasing the risk of wrongful acquittals. In an interesting speech at King's college, London on 6 March last year, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, commented:
      "Minimum sentences are incompatible with an existing and important strand in our criminal law. The courts have long followed a policy of discounting sentences for timely pleas of guilty … Defendants who know they will receive a mandatory sentence of lengthy imprisonment, and even more so, a mandatory life sentence, are not likely to plead guilty."
      Similar comments made in The Times of 12 March 1996 by Helena Kennedy QC have already been referred to, so I shall not quote them again.
      In addition to an increase in not guilty pleas, with attendant delays in the courts and probable increased distress to victims who have to give evidence, the prospect of an automatic life sentence will undoubtedly deter some victims and witnesses from giving evidence against the offender. That is an important point and one that was raised on Second Reading by a senior Member of Parliament on the Government Benches, who knew what he was talking about.
      Similar considerations apply in cases of domestic violence. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) said:
      "grievous bodily harm with intent is not uncommon in a domestic context … Would the family be prepared to give evidence if life imprisonment were the consequence?"—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 952.]
      That is an important point, which we should all ponder carefully.
      The mandatory life sentence will provide an incentive for a greater use of plea bargaining so as to avoid such problems—for example, agreements to accept a plea of

      375
      guilty to indecent assault in a rape case, or to accept a guilty plea to a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm in a case of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Such downgrading of offences can cause great distress to victims, who cannot accept or, indeed, understand the justice of, for example, accepting a plea of guilty to indecent assault when a rape has taken place.
      The Bill provides that the court would have discretion not to pass the automatic life sentence in the exceptional circumstances to which I have referred and which we were unable to obtain from the Government during the whole of the Committee stage, with the exception of a single example, to which I have also referred. However, the White Paper emphasised that that provision would apply only to "occasional quite unforeseeable circumstances".
      The Government reached the correct conclusion on the issue of mandatory sentencing in their earlier White Paper, "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", which was published in 1990. It stated:
      "The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework, on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum or mandatory sentences for certain offences. This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional cases."
      With regard to minimum sentences, clause 2 requires courts to impose mandatory minimum sentences of seven years on offenders convicted of trafficking in class A drugs. I have not a shred of sympathy for people who peddle drugs—they deserve everything they get. Clause 3 provides a minimum sentence of three years for offenders convicted of domestic burglary if they have had two or more previous convictions for similar offences. Here, again, the court would have discretion not to pass the mandatory minimum sentence if there were "exceptional circumstances". However, the White Paper emphasised that:
      "it will certainly not be open to the courts to set aside the mandatory sentence merely because it is higher than the sentence they would otherwise have been minded to impose."
      In other words, the court could not pass a lesser sentence simply because it considered that to impose the minimum length of sentence would be unjust.
      I believe that that is a highly objectionable proposal. At present, the main statutory principle governing sentencing is that sentences should be proportionate to the seriousness of the particular offence. To require the imposition of minimum sentences, whatever the circumstances, will prevent courts from achieving proportionality and justice in sentencing. As Lord Taylor commented on 12 October 1995 in a statement on the Home Secretary's speech at the 1995 Conservative party conference:
      "Judges … must be free to fit the particular punishment to the particular crime if justice is to be done. Minimum sentences are inconsistent with doing justice according to the circumstances of each case."
      The seven-year minimum sentence will apply not only to the repeat offender who directs large-scale trafficking, but to the small-time addict sharing drugs with those in a similarly dire position. As Lord Taylor said in another place, the proposal
      "will simply fill our prisons with addicts who sell small quantities to support their own addiction."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 May 1996; Vol. 572, c. 1026.]
      The three-year minimum sentence for repeat burglars will apply not only to the professional burglar against whom, I am sure, the measure is aimed, but to the drunken
      376
      opportunist offender and the inadequate youngster, whose amateurish attempts at burglary are bound up with a range of problems that could best be tackled by an intensive probation programme.
      As the right hon. Member for Fareham—from whom, no doubt, we shall hear later and I look forward to hearing his contribution—said last year:
      "there will be quite a few cases where such sentences will be visibly unjust and counter-productive.
      For example, young drug addicts who sell small quantities of drugs to other addicts will get the same sentence as professional drug pushers … The same applies to opportunistic inadequates stealing from the homes of other people getting similar sentences as career housebreakers".—[Official Report, 19 June 1996; Vol. 279, c. 908.]
      I know that other hon. Members on both sides of the House share my concerns about this aspect of the Bill.
      The proposals will not only cause injustice, but will have a range of practical ill-effects. For example, they will damage intelligence gathering about drug trafficking operations because small-scale user-dealers will have little incentive to co-operate with the police in helping to build a case against major traffickers if the seven-year minimum sentence prevents courts from reflecting that co-operation in a reduced sentence.
      On Second Reading, the Home Secretary argued that that sort of assistance would fall within the definition of "exceptional circumstances". However, co-operation with the police does not amount to what the White Paper called "quite unforeseeable circumstances" because it is neither unusual nor unforeseeable. Even if the court were to regard it as an exceptional circumstance, the Bill would require the judge to give his or her reasons for a reduced sentence in open court. That could put the informant at serious risk and thereby destroy any incentive to co-operate and it would put out an entirely wrong message to individuals in a similar position.
      The Criminal Justice Act 1991 provided that courts could pass suspended sentences only if there were "exceptional circumstances". The Court of Appeal has interpreted that provision very narrowly. As Lord Bingham, the present Lord Chief Justice, said on "Breakfast with Frost" on 10 November 1996:
      "In a very closely related context the courts have had to construe this exception recently and they have done what Parliament intended and they have put a narrow construction on it. They have treated psychiatric problems, financial pressures, family difficulties and threats of suicide as not being exceptional. In the run of criminal cases, these kinds of explanations are coming up all the time and so a judge is going to have to, to be true to the intentions of Parliament, put his hand on his heart and say 'Is this exceptional?' and usually it will not be."
      The Court of Appeal has made it clear that a combination of factors which in themselves are features common to many cases—youth, an early plea, provocation, mental breakdown—does not amount to exceptional circumstances justifying a suspended sentence.
      I return to what the right hon. Member for Fareham said on 28 October:
      "It will not be sufficient to allow judges discretion just in cases where there are exceptional circumstances, as the Bill presently does. The problem will come with cases in which a"—
      I cannot read the next word—
      Sir Peter Lloyd: Concatenation.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; he remembers his speech better than I can read it out. To continue:
      "a concatenation of ordinary factors makes the mandatory sentence the wrong one. The court will be left with no option but to pass it."—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol.284, c. 365–6.]
      7 pm
      Mr. Michael: English being the hon. Gentleman's second language does not help.
      Mr. Llwyd: It certainly makes matters more difficult, but one tries.
      Mandatory sentences also often prevent courts from passing the sentence most likely to prevent reoffending. An increasing number of burglaries are driven by the need to feed a drug habit. A survey done in March 1996 by the Cleveland probation service of a wide sample of offenders convicted of three or more burglaries found that 36 per cent. of them had serious drug problems. Often this underlying factor does not become evident until after an offender has been convicted on a number of occasions. When such an offender is willing to co-operate with a probation order, combined with participation in a drug rehabilitation programme, that is much more likely than imprisonment to prevent further offending. But if a mandatory prison sentence is in operation, the court is forbidden to use the alternative option.
      Although courts would have the power not to impose the minimum sentence in exceptional circumstances, these situations, I submit, are far from exceptional.
      It has been argued that minimum sentences for repeat burglars are necessary because there is not enough progression in the sentences currently passed on those with previous convictions. But the figures cited in the White Paper showed considerable progression in sentencing. A sample of domestic burglars sentenced in 1993-94 showed that 59 per cent. of those sentenced at Crown courts received custodial sentences on a first conviction, 71 per cent. on a second conviction, and 75 per cent. on a third or subsequent conviction. The percentages at magistrates courts were roughly similar: 15 per cent., 27 per cent. and 36 per cent., respectively.
      The conclusion that I inevitably draw is that, by giving the courts a wider discretion to depart from the mandatory or minimum sentence when the interests of justice require that, the amendments would greatly reduce the injustice that would result from clauses 1 to 3—as well as reducing the extent to which those clauses would deter offenders from pleading guilty or co-operating with the police. I therefore commend the amendments to the House and ask hon. Members to support them in the Lobby later.
      I do not often pray in aid the other place, but many people there are highly qualified lifelong practitioners in the judicial system. I am sure that they will bring the necessary pressure to bear to enable common sense ultimately to prevail with respect to these clauses.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has made a compelling argument this evening. I congratulate him on that and on tabling amendments Nos. 7 and 8. I had the same intention myself, but he beat me to it. I am therefore happy to add my name to his and to that of the hon. and learned
      378
      Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I believe it essential that the Bill eventually be changed along these lines.
      Before I say why, I should also like to pay tribute to the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, although that is probably the last thing they are expecting at this moment. It is significant to note that these important and necessary amendments were tabled not by Labour Front Benchers but by a Back Bencher. That shows with revealing clarity how far my right hon. Friends have rendered the Opposition leadership terrified of appearing soft on crime. From opposing everything that the Government did to deal more effectively with crime, the Opposition have moved to accepting almost everything—even when the Government's zeal plainly carries them beyond wisdom or justice.
      Mr. Michael rose—
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I thought the hon. Gentleman might want to intervene.
      Mr. Michael: The right hon. Gentleman should not cloud his attack on the Minister by attacking the Opposition too. He knows full well that we have dealt seriously with this and every other issue in the Bill pertaining to law and order, to try to produce what is effective and not just to oppose for the sake of opposition. We have sought to amend and to improve so as to achieve consistency and progression in sentencing.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I understand why the hon. Gentleman says that, but it was instructive to read the Committee proceedings, where the hon. Gentleman led for the Opposition. He probed and questioned and—as he would put it himself—teased; but what he said was not really very constructive. I realise that he was deploying his considerable skills in following instructions from his party superiors, to the effect that he must on no account be quotably out-toughed by the Tories.
      Perhaps I do the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and his fellow spokesmen an injustice, however. Perhaps in Committee he was merely biding his time. Maybe he passed amendments Nos. 7 and 8 to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy out of the kindness of his heart. Perhaps in a moment he will give those amendments such a ringing endorsement that his party colleagues will emerge from the Tea Room or the Library, or wherever they are—they are certainly not in the Chamber—and surge through the Lobby in support of the amendments: we shall see.
      I do not want to amend clause 1, unlike the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy by means of amendment No. 6, or even the Opposition by means of amendment No. 1. Clause 1 introduces life sentences where the judge himself decides the minimum tariff. I shall confine my remarks to clauses 2 and 3 and mandatory sentences for drug trafficking and burglary, because it is here that real injustice will inevitably arise.
      There may not be many cases when the interests of justice will not be served by the mandatory sentences introduced in the Bill, but there will be enough of them to bring the new arrangements into disrepute—just as the system of unit fines was brought into disrepute by a small number of cases where the courts had to impose fines

      379
      which they knew were ludicrous. Plainly the Government now accept that the courts must have some discretion as to whether to impose mandatory sentences. They would not otherwise have included the phrase
      "unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances which justify its not doing so."
      The trouble is, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy pointed out, and as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) argued in Committee from the vantage point of a distinguished recorder, that those words do not give the judges very clear guidance to follow. There will be exceptional circumstances, as the Government acknowledge, when a less harsh penalty is needed; but there will be others when a mandatory sentence will be equally or even more unjust or counterproductive. The circumstances, however, will be far from exceptional; they will be all too banal and ordinary: the youth of the offender, his mental health, the occasion in question, the nature of the crime. All these coming together—hence the reference to concatenation—will make the mandatory sentence the wrong one, but no particular aspect of the case will be exceptional.
      I shall not take up the time of the House by giving examples—I have done that in earlier debates. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy was kind enough to repeat some of them and to add some more of his own. It is easy to think them up, just as it is easy to dismiss them as contrived, but the trouble with such contrivances is that they occur from time to time. It will not serve justice and the public's respect for the law's firm application to put a judge in a position where the mandatory sentence is plainly wrong but he must pass it, unless he can descry circumstances that make it exceptional—but not if they make it simply unjust.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton argued forcefully that, not being given a clear form of words, the judges will interpret them broadly—in effect recreating, in large measure, the discretion that the Bill is designed to remove. He hopes that he is wrong. It appears that the Lord Chief Justice thinks that he is, as he has said that he expects the court to interpret exceptional circumstances narrowly. In Committee, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he thought so too, a decisive reaction on his part as the courts seeking guidance as to Parliament's intention will no doubt construe his words accordingly.
      "Quite right" say the enthusiasts—including some of my hon. Friends, who happen not to be here—for clauses 2 and 3. A few sentences may be heavier than justice might otherwise require, but that must be balanced against the benefit to society in that mandatory sentences will deter far more effectively, so there will be less burglary and less drug trafficking, with the essential corollary that that deterrent effect will be nullified if the court, in its wisdom, is allowed to substitute a lesser sentence on those occasions where the needs of justice require it.
      I know of no convincing evidence, commonsensical or statistical, to support that view. The interesting articles by Charles Murray in The Sunday Times, under headlines suggesting that more prison was always the answer, did not. He appeared to say that the essential ingredients that had been lacking in the UK to reduce crime were detection and prosecution. He also said, very relevantly to this debate, no doubt to the disappointment of some of my hon. Friends—and certainly to my surprise—that UK
      380
      judges were just as likely to send to prison people appearing before them now as they were in the stern old days of 1954, after which, he said, it all began to go wrong.
      Nevertheless the statistics that emerged with the White Paper and the Bill showing that repeat offenders suffer penalties little harsher than first timers, do prompt questions about the justice and good sense of current sentencing practice. "May" is the operative word here. Those statistics may conceal more than they reveal. The courts may not be being inconsistent. They may be making wholly justified distinctions between cases, which are obscured by averages.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton suggested, and he is well-placed to know, that some judges are firm and coherent sentencers but others are not. Before passing a Bill such as this, we should have had a much more comprehensive and objective picture of sentencing as it is currently practised and of sentencing's relationship with deterrence and rehabilitation. We should have had a fully fledged inquiry on this crucial issue, which could absorb the Charles Murray findings and other research, and which could commission others to fill the gaps.
      Meanwhile, it seems that judges do not work to any comprehensive guidance from the senior judiciary—at least there is no such guidance on burglary—as they do for some of the more serious crimes. If that is so, it is a grave lack. There should be guidelines and they should be accessible to anyone who is prepared to take reasonable time and trouble to find them out. Sentencing should not be a mystery to which only the few are admitted.
      Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to add to what was said on Monday and tell us what the position is, but it looks to the layman as if the judges had been slow to respond to public disquiet. However, it also looks as if the Government were keen to legislate before the judiciary had managed to show either that all is as it should be, despite appearances, or that the senior judiciary is willing and able to produce new guidance that would meet the shortcomings that have been revealed. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will not simply say that the amendments enabling the courts to substitute another sentence for the mandatory ones when the interests of justice require it will drive a coach and horses through the Bill, because they will not. The amendments would still mean that the courts are generally expected to impose the mandatory sentence.
      Mr. Maclean: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has studied the transcript of the Lord Chief Justice's comments on "The Frost Programme", when he was asked what the effect would be of any amendment to substitute the present words with words such as, "according to the justice of case". He said that it would enable the judge to avoid passing a mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so.
      7.15 pm
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I was aware of those words. It shows that it is difficult to find the right ones. The Government have not done so. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who moved the amendment, might not have found the right ones, but I am sure that, before the matter returns to the House from the Lords, even if we do not make a change here, the right ones need to be found because the present ones are simply not satisfactory.

      381
      The Lord Chief Justice was not as confident in his own form of words as perhaps he should be because the form of words on the amendment paper would still mean that the courts—this is the way in which the Bill is constructed and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, if he reconsiders it, will find that that is so—would generally be expected to impose the mandatory sentence. They would be able to substitute a lesser one only when the judge had explained why that lesser sentence was necessary in the interests of justice. It will have to be the mandatory sentence, unless there are good reasons why not. Those reasons will no doubt be subject to guidance from the Lord Chief Justice and—this is an extra point that is not in the amendments—the prosecution should be able to appeal against them if they find them unacceptable. Far from a retreat, the Government should regard that as giving them a victory on all the essential points, while enabling them to avoid the injustices that the Bill's present wording will certainly produce.
      If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is just going to reject the amendments without the qualification that the Government will reconsider, especially in another place, he will be saying that, in these particular cases, he does not want the courts to take the needs of justice into account. Inevitably, with mandatory sentences, he will, in practice, be writing occasional injustice into the law.
      If nevertheless, as I say, the House does not accept the amendments, I hope that another place will give us a second chance. For some of the reasons that I have already given, in a way that would be better. Their Lordships may find a form of words that more effectively meets the needs of justice without frightening the Government that nothing will be changed. Their Lordships should certainly be able to illuminate sentencing practice and show how it can be improved not just for offences that attract mandatory sentences, but for the whole range.
      It would be doubly satisfactory if these amendments were first made in the other place. The Labour party would see the undemocratic second Chamber that it wants to replace doing the Opposition's proper job for them, while the Government, who want to preserve the present Lords as a revising Chamber, are obliged to benefit from its revisions. Perhaps that is our subtle Home Secretary's grand design: to demonstrate the usefulness of the other place as it is presently constituted while giving a powerful incentive to the judiciary to turn its collective mind more thoroughly to matters of sentencing, which worry, rightly, many people, so enabling him to accept gracefully a suitable amendment there, "exceptional circumstances" having served its purpose as a catalyst.
      Mr. Beith: I have rarely heard a complex case deployed so brilliantly in the House as it has been by the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), after the amendment was competently and ably moved by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). The amendments go to the heart of the Bill. I will deal with the general principles that they raise, but first I want to refer to amendments Nos. 32 to 35.
      Those amendments, tabled by Liberal Democrats, are designed to enable the courts to pass mental health disposals on mentally disordered offenders who would
      382
      otherwise have to be given automatic life sentences under clause 1, or mandatory minimum sentences under clauses 2 and 3. At present, when a court is satisfied that an offender is suffering from a mental disorder falling within the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983, it can make a hospital order, if appropriate combining that with a restriction or guardianship order. Those options are ruled out by the Bill.
      Mental disorder could not be interpreted automatically as amounting to an exceptional circumstance. It is just possible that the Minister thinks that it could be treated as such a circumstance; I hope that in due course he will say whether he thinks that it should automatically be regarded in that way, or whether a court could in any appropriate set of circumstances regard it as such. I consider this a pretty far-reaching use of the word "exceptional", and I think that a court would find it difficult to apply such an interpretation. I therefore proceed on the assumption that, other than in a case that is itself exceptional even within that category, the option is ruled out.
      The Home Office and Department of Health guidance document entitled "Mentally Disordered Offenders: Inter-Agency Working", published in 1995, states:
      "Detention in prison is likely to be damaging to the mental health of a mentally disordered person, and the Prison Service is not equipped to provide treatment equivalent to that available in hospital."
      I ask the Minister to talk to prison officers about the problems that they now experience with people whom they believe to suffer from mental disorder who ought to be in hospitals rather than prisons. The task of running a prison and providing a regime that will rehabilitate at least some offenders is made immensely difficult when—as seems to be the case now—an increasing proportion of those offenders are suffering from mental disorder, and that increase will be very much greater if the court does not have the option to take the mental health route in circumstances such as those that I have described.
      According to a briefing prepared by the Law Society's mental health and disability sub-committee, in conjunction with the Royal College of Psychiatrists,
      "While the Committee agrees that the public needs protection against persistent offenders, it believes that this will not be achieved by sending mentally disordered offenders to prison for a minimum of three years. Indeed, imprisonment is likely to have the opposite effect, since the mental health of the offender is likely to deteriorate while in prison, before being released untreated and unsupported into the community … Those mentally disordered prisoners who are eventually released are more likely to continue to pose a risk to the public, since their disorder may well have remained untreated during their imprisonment and it will prove far more difficult to ensure continuity of effective care from prison to the community, than from hospital to the community."
      We all know how difficult it is proving, within the community care programme, to cater for mentally disordered people with a tendency to commit offences who are now at large in the community. If such people are released from prison without treatment and without follow-up from mental hospitals, there will be even more of a problem.
      It is feared that hospital orders made under the Mental Health Act would be inadequate to protect the public from some mentally disordered offenders. I presume that that is why the Government are closing off that option. It is worth emphasising, however, that in practice most offenders who are given hospital orders combined with

      383
      restriction orders are kept in hospital for longer than they would have spent in prison. They are kept "out of harm's way", as the Home Secretary might like to think of it, and will not be able to commit offences for longer than would be the case if they received prison sentences.
      A restriction order can be made when the court considers it necessary to protect the public from serious harm. Most restriction orders are made without time limits: they subject the offender to indeterminate detention. Decisions on release are made by a mental health review tribunal, and the patient is discharged under conditions that entail permanent liability to recall to hospital. All that gives the public much more stringent protection than is available under the mandatory sentence procedure. The procedures are similar in effect to a discretionary life sentence, but they require detention in a mental hospital rather than in prison.
      To remove the court's discretion to pass an order ensuring that a mentally disordered offender receives the care and treatment that he or she needs is surely unacceptable. The amendments would retain that discretion, enabling the court to consider alternative disposals more suited to the needs of mentally disordered offenders, which in the long term are likely to protect the public more effectively. If the Home Secretary's watchword is that he is doing all this to protect the public, in the case of mentally disordered people he ought to take a route that is likely to provide that protection.
      Let me turn to the wider issues raised by amendment No. 6. It would insert the words
      "in the interests of justice".
      The arguments advanced so far are very persuasive—for example, the argument that unless that wording is included far more guilty people could be acquitted, and the argument that the abandonment of the parole system, with its system of automatic recall, will seriously undermine the protection of the public. I believe that the Bill's provisions have a more political than penal purpose, and that the Government do not seriously intend them to be carried out. If those provisions are passed unamended, the number of people committed to prison, and the time for which they are committed, will be such as to require—according to the Government's own estimate—the building of 12 new prisons, with 11,000 more prisoners. Other estimates are much higher.
      There is no provision in Government finances for the building of those prisons. There is provision for the building of eight other new prisons, but they are intended to deal with existing overcrowding rather than the effects of the Bill.
      The provisions will not come into effect fully for 12 years. That, too, is stated in the Bill's financial memorandum. The Government seek to convince the House that, unless the Bill is passed unamended—without amendments such as amendment No. 6—the public will be denied the immediate protection that they would secure from the commitment of large numbers of people to prison very soon, but that is simply not the case. If the Bill's provisions were implemented at all, it would be over an extremely long period. The fact that, without an amendment of this kind, the Bill would require so many prison places is an admission that the Government do not believe that it will deter crime. Far from keeping people out of prison because they do not commit crimes, it will
      384
      lead to the admission of many more prisoners. That in itself constitutes an acceptance that the measures will fail to achieve their supposed purpose.
      If the measures were real and serious in their intent, there would have to be a huge reduction in the funds available for other Home Office functions, particularly those relating to policing and crime prevention. I know of no Minister who has gone on record as saying that he is prepared to sacrifice £1 billion or more from funds for his departmental programmes to provide for those functions, and I know of no indication from the Treasury that it has found resources elsewhere for the purpose. The money is bound to come from somewhere in the Home Office budget. If the courts do not have discretion to apply sensible sentences and are trapped in the mandatory system, the effect on policing and crime prevention will allow many more crimes to be committed, thus weakening protection of the public.
      Labour's apparent support for this part of the Bill, and its unwillingness to amend it, imply a similar commitment to the expenditure of substantial resources. I wonder what the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has to say about that. He is supposed to have enjoined all his Front-Bench spokesmen not to make spending commitments, but there is a huge spending commitment at the heart of the Bill.
      As I understand it, by not objecting to the mandatory sentence principle and not supporting the kind of amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), Labour is also accepting built-in injustice in the sentencing system. The purpose of amendment No. 6 is to ensure that the courts can take into account justice in the passing of sentences. If we deny them that power, we accept that unjust sentences will be passed, because the circumstances are not sufficiently exceptional. I do not know how the Labour party can stand by that principle, but it appears to be doing so.
      It is vital that an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 6 is included in the Bill. I endorse what others have said: if this House does not do it, it will have to be done in another place. I also ask the Minister, however, to look carefully at the points about mentally disordered convicted persons which I made earlier.
      7.30 pm
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not want to take up the time of the House repeating the argument on this matter—to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) referred—that I made in Committee, but we are no further forward than we were then. I agree with hon. Members who have suggested that this matter is a very important part of the Bill. The heart and soul of the Bill is minimum sentences, and the issue we are debating is whether judges have a large or narrow gate to pass through if they want to avoid the consequences of minimum sentences.
      In this debate, we are talking about whether the phrase "exceptional circumstances" is better than the phrase "in the interests of justice". The answer depends on the point of view with which one begins. If I were a judge, pure and simple, and shared the views of the previous Lord Chief Justice and some other senior judges, I might feel very distressed at the thought that my judicial discretion had been curbed in this manner, and I should like as big a gate as possible to avoid the consequences of minimum

      385
      sentences. However, I am a politician. As I have spent more time in the past 23 years in the practice of politics than in practice in the courts, I hope that I am more a politician than I am a lawyer.
      My experience in politics tells me that the Government are right to introduce minimum sentences, and that they are reflecting the wishes of the people. The people have a right to have their wishes respected, and they have said that the sentences that the courts have been apt to pass on persistent professional offenders—whether they are drug traffickers, burglars or violent criminals—have been inadequate to protect them.
      Therefore, I approach the matter in a manner different from that of some senior judges and judges—although not all senior judges, and certainly not all judges. We must provide as small an opportunity as we can for judges to brush away the Bill's provision of minimum sentences, which I anticipate that the House should like to pass into law. The question is whether we should provide a big or a small gate through which exceptions may pass.
      In Committee, I expressed the view, which I shall not repeat in detail, that "exceptional circumstances" was still too vague a term, without elaboration, for judges to understand its meaning. More importantly, it is too vague for villains to understand that the commission of a third burglary or drug offence, or a second rape or serious violent offence, will lead to certain consequences. I expressed that view even after attempting to consider the matter through the eyes of the Government and through the eyes of those of us who support the Government's view that the minimum sentences provisions are vital, and that there should be as little opportunity of avoiding them as possible.
      I am a believer in deterrence. I believe that the certainty of consequences is important, and that we would be making a mistake if villains thought that there was sufficient possibility of avoiding the consequences of a three-years, seven-years or life sentence.
      Mr. Beith: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman did not stop my train of thought now, because I am not reading from notes, and I cannot return to a previous note. In a moment, I will of course give him an opportunity to intervene.
      I am concerned that we provide sufficient guidance for villains and deter them by letting them know in advance the consequences of their second or third wrong action. As a recorder, I am also concerned that I should know—when I have to apply it—the meaning of "exceptional circumstances". In practice, with time, judges and the Court of Appeal will establish guidelines on the meaning of "exceptional circumstances", because they will have to.
      When we direct a jury, we will have to open our red book and state what we mean by "exceptional circumstances", because the jury may also want to decide whether the case's circumstances are such that they should convict. The issue of "exceptional circumstances", however, must be dealt with by the sentencer; lack of clarity is no help to the sentencer.
      386
      Goodness knows how long it will take judges to work out the meaning of "exceptional circumstances" or—if we change the phrase—"the interests of justice". Meanwhile, while confusion remains in the minds of the judges, the Bill's purpose may not always be effected.
      I had hoped that, between Committee stage and today, my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would have consulted senior judges, and particularly the Lord Chief Justice. Once the Lord Chief Justice had been convinced that the Government knew their own mind and the intentions of Parliament, he would honourably help to fulfil those intentions. Perhaps we could have debated the proper meaning of the phrase "exceptional circumstances", or—had the Lord Chief Justice persuaded my right hon. and learned Friend that it was a better form of words—the phrase "the interests of justice" . But that has not happened, and we are none the wiser and not even better informed.
      We will have to say to their Lordships in another place, "Please help yourselves and help to express the intention of Parliament, and therefore of the people, by suggesting a form of words that the Government can accept as realising Parliament's intention. We can then write it into the Act, and we will not have to go through the business of waiting, over many years, as guidelines are developed, during which time many villains may go on committing repeat offences because they are not certain that the consequences of minimum sentences will follow." So all is not lost, because the Bill still has another stage to go—during which time, hopefully, the most brilliant legal minds in the land will give their input.
      I should tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I am as dissatisfied now, during this more advanced stage of the Bill's passage, as I was in Committee. If it is defined in a certain way, I do not think that "the interests of justice" will have any different effect from "exceptional circumstances". The meat is in how the phrases are defined. The substance will be in their Lordships accepting that it is the will and intention of the Government—with the support of the Opposition, and therefore with the support of the entire House of Commons—that we should introduce tough minimum sentences which more closely reflect the people's desire to deter villains. Unsatisfactory though the proposal is, it is not completely unsatisfactory. I only hope that the other place will not only assist the Government in carrying out the intentions of Parliament but clarify the law, so that there is no confusion in the courts or in the minds of villains.
      Mr. Michael: Now that we are debating serious amendments, it is a pity that we no longer have with us a single one of the phantom soundbite warriors—the supporters of new clause 14—who did not even have the courage to vote on their spurious proposal. They are not interested in the serious business of scrutinising and improving legislation.
      There have been some serious contributions to today's debate, not least that from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). He has just made a thoughtful and considered speech, which the Minister should take seriously, as it builds on comments that he made in Committee.
      We heard an entertaining speech from the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), for whom I have a great deal of respect. He was a good, hard-working

      387
      Minister, which is probably why he was sacked. However, I was a little sad that he today criticised the Opposition unkindly and unfairly. He is rather like the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd)—I have been provoked into making this point by something that the right hon. Member for Fareham said earlier—in that they talk tough and toe the line in government. The right hon. Member for Fareham was complicit in the massive increase in crime that has occurred under this Government—especially the increase in violent crime—and in the inconsistency of sentencing which we are now trying to tackle.
      I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Burton that there is a cross-party wish to achieve more consistent sentencing. Indeed, it was my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the shadow Home Secretary, who identified the fact that people who commit a second and third very serious offence are often no more likely to receive a longer or tougher sentence than they did on their first conviction. There is no sense in that. The emergence of the right hon. Members for Fareham and for Witney from the chrysalis of office and their being born again as radical reformers is damaged by their record in office.
      Sir Peter Lloyd rose—
      Mr. Michael: Of course I shall allow the right hon. Gentleman to defend himself.
      Sir Peter Lloyd: I just want to correct the hon. Gentleman on one small fact, although I do not suppose that he wants facts to spoil his flow. While I was the Minister responsible for prisons, reported crime fell. The point that I directed to him was that we are discussing important issues that go to the heart of the Bill, and that I hope that he will bring his party out in support of them and not leave it to others.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Michael: I am coming to the amendments, but the right hon. Gentleman indulged in some unjustified knockabout, and his comments require a response. There was a minimal fall in recorded crime, but that fall has been reversed in certain categories—violent crime, for instance. In any event, the right hon. Gentleman was talking about recorded crime. It is not the subject of this debate, but he cannot defend the Government's record, or even his period in office, by saying that the Government succeeded in tackling crime—they did not. The Government have an appalling record, and the Bill does little to recover any ground for them.
      The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith)—
      Mr. Beith: Right honourable.
      Mr. Michael: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—I beg his pardon before I get stuck in—was also self-indulgent. The fact is that the Liberal Democrats did not regard the subject as serious enough to want to participate in the Standing Committee. They are not so good at the hard work.
      We did, however, have the company of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) from a minority party, and he made a significant contribution.
      388
      It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed to criticise the Labour party and the Government on the Floor of the House in an attempt to look purer than pure, but, as he was not on the Committee, perhaps he should at least have the courtesy to read Hansard and see the constructive way in which we sought to debate the issues.
      Mr. Llwyd rose—
      Mr. Michael: Of course I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who did participate constructively in the Committee.
      Mr. Llwyd: I have not entered into any party political knockabout, because I believe the subject is too important. Far be it from me to defend the Liberal Democrats, but my place on the Committee was in effect given to me by them, as I asked for it. It was agreed that I, rather than a Liberal Democrat, should sit on the Committee. I say that to be fair.
      Mr. Michael: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman sat on the Committee, as I was about to comment on the fact that there were serious contributions from members of all parties represented there. My point is that I am not going to accept knockabout comments from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed; I want to concentrate on the serious debate to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy contributed consistently in Committee, as did the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
      We may not have agreed all the time, but the Committee was a good one, and the contributions by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman were consistent with what they have said today. Those who indulge in a bit of knockabout deserve to be put right. Now let me move on to the amendment.
      We all want consistency from the courts, and, indeed, progression, which means that those who commit serious offences more than once receive a tougher penalty as a result. To balance that, we also want a mechanism that avoids the anomalies that can arise from very specific or mandatory sentences. We want Parliament to make its intentions clear, and something to protect against those anomalies.
      The Government's method has been to set mandatory sentences. That was their position at the time of the White Paper, but—and they were right to do so—between that time and the publication of the Bill, they have accepted that they needed to shift their position, and came up with the phrase "exceptional circumstances". The problem is that their complete refusal to explain what it means has undermined the credibility of Bill's phrasing—a point made in Committee by members of all parties.
      The Government have available to them the resources, parliamentary draftsmen and advisers to ensure that they get legislation right. We have been right—on Second Reading, in Committee and again today—to prompt the Government and make sure that they realise that they have not got it right yet. Of course, there is a way that they could move in the right direction.
      The hon. and learned Member for Burton said that the real matter at issue is whether there should be a big or small gate for exceptions. We need to understand

      389
      Parliament's intentions, and the options are either better wording or an explanation of "special circumstances". The Pepper v. Hart judgment shows that the explanation of the intentions of Parliament is significant to the courts. That explanation has not been given.
      As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said in his introductory remarks, the only example of an exceptional circumstance is that cited by the Home Secretary on Second Reading:
      "Sometimes, someone appearing before a court gives the police exceptional help, which enables them to bring a number of other serious criminals to justice. That would be an important factor, which I would regard as an exceptional circumstance justifying the passing of a sentence shorter than the minimum mandatory length."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 914—5.]
      The trouble is that we have not moved on from there. The hon. and learned Member for Burton made clear the lack of progress in explaining that.
      The one example that has been provided creates some difficulties. Co-operation with the police does not amount to what the White Paper described as "quite unforeseeable circumstances". It is neither unusual nor unforeseeable. Have the Government abandoned that definition? What is their definition? The Minister was challenged time and again in Committee at least to give illustrations, if he could not give a definition, to allow us to understand the Government's thinking, but that thinking remains opaque.
      That single example also creates problems on the other side of the equation. Chief constables are unhappy with the one example given by the Home Secretary, because, even if giving the police special help were regarded by a court as an exceptional circumstance, the Bill would require the judge to give his reasons for a reduced sentence in open court. That could put the informant at serious risk, thereby destroying any incentive to co-operate.
      How would the court get around that problem, except in the devious way suggested in Committee by the Minister? He may have reflected on those remarks, when he seemed to suggest that a court could more or less ignore the problem and dance around it. I hope that we shall have some clarification from the Minister today, because we have had none so far. I shall not labour the point further, because we brought it up time and again in Committee, and it was raised on Second Reading. I am beginning to despair of getting clarification from the Minister.
      Amendment No. 1 addresses an important anomaly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the shadow Home Secretary, and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on Second Reading, and by the hon. and learned Member for Burton and me in Committee.
      The amendment provides that, in the case of offences under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, the court should be able on a second conviction to pass a sentence other than life imprisonment if it considers that to be
      "in the interests of justice".
      We are dealing only with that narrow group of offences, but the amendment would give the court wider discretion than the "exceptional circumstances" formulation to pass sentences other than life imprisonment for section 18 offences.
      390
      On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn said:
      "The law relating to section 18 is wholly unsatisfactory, as the Law Commission has repeatedly pointed out; and the range of conduct covered by this section is extremely wide."—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 930.]
      We had an interesting debate in Committee, during which I reiterated our belief that that would lead to anomalies, and that the Minister had not sufficiently taken into account the danger of anomalies. From his experience in the courts, the hon. and learned Member for Burton reinforced my points strongly and constructively. He said that there was merit in the points that I had raised, and that, if the provisions covered all section 18 offences, a number of consequences would follow: first, an offender would be more likely to plead to a section 20 offence; secondly, the offender would be less likely to plead to a section 18 offence—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig); and thirdly that the inclusion of section 18 in all its width would make it more likely that the Crown Prosecution Service, in its discretion, would decide whether to prosecute under section 20 or section 18. In other words, people would be going round the intention of the law.
      The hon. and learned Member concluded:
      "But we must give a little thought to how extensive is the arm with which we enforce the mandatory life sentence if, at the margin, it will do more harm than good to the system to implement it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 64.]
      I call in aid the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Burton in saying that this important issue has still not been resolved.
      In an offence under section 18, the wound can be any wound that breaks the skin, even a minor wound. A kick in the leg that draws blood counts as wounding, provided that there is deemed to be intent to cause grievous bodily harm or resist arrest.
      Grievous bodily harm has been defined by the Court of Appeal in some cases, notably DPP v. Smith in 1961, as "really serious harm", but in other cases it has been defined as either "really serious harm" or "serious harm." A broken wrist, for example, could be regarded as serious harm. An offence under section 18 therefore need not necessarily involve the intention to cause serious bodily harm, but can involve wounding with intent to resist arrest. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy said in that Committee debate, a section 18 offence could be knocking a person's tooth out.
      The problem can be illustrated by a series of examples, but I do not intend to delay the House by recounting them. I hope that the Minister has given the matter some thought since the Committee debate, and has something positive to tell us or is willing to accept the amendment. The variety of offences under section 18 are all serious and involve violence, and many are very serious. However, many section 18 offences are at a different level of seriousness from offences such as homicide and rape. Even if the case for automatic life sentences for repeat offenders were accepted for those offences, a wider discretion for section 18 offences would be appropriate.
      Only two days ago, the Minister asked us in a debate on a new clause not to devalue the currency when comparing the way in which we deal with violent offenders and sex offenders. We are in danger of devaluing the currency on the less serious section

      391
      18 offences. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) noted that
      "grievous bodily harm with intent is not uncommon in a domestic context",
      and asked:
      "Would the family be prepared to give evidence if life imprisonment were the consequence?"—[Official Report, 4 November 1996; Vol. 285, c. 952.]
      I have already referred to the greater reluctance to plead guilty to a section 18 offence, and the increased likelihood that the charges will be plea-bargained down to a lesser offence.
      When we debated this issue in Committee, the Minister initially refused to acknowledge that section 18 offences could be anything other than very serious. He said:
      "Section 18 is used to prosecute the most appalling assaults committed by dangerous violent criminals. It is exactly these kinds of people from whom the public need protection and against whom the public will be better protected by an automatic life sentence."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 65.]
      We agree with him about the people he was describing, but not with the width of his description of what is prosecuted under section 18. That point was made strongly by the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
      The Minister responded by arguing that different cases could be dealt with by variations in the length of the tariff that a life sentence prisoner must serve before being considered for release. Hon. Members—particularly the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), who is more interested in waving and going home than in listening to the debate—should pay particular attention to the Minister's remarks. He said:
      "We should stick with the automatic life sentence for all those convicted of a second offence of grievous bodily harm and let judges reflect in the tariff, as at present they do for life sentences, their view of the person's culpability … I am not aware of a minimum or maximum being imposed on judges. I understand that they have complete discretion in imposing the tariff."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 66.]
      He confirmed in later exchanges that the discretion was so wide that a life sentence could, in the setting of a tariff, turn into a three-month sentence, because there is no limit on the discretion available to the judge.
      I clarified the Minister's remarks during that debate, when I explained:
      "The judge can give as light a sentence as he wants and still call it a life sentence. … he"—
      the Minister—
      "tells us that a life sentence leaves the judge with such wide discretion that the words are virtually meaningless."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 68.]
      That is surely unsatisfactory, as the objective of the Bill is supposed to be honesty in sentencing. It applies exclusively to section 18 offences, which is why amendment No. 1 is so important.
      Surely it would be far more sensible to give the courts wider discretion to pass sentences other than life imprisonment in section 18 cases, so that the more serious offences that the Minister described in Committee would be dealt with in the way he suggests, and offences at the other end of the spectrum could also be dealt with appropriately, without ludicrously having to describe a much shorter sentence as a life sentence.
      8 pm
      Mr. Beith: The hon. Gentleman said that that would put me right. He has not yet put me right on whether he is prepared to vote for amendment No. 6, or on whether, in believing that mandatory sentences are generally acceptable with only limited exceptions, he agrees with the expenditure of £3.6 billion on building new prisons that will be required, according to the Government's own estimates.
      Mr. Michael: We shall come to Government expenditure in a later debate. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that it gets worse. Some of the Government's amendments increase the cost quite considerably. The Government are responsible for their own amendments to the Bill and for making sure that its clauses are accurate and clear. It would be ludicrous for the Bill to catch people it was not intended to catch. Amendment No. 1 seeks to clarify that anomaly in relation to section 18 offences.
      There are a number of ways of addressing the wider aspects involved. One is for the Government to come clean about what is meant by "exceptional circumstances", so that there is sufficient clarity for the definition to apply in the courts and to be taken into account under Pepper v. Hart, or, alternatively, for the intention of the House of Commons to be clarified.
      I was most surprised that the Government did not draft amendments to clarify the issue and respond to the points that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House in Committee and on Report. The Minister may provide that clarification in his reply to this debate. I suspect that he will not, in which case the prediction of the hon. and learned Member for Burton that the issues will be addressed again in another place is far more likely to come true.
      Amendment No. 1 deals with section 18 offences. It is surely far more sensible to give the courts wider discretion to pass sentences other than life imprisonment in that narrow range of offences. The amendment would retain a life sentence as the presumptive sentence on a second conviction for a section 18 offence, but it would give judges wider discretion to tailor sentences to the wide variations in the circumstances of section 18 offences.
      Mr. Gary Waller: I shall make a brief speech warmly to endorse and pay tribute to the speeches of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd). Interestingly, from a rather different perspective, I found myself in agreement with much of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
      Back Benchers on both sides of the House have referred to the need to do justice. The Bill, by introducing mandatory life sentences and minimum sentences, will make it more difficult, rather than easier, to do justice. I agree with those who have said that the Bill needs to be amended if we are not to fall into the serious trap of going down that path.
      Some time ago, I introduced a ten-minute Bill entitled Determinate Sentences for Murder. It attracted considerable support in the House. It would not have prevented judges from passing life sentences in many,

      393
      probably most, cases of murder—I am sure that a life sentence will be appropriate in some cases for which it will become mandatory under this Bill—but I feel that the Bill is moving in entirely the wrong direction.
      I believe that, as it stands, the Bill will bring the law into disrepute. If we do not amend it, attacks on the state of the law will be emblazoned across the newspapers when manifestly unjust sentences are imposed because the judges have no alternative. If there are no adequate changes, I am sure that we shall have to return to the issue in the foreseeable future, just as the House found it necessary to do so soon after it introduced the regime of unit fines.
      It is interesting that there has been something of a consensus about the current form of words in the Bill and those proposed in the amendments being unsatisfactory. I hope that some changes will be made before the House of Lords has done with the Bill.
      Although the Opposition will not like me to say this, I regret the fact that, despite the strong reservations that must exist among their supporters, they decided to walk away from the issue. Those reservations are also felt by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, some of whom have expressed them elsewhere.
      There is still an opportunity for us to pull back from the brink. I hope that the other place will enable us to do that, and believe that before we have done with the Bill we shall have some more interesting debates.
      Mr. Maclean: This has been a fascinating debate. All the amendments concern circumstances in which a court may set aside the automatic life sentence for a second serious violent or sexual offence in clause I or the mandatory minimum custodial sentences for a third time class A drug trafficking or domestic burglary offence in clauses 2 and 3.
      This is a vital issue that goes to the heart of the Bill. I must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) on an outstandingly good speech. It is difficult for me to say so without sounding patronising, but I have heard many speeches over the years, and I felt that my right hon. Friend's speech tonight was one of his best ever. However, that does not necessarily mean that I found it entirely persuasive.
      The view expressed by my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was straightforward, simple to understand and espoused a principle. They expressed a deep belief that the exceptional circumstances test is too narrow, and they wish it to be replaced with a justice of the case test. I understand that position, and in the next few minutes I shall explain why I disagree.
      I was completely perplexed by the view of the Labour party on the issue and the long speech that we heard on an issue that is irrelevant to the principle—whether the grievous bodily harm test should be practically split in two, with much more serious offences at the top of the scale and lesser offences at the bottom of the scale. That is irrelevant to the issue of principle. One can only conclude that some of the darts that were placed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and some of the superb stilettos inserted by my right hon. Friend the
      394
      Member for Fareham, were true. I shall not intrude further on the Labour party's difficulty with supporting us, or opposing us, tonight. I assume that it will have to take the position that it took on Second Reading: to decide later on, perhaps nearer the election.
      The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy would replace the exceptional circumstances test in clause 1 with a very different test. The test he proposes would allow the mandatory penalty to be set aside in any case where the trial judge took the view that it would be in the interests of justice to impose another sentence. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 would, similarly, replace the exceptional circumstances test in respect of the minimum sentences for drug traffickers and domestic burglars in clauses 2 and 3.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham perhaps knows me too well. He tried to head me off from saying that, if accepted, such a change would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I must say to him that it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. That is not only my view; I base it on the words of the Lord Chief Justice during an interview on "Breakfast with Frost". I shall quote his words exactly so I am not in error. One can only conclude after reading his interpretation of the interests of the justice of the case that the change would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. I am not trying to pick on my right hon. and learned Friend; I am basing my judgment on the Lord Chief Justice's opinion.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He is not learned.
      Mr. Maclean: I consider my right hon. Friend learned, although perhaps he is not in the House's technical sense.
      The essence of mandatory penalties is that they should be imposed as a matter of course in the generality of cases. If they are not, they will not have the salutary effect that we intend and expect. There is no doubt that the amendments would substantially widen the discretion of the court not to impose the mandatory sentence.
      The Lord Chief Justice recently said on "Breakfast with Frost"—the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy quoted part of the interview—
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) is not listening.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I think that the hon. Lady is concerned that all rules should be punctiliously observed. She will therefore be aware that seated interventions are out of order.
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is it in order for Opposition Front Benchers to be chatting among themselves when my right hon. Friend the Minister is winding up? That is the rule.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I will be the judge of such matters.
      Dr. John Reid: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those of us who wish to listen cannot hear because of the hon. Lady's sedentary interventions.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Maclean.
      Mr. Maclean: Those of us who wish to proceed cannot do so because of interventions.

      395
      I was trying to suggest that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy should have quoted further from what the Lord Chief Justice said on "Breakfast with Frost". He quoted the Lord Chief Justice's view, which I believe to be correct, that the term "exceptional circumstances" will be construed very narrowly. I believe and hope that that is the correct interpretation. My hon. Friends may not like that view, but that is the Government's wish.
      Mr. Llwyd: Although I think that that may be right, the way in which the Minister is interpreting the question is clearly extremely narrow. Time and again in Committee he was asked to cite examples, and in one speech he said:
      "I could put together a list of 20,000 hypothetical examples".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 14 November 1996; c. 43.]
      Would he care to give us 10 or 20 of them now?
      Mr. Maclean: Of course not. The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening in Committee. I said that it would not help interpretation of the Bill to cite many examples of general cases that I or anyone else dreamt up when the court was dealing with individuals before it. Exceptional circumstances will have to be defined in the individual circumstances of each accused or convicted person before the court—not on hypothetical, generalised examples that politicians may bandy across the Floor of the House, which would then, because of the Pepper v. Hart ruling, be read into the law as examples that have to be followed in every case. I went on to say that it would soon be the business of clever lawyers to devise the defence of their accused person around some of the examples that we had bandied about.
      Mr. Llwyd: Do I take it, therefore, that the Minister is content, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) suggested in his very thoughtful speech, that the Court of Appeal should at some point hand down guidelines that can be followed by the courts? If so, the Minister is negating the whole point of the Bill. He started off with much bluster, saying that we cannot trust the courts and the Court of Appeal to hand out sentences, since they have had years to do it and have not done it. That was the Minister's raison d'etre for the Bill.
      Mr. Maclean: We know what "exceptional circumstances" means. We know that it will be interpreted narrowly. Because the Government are satisfied that "exceptional circumstances" will be interpreted by the courts as it has been in the past, we are content to use it and rely on it.
      The Lord Chief Justice said when interviewed:
      "One can paraphrase 'exceptional' but it clearly means 'very unusual' at the very least and most of these explanations"—
      he was referring to the examples given—
      "are not very unusual".
      The Government are satisfied that the test of exceptional circumstances will be used only in exceptional cases and that it will be interpreted strictly according to the Lord Chief Justice's view as expressed on "Breakfast with Frost".
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Michael: The question that has to be answered, though, is what is the nature of the gate that is being provided. The Minister must accept that one example has been given—that given by the Home Secretary—which did not stand up to scrutiny; it fell apart on examination. The Government should not then give up and not cite any examples. They have three options. They can change the wording, which they have not, since they have not tabled amendments; they can give examples so that we can understand what they are getting at; or they can seek to explain in a way that would help under the Pepper v. Hart ruling what they intend the courts should do. At the moment, the Minister must accept that he is just abrogating responsibility.
      Mr. Maclean: Absolutely not. It is the Government's intention that the courts should interpret "exceptional circumstances" in exactly the same way as they have been in other legislation over the past five years.
      Mr. Michael: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Maclean: No, I will not. Such a view is the view that was expressed by the Lord Chief Justice in the interview. Other hon. Members have been relying on the fact that his opinion on that is correct. I believe that it is correct. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to keep insisting on hypothetical examples when he knows full well that any such examples, no matter how nonsensical, will be used in future to interpret the law in the courts and to drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
      The hon. Member criticised me for not giving examples and said that we have not tabled an amendment. He has not tabled an amendment. The Liberal Democrats, the Welsh nationalists and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham have. I happen to disagree with my right hon. Friend because I think that his definition is far too wide and I want to maintain the present restricted exceptional circumstances test. The hon. Gentleman is trying, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, to hide the fact that the Labour party is in a dither over the matter. It does not like the term "exceptional circumstances", and the best that it can think of is to try to get me to quote dozens of hypothetical examples that it will either try to shoot down in the House or in another place or use in future years to frustrate the intention behind the Bill.
      Mr. Michael: I have not said that the Minister must cite examples. I said that he has three options: to amend, to exemplify or to define. He has chosen none of them. I shall therefore put a direct question to him. He is wrong to say that we have not tabled an amendment. We did, I spoke to it and he has not yet addressed it. Would the lower end of section 18 offences, which he has accepted exist and which the hon. and learned Member for Burton addressed especially in Committee, therefore be covered in some circumstances by the phrase "exceptional circumstances"? The answer would help us a little way forward.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is getting into irrelevancies and talking drivel. The minor Opposition parties and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham have a philosophical objection to the term "exceptional

      397
      circumstances". I understand their argument; I disagree with it. They are offering substitute words for the term "exceptional circumstances".
      It is the Government's view that the only alternative form of words offered at the present moment by the Lord Chief Justice, the Welsh nationalists, the Liberal Democrats and my right hon. Friend would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. It would widen the phrase "exceptional circumstances". We have heard nothing from the Opposition, and there is nothing in their amendment which has anything to do with the principled debate. Do we have "exceptional circumstances" and construe the Bill narrowly, or do we have the "interests of justice" which, in the Government's opinion, would construe the Bill widely? I shall discuss the Opposition amendment in a moment, but I must make some progress.
      I have not yet managed to get on the record the words of the Lord Chief Justice, and I intend to do so. When he was asked to define the phrase, the "justice of the case" he said:
      "It would enable the judge to avoid passing a mandatory sentence in any case where he considered it simply anomalous to do so."
      In any case where the trial judge thought that it would create an anomaly to impose the mandatory minimum sentence, he could avoid it. In our opinion, that means that the mandatory penalty would be set aside in many cases. That would make a nonsense of the concept and purpose of mandatory penalties and it would drive a coach and horses through the Bill. Those are the alternative forms of words on offer tonight.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham said that other forms of words might come from another place in due course. I will be happy to consider any other forms of words, but if it is our view that they can be interpreted as widely as the Lord Chief Justice believes that the "justice of the case" terminology can be interpreted, they would not be acceptable to the Government.
      I do not believe that mandatory penalties will lead to injustices. On the contrary, I contend that, without mandatory penalties, justice is not being done to the wider community now. Let me remind the House of the figures. A recent sample showed that the average sentence imposed by the Crown court on offenders convicted of domestic burglary for the first time is 16.2 months. After three or more convictions, the average rises to only 18.9 months and after seven or more convictions it rises to 19.4 months. A total of 28 per cent. of offenders in the Crown court with seven or more convictions for domestic burglary were not sent to prison at all. Our constituents are asking where the justice is in that. It is not justice. We believe that if the stringent qualifying conditions set out in clauses 1 to 3 are met—we intend that they shall be—mandatory sentences should be imposed as a matter of course in most cases.
      We recognise that there may be occasional cases where the mandatory penalty would be unnecessary or inappropriate. That is why the discretion is in the Bill to set aside the penalty in exceptional circumstances.
      I believe that we have achieved the right balance and that to go further and accept the view of the Welsh nationalists, the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) would be to go too far and undermine the effectiveness of the penalties.
      398
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth raised a point about section 18. I can see no good reason for treating section 18 offences differently from other offences covered by clause 1. The maximum penalty for offences under section 18 is, like other offences covered by clause 1, life imprisonment. Section 18 is used to prosecute the most serious assaults committed by dangerous and violent criminals, such as wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent. Such offences are always extremely serious. Frequently they are life threatening or leave the victim permanently disfigured and injured. It is exactly that type of person from whom the public need protection. That is what the automatic life sentence is designed to achieve. Criminals who persist in committing violent assault such as grievous bodily harm—not a simple fracas or a tiny punch-up outside a pub—need to know that they will face a stiff sentence such as life imprisonment. It would be anomalous for such offences not to attract the automatic life sentence.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has suggested that, without the change he proposes, minor offences would attract the automatic life sentence and that that would be unjust. I do not agree. For a lesser assault, a lesser charge can be brought, such as section 20 charges, for example, wounding without intent, or section 47 charges. In such cases, the maximum penalty under section 20 is five years. I do not think that we hear many complaints from the police or our constituents that the Crown Prosecution Service has overcharged people with grievous bodily harm. We all hear, in many cases erroneously, that the CPS has undercharged. That is the view of many of our constituents. If there was any suggestion that the charge of grievous bodily harm was wrongly placed, I am certain that there would not be a conviction. It would not pass the intention test.
      Mr. Beith: Apart from the official Opposition we are all anxious to get on with the Division. Between now and the Bill reaching the other place, will the Minister consider the risk that, if the other amendments I have tabled are not considered carefully, we may have more mentally disordered people in prison when the courts, given the option, would have provided a more appropriate regime?
      Mr. Maclean: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was wrongly informed about the mental health element that he proposed in his speech. The court may not simply set aside the automatic life sentence. To set it aside would upset the balance that the Bill provides between the need to protect the public from repeat offending and the need to enable effective medical treatment to be given to mentally disordered offenders. A disposal under the Mental Health Act 1983 cannot provide the lifetime supervision needed. The key point about the automatic life sentence is that there will be lifetime supervision.
      If someone with a psychiatric problem is given an automatic life sentence, the Home Secretary can use his powers, and would intend to continue to use them, to move that person for psychiatric treatment. When the treatment is over, the life sentence can continue, including the element of supervision for life. That is the key point. In clauses 2 and 3, a sentence of a mental health restriction order can be imposed instead.

      399
      I want to challenge another point raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. He said that the proposals would not be introduced for 12 years. That is untrue. It is true that it may be 12 years before the final burglar who has committed his third and final offence is locked up, but, when the Bill receives Royal Assent, we intend to introduce the important provisions as soon as possible, some time later this year. As resources permit, and as we can build the prison places through the private finance initiative, we intend to bring in the other provisions in the Bill, and by 1999 we intend to bring in the burglary provisions. That will protect our constituents better than any of the suggestions made by the Opposition tonight.
      Mr. Llwyd: We have had a high-quality debate with speeches from both sides of the House. There have been thoughtful contributions from people who know a great deal about the subject.
      I am singularly unconvinced by the Minister's response. It is much the same as we heard in Committee. I do not know whether Sir David Frost realises the constitutional implications of his programme on that fateful Sunday morning. I suspect that law students will seek videos of that programme and depart from their normal studies in order to learn about constitutional law.
      I believe that this is the core of the Bill. If this part of the Bill remains unaltered, it will be flawed. In the other place the Bill will be examined by people who are judicially qualified as well as ex-Home Office Ministers and so on. I hope that they will look at the Bill again and amend this part of it.
      I am indebted to those on both sides of the House who have contributed to this debate. I am sure that it will be read carefully in the other place, and I sincerely hope that there will be a positive result. With the greatest respect, the Minister's response was typical. It takes us nowhere at all. He stuck to a poor brief. We have heard the quotation from Sir David Frost's programme before and, as the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, we are no nearer now than we were in Committee, and that is disappointing.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 266.

      Division No. 40]

      [8.28 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Marek, Dr John

      Beith, A J

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Chidgey, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Dafis, Cynog

      Rathbone, Tim

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Flynn, Paul

      Skinner, Dennis

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Steel, Sir David

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Harvey, Nick

      Thurnham, Peter

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tyler, Paul

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Wallace, James

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Waller, Gary

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Mrs. Diana Maddock and

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Mr. David Rendel.

      400

      NOES

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Alexander, Richard

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Amess, David

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Faber, David

      Ashby, David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baker, Sir Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Forman, Nigel

      Baldry, Tony

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forth, Eric

      Bates, Michael

      Fowler, Sir Norman

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Beggs, Roy

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Freeman, Roger

      Bendall, Vivian

      French, Douglas

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Biffen, John

      Gallie, Phil

      Body, Sir Richard

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Booth, Hartley

      Garnier, Edward

      Boswell, Tim

      Gill, Christopher

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bowis, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Boyson, Sir Rhodes

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Brazier, Julian

      Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Brooke, Peter

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hanley, Jeremy

      Burns, Simon

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Harris, David

      Butler, Peter

      Hawkins, Nick

      Butterfill, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Heald, Oliver

      Carrington, Matthew

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Carttiss, Michael

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Channon, Paul

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Horam, John

      Churchill, Mr

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Clappison, James

      Howard, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

      Congdon, David

      Hunter, Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Jack, Michael

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Jessel, Toby

      Cope, Sir John

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Couchman, James

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Curry, David

      Jopling, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      King, Tom

      Day, Stephen

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George

      Duncan, Alan

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lang, Ian

      Dunn, Bob

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Legg, Barry

      Dykes, Hugh

      Leigh, Edward

      Eggar, Tim

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Elletson, Harold

      Lidington, David

      401

      Lilley, Peter

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Luff, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      MacGregor, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      MacKay, Andrew

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Maclean, David

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Malone, Gerald

      Spring, Richard

      Mans, Keith

      Sproat, Iain

      Marlow, Tony

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stanley, Sir John

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Steen, Anthony

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Stephen, Michael

      Merchant, Piers

      Stern, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Stewart, Allan

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Streeter, Gary

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Sumberg, David

      Molyneaux, Sir James

      Sweeney, Walter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Sykes, John

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Needham, Richard

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Newton, Tony

      Thomason, Roy

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)

      Page, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Paice, James

      Trend, Michael

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Trotter, Neville

      Patten, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Pawsey, James

      Viggers, Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Waldegrave, William

      Pickles, Eric

      Walden, George

      Porter, David

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Portillo, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Watts, John

      Redwood, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Richards, Rod

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Riddick, Graham

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Robathan, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

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

      Wilkinson, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Willetts, David

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sackville, Tom

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

      Wood, Timothy

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Yeo, Tim

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Young, Sir George

      Shephard, Mrs Gillian

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Mr. Peter Ainsworth and

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Mr. Roger Knapman.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 10

      AWARD OF EARLY RELEASE DAYS FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR
      Amendment proposed: No. 11, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.—[[Mr. Maclean.]
      Mr. Michael: I welcome this amendment, which will go some way towards ensuring that there is more
      402
      recognition of the award of release days for good behaviour for those serving short sentences. I welcome the fact that the Minister has modestly moved forward, and the amendment is an improvement to the Bill that I welcome.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 12

      PROVISIONAL AWARDS FOR REMAND PRISONERS
      Amendments made: No. 12, in page 7, line 31, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.
      No. 13, in page 7, line 36, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.
      No. 14, in page 8, line 1, leave out 'three months or more' and insert 'more than two months'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

    Clause 13

      RELEASE SUPERVISION ORDERS
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 9, line 9, leave out '15' and insert '25'.
      In Committee we highlighted the importance of supervising offenders after release and stated that the time for supervision should be adequate to ensure that rehabilitation can take place to make sure that offenders are more likely to live settled and constructive lives, rather than being tempted into reoffending. During the debate, I moved an amendment that would have increased the supervision period after release from 15 per cent. of the sentence to 25 per cent., in the belief that this would provide an adequate period of supervision.
      At the conclusion of that constructive debate, the Minister gave a positive response and said that if we would withdraw the amendment to allow him to reflect and listen to our views on another amendment that was debated on Monday in relation to violent crime, he was willing to come back on Report, where he hoped to be able to say that he was happy with the 25 per cent. that we recommended. Offenders who have a relatively short prison sentence may suffer considerable disruption of their lives, and may need, perhaps, to settle elsewhere, to re-establish family links and to be more positive in their attitude to life.
      It is in society's interests that good supervision takes place, and we had a discussion—in which the Minister and I were in complete agreement—about how to make sure that the supervision of those who come out of prison is effective. I keep my remarks brief in the hope that the Minister will be able to say that he has continued his reflections after our discussions and will accept the amendment. I believe that that would be wise, and would reflect the positive nature of at least some of the discussions that we had in Committee.
      Mr. Maclean: The Government accept the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 22

      CONTINUITY OF SENTENCING
      Mr. Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 16, line 19, leave out from 'to' to the end of line 21 and insert—

      (a) two-thirds of any term of four years or more which, at that time, it would have held to be appropriate if the offence had been so committed;

      (b) 60 per cent. of any term of less than four years which, at that time, it would have held to be appropriate if the offence had been so committed.'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 38, in schedule 2, page 49, line 11, at end insert—
      '(2A) In section 3 of the 1984 Act (transfer of prisoners into the United Kingdom), in subsection (3), after subsection (b) add—
      "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 1 of Part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997.".'.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Michael: On Second Reading, the Home Secretary suggested that prisoners should, in practice, serve no more or no less after the implementation of the Bill than they would serve at present under the law as it now stands. During the Committee, it was clear that Ministers accepted our argument that, in some cases, prisoners would serve shorter sentences as a result of the Bill as drafted. They then introduced amendments that, in some cases, will lead to higher sentences being served. That not only breaches the principle that the Home Secretary established—that there should not be a practical change in terms of the length of sentences—but has implications in terms of resources.
      Given the Home Secretary's question to me on Monday about resources—following which, I am afraid, I had to correct his assumptions—we must ask whether he has the authority of the current Chancellor of the Exchequer for the amendment that he tabled in Committee which, it is calculated, would add some £40 million a year to the prisons budget and would involve the building of three additional prisons of the size of Dartmoor. As far as I am aware, there has been no amendment to the financial resolution or to the assessment of the costs of the legislation that was given on Second Reading.
      The policy that the Home Secretary has called honesty in sentencing means that offenders sentenced to imprisonment will serve the full period of their sentence in prison, other than a small amount of remission—up to six days a month—that could be earned by good behaviour and positive co-operation. The Government have said that this is not intended either to increase or decrease the time that offenders spend in custody, but is simply to introduce honesty in sentencing.
      Clause 22 of the Bill therefore requires courts to shorten their sentences by fixing them at two thirds of the current level. In the case of prisoners serving four years
      404
      or more, it is true that, on average, this would roughly approximate to current periods in custody. Prisoners serving sentences of this length are released under supervision after two thirds of their sentence—earlier if they get parole, later if they receive additional days for disciplinary offences. Taking both the present rules and the proposals in clause 10 for earned early release days into account, the average term in custody would be similar to the present position.
      That is not true of offenders serving under four years, as clause 22 would have the effect of increasing the time spent in prison compared with now. For example, a prisoner now sentenced to three years would instead be sentenced to two years. Under the new early release rules, even if he earned the maximum possible amount of remission, he would still have to serve 20 months in prison compared with 18 months now. That was acknowledged by the Minister of State in Committee on 3 December.
      I will not rehearse what the Minister said at that time, but it was clear from the figures that he gave that prisoners sentenced to terms of under four years would serve 11 per cent. longer in custody than at present. That would increase the daily prison population by more than 1,800 and would cost more than £40 million a year—the estimate that I gave a few moments ago. It would also require three additional prisons the size of Dartmoor. In fact, the increase is likely to be higher than that, because those figures assume that all prisoners will earn the maximum possible remission, which is of course highly unlikely.
      The increase would result not from a decision that all offenders sentenced to less than four years deserved to spend at least 11 per cent. longer in prison but from a clause that states that its aim is to ensure that an offender
      "serves approximately the same time in prison as he would have served if the offence had been committed immediately before commencement."
      The Minister may profess to be relaxed about that completely unnecessary increase in the prison population, but an overstretched Prison Service, already desperately trying to cope with rising numbers, with expedients ranging from floating prisons to converted Royal Air Force camps, will be unlikely to take the same relaxed view. It would be interesting to know the views of prison governors about the increased pressure in their establishments.
      The amendment, by requiring courts to fix their sentences for a particular group of offenders at 60 per cent. of the current level, would achieve the aim set out in subsection (1) of ensuring that prisoners serve approximately the same length of time in prison as at present. In the amendments that the Minister tabled in Committee, he corrected one anomaly and created a fresh one, and the amendment is designed to bring us back towards the target that the Home Secretary espoused on Second Reading.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: In Committee on 5 December 1996, at column 256, I raised my concern about the repatriation proposals in clause 35. I tabled new clause 11, which has not been selected, and amendment No. 38, to give a full airing to a problem caused by the Bill and tentatively to suggest a way of dealing with it.

      405
      The problem, I believe, will be acknowledged by the Government and by hon. Members of all parties, so the question will be how best to address it. Under existing law—I refer particularly to the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984—British criminals serving prison sentences abroad can be transferred back to serve their sentences in the United Kingdom, where they can more easily be visited by their families and where they may be more likely to be rehabilitated.
      When that happens, the sentence imposed by a foreign court is adopted unchanged, unless it exceeds the British maximum sentence for a like offence, in which case the United Kingdom maximum is substituted. Otherwise, as in most cases, no adjustment is made to the sentence.
      However—this is the rub—prisoners are subject to the systems of parole, remission and early release operating in the receiving country, so under our existing law those transferring to the United Kingdom from sentences abroad are eligible for release on parole after serving at least half their sentences in custody. Prisoners sentenced to less than 12 months in prison are automatically released altogether after serving half their sentence; prisoners serving 12 months to four years are automatically released on licence, and therefore under supervision by the probation service, until the licence period ends, which is usually three quarters of the way through the sentence; and prisoners sentenced to four years or more are eligible—it is not automatic—for release on licence after serving half their sentence and automatically released on licence after serving two thirds of their sentence.
      At present, sentences imposed by foreign courts are sometimes considerably longer than sentences imposed for similar offences in the United Kingdom, and Parliament and the courts have always accepted that the Home Secretary would use his powers to grant early release on parole to remedy any injustice arising from the imposition of a disproportionately long sentence.
      The problem in the Bill is that, as it substantially abolishes remission and parole, the sentence served will be the sentence passed, and that could be very much longer than a British prisoner would have to serve for the same offence in similar circumstances. The problem of unfairness would appear to be exacerbated by the provisions of the Bill, because when the sentences passed here are more closely related to the sentences served, the differences between the sentences for the same offence in similar circumstances will be even more glaring.
      If British prisoners abroad are to serve far longer sentences, few will want to be transferred to this country to serve them, and the humanitarian aims of the 1984 Act will have been unintentionally negated.
      The reciprocal position of a foreign national convicted in our courts who returns to his home country to serve his sentence makes the injustice yet more glaring: under the Bill he will get what is nominally a lesser sentence—one closer to the sentence that he is expected to serve—and in his country he will be subject to the local parole and remission conditions, which will of course be unaffected by our new legislation.
      If it is accepted that there is not only an apparent injustice, of differences in sentences served by similar offenders in similar circumstances in different countries,
      406
      but an actual injustice, involving British prisoners serving longer sentences than the court sentencing them may have intended, the only question is how to remove it.
      The organisation Prisoners Abroad, which has many eminent and distinguished supporters, not all by any means on the left of the law and order spectrum, proposed two amendments to the Bill, both of which I tabled. Amendment No. 38 was the one selected.
      Sections 1 and 3 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 empower the Secretary of State to issue a warrant authorising the detention of a prisoner transferred into the United Kingdom. Section 3(1)(c) gives the Secretary of State a wide discretion to incorporate in the warrant provisions appearing to him
      "to be appropriate for giving effect to the international arrangements in accordance with which the prisoner is transferred."
      In exercising that power, section 3(3) requires the Secretary of State to
      "have regard (inter alia) to the inappropriateness of the warrant's containing provisions which—
      (a) are equivalent to more than the maximum penalties (if any) that may be imposed"
      for a similar offence in the United Kingdom. When such a sentence is encountered, it is reduced to the maximum sentence under UK law for the equivalent offence.
      If the Secretary of State were required to undertake the same exercise when issuing a warrant that the UK courts will undertake when sentencing, the inequities arising from the proposed changes would be remedied. Amendment No. 38 would take us some way toward the achievement of that aim.
      It may be argued that the powers of the Secretary of State as expressed in the 1984 Act are already wide enough to enable him to achieve that end, but the decision of the House of Lords and the arguments of the Executive in the leading case of Reed make it clear that only a statutory change of the kind suggested could effect the remedy that is sought.
      It may also be argued that clause 9 provides a remedy in that
      "The Secretary of State may at any time release a prisoner if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the prisoner's release on compassionate grounds."
      But such a provision is surely inappropriate for dealing with a class of offenders rather than with an individual. It would surely be wrong to seek to remedy a fundamental injustice by relying on such a limited Executive discretion. In my respectful submission, it requires a statutory change, and I ask my right hon. Friend to give that serious consideration.
      May I ask my right hon. Friend about the related problem of the reciprocal arrangements for foreign prisoners sentenced in the United Kingdom who choose to serve their sentences in their home country? The British public, the police and, I think, the judiciary were last week appalled to hear that Valerio Viccei, the mastermind of the £40 million to £60 million Knightsbridge vault robbery in 1987, who received a 22-year prison sentence at the Old Bailey and who chose to serve his sentence in his home country of Italy, is now out and about after only seven years, and is enjoying his ill-gotten gains.

      407
      9 pm
      To be fair, when Viccei was sentenced in 1989, British law required only a third of the sentence to be served before parole. This wise Government toughened the sentences actually served to half in the rather unfairly and oft maligned Criminal Justice Act 1991. We are now in the process of toughening even further actual sentences served by the provision of minimum sentences and more honest sentences.
      Once the Bill is enacted, Viccei, with his record of armed robberies, would, in similar circumstances, be likely to receive a sentence of life imprisonment in this country. The Italian justice system is justified in applying the one-third provision in his case—that was before we toughened the minimum sentences. The position is unsatisfactory, because, under our parole rules, it is highly unlikely that Viccei would have been granted parole after a third of his sentence had been served in the United Kingdom, as he did not assist in the recovery of any of the millions of pounds—or its value—stolen during the Knightsbridge robbery. Viccei is living the life of Riley in Italy, which is not what the British Parliament, the British criminal justice system or the British people either intended or expected.
      If sentences are to be served in the home country, the circumstances of serving them ought surely to be the same. If representations have not already been made to the Italians about the displeasure of our courts, our Parliament and our people, I ask my right hon. Friend that they be made, so that in future the comparative system in Italy may be improved. After all, the Italians are our colleagues in the European Union—although I hope that nothing that I say will be taken as a suggestion that home affairs and justice matters should become the competence of the European Union. I am sure that better provision for future eventualities can be arranged through nation state co-operation under the third pillar of Maastricht.
      Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, when the Bill becomes law, it will be highly unlikely—unless the law is changed in Italy to permit it—that a future perpetrator of a serious violent crime, from which the offender, who has committed another serious violent offence in the past, has gained millions of pounds, could live the life of Riley on the proceeds after only seven years in prison?
      Mr. Jack Straw: As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, his remarks about the Italian justice system underline the wisdom of both main parties in the House in resisting any notion that home affairs should be part of the European Union's competence, save under the third pillar. Given the story that the hon. and learned Gentleman told, and many similar ones, I shudder to think what state British justice would be in if it were to be harmonised on the basis of the standards of Italian justice.
      I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I have read the report of the debate on clause 35, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. He has raised an important issue. In Committee, the Under-Secretary said that he would
      "consider whether there is any way of improving the provision."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 5 December 1996; c. 288.]
      408
      I hope that the Minister of State will respond to the very reasonable points made by the hon. and learned Member for Burton.
      Mr. Maclean: I listened carefully to the debate and will respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I must warn him that he is on dangerous ground in taking a swipe at the Italians. He may get away with that, but I advise him not to insult the Scots, who seem to be much thinner skinned.
      We intend that prisoners should serve approximately the same time in prison once the Bill is in force as at present. We want the courts to take account of the changes in early release arrangements, which is the purpose of clause 22. That will mean that, when sentencing, courts will need to compare the sentence that they would have given before the changes in the Bill with the sentence that is to be imposed and adjust it accordingly to take account of the new early release arrangements. However, we want them to do that broadly, approximately and sensibly, and in a way that is easy for them to operate without reaching for laptop computers and calculators. That is what clause 22 provides.
      The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth missed the fact that prison sentences imposed by the courts are typically in multiples of three months: six months, nine months, 18 months and so on. Asking judges or magistrates to impose sentences equal to two thirds of a 12-month sentence involves an easy calculation. I am not sure about the mathematical rules or whether the common integer is three or four, but the figures are all easily divisible. I shall not bore the House with a complete analysis of all the permutations up to four years.
      The result of the process will be sensible sentencing. Divisions by two thirds are simple to calculate. Two thirds of 18 months is straightforward: it leads to a sentence of 12 months. Asking judges or magistrates to impose a sentence equal to 60 per cent. of a 12 or 18-month sentence is not such a simple calculation. Calculations that involve dividing by six tenths lead to incredible nonsense. They would produce sentences of seven months, six days or nine months, six days and various split months and split days. The Government's proposals involve a simple division.
      I admit that prisoners serving sentences of less than four years will serve longer before they can be released: if the sentence imposed is eight months rather than seven months, six days, they will serve 18 days longer. Prisoners will generally serve a few days or months longer before they can be released under clause 22 as drafted than they would if it were to be amended as proposed by the Opposition. Prisoners will also spend longer under supervision following release. That does not unduly concern me. Offenders know that they could face prison sentences before they commit offences and that they will be subject to supervision on release. They do not have good grounds to complain that under our proposals they will serve an extra 18 days compared to what they would serve under the Opposition proposal.
      Mr. Straw: I have been listening to the Minister's remarks with great care and witnessing the instructions that he has been given by hand signal by the Whip. He says that prisoners may not complain about 18 days, although I think that they probably will. However, what

      409
      has the Treasury had to say about this? What does he think will be the additional cost of the Government's proposal?
      Mr. Maclean: That is a key point, which I was about to address. In "Protecting the Public", we made it clear that we had made our calculations in drawing up the document. We calculated that the sentences imposed would be broadly similar. Clause 22 provides the mechanism for that. As has been said, there was some confusion. Three different Front-Bench spokesmen understood it in three different ways. However, we came to the view that it could have resulted in undershooting, in some prisoners serving less than we had intended. We therefore made this proposal, which means that some prisoners who serve less than four years will serve a bit more than we intended.
      Our calculations were based on the assumption that whatever the wording of clause 22, the sentences would be broadly similar. Our calculations had parameters that ranged from £375 million to £435 million. We did not calculate an exact cost—I do not think that one could be exact—but the change in clause 22 is financed within those parameters. The old wording would have led us closer to the lower level of £375 million. With the changes that are proposed, however, the calculated costs will be closer to £435 million—in other words, to the upper band of the parameters. That being so, there is no need to ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for supplementary funding. The proposed changes mean that some prisoners who will serve longer sentences are already catered for in the financial calculations that have been made. For those reasons, amendment No. 5 is wrong and I cannot accept it.
      I shall deal briefly with amendment No. 38, proposed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: Before my right hon. Friend does that—I am conscious of the time—will he take on board the concerns of the criminal law sub-committee of the Council of Circuit Judges, which feels that the way in which clause 22 is worded gives a substantial increase to magistrates' sentencing powers, something which was not really considered in Committee, nor on Report? I have no doubt that the issue will be considered in another place. If we are suddenly to increase magistrates' sentencing powers, there will be an impact on the distribution of court work. I think that the judges are worried about that consequence. Will my right hon. Friend consider the matter? I will write with details as soon as my right hon. Friend resumes his place.
      Mr. Maclean: I will certainly do that. One of the benefits of the Bill, however, is that effectively it gives magistrates slightly increased powers. I welcome that. At present, the maximum term of imprisonment that they can impose is six months, which is automatically cut to three months. The Bill will give them an extra month of sentencing power.
      Amendment No. 38 is a thoughtful proposition. It is designed to ensure that prisoners who are repatriated to serve a prison sentence in the United Kingdom are not disadvantaged by the changes in early-release arrangements that will be introduced by means of the Bill.
      410
      I listened carefully to what my hon. and learned Friend said. I agree that we need a solution that is flexible enough to take account of the wide range of sentencing regimes in other countries. We believe that administrative measures are likely to offer the best way forward. We believe also that they would be legally permissible. We understand that such measures can be introduced within the existing legislative framework and that of the Bill. That will go a considerable way towards meeting the concerns expressed by my hon. and learned Friend. The issue is complex and we are considering the final details. We believe, however, that it will be possible to administer the sentences of those who are repatriated following the implementation of chapter I of part II in such a way that it will mitigate any potential disadvantages to prisoners returning to the United Kingdom from abroad.
      We have in mind that the balance of the sentence to be served on return to this country will be calculated in taking account of the supervision period that will be required under the Bill's provisions. That means that the total time served, or deemed to be served, by the prisoner abroad, when added to the time to be served here and the required period of supervision, will not exceed the headline sentence imposed abroad. In view of these assurances—we shall explain the final details when they have been completed—I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will feel that we are dealing with these matters satisfactorily and will not wish to pursue his amendment.
      As for Valerio Viccei, he was repatriated to Italy under the provisions of the Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons on 11 November 1992. As the Italians have followed the convention, I do not think that it would be appropriate to protest to them about their following of the convention in terms of Italian law in the granting of parole. If my hon. and learned Friend does not like the behaviour of the Italians, it would be necessary to renegotiate the convention.
      If Valerio Viccei had remained in custody in England and Wales, he would have been eligible for release on parole licence on 13 December 1994, once he had served one third of his sentence, not the one half quoted in the Sunday newspapers.
      Following repatriation, the question of a prisoner's suitability for release from custody in a foreign jurisdiction, including any temporary release, is a matter for the authorities in that jurisdiction. My hon. and learned Friend is right, however, that in future, when the Bill is enacted, any criminals with previous convictions such as those of Valerio Viccei, committed in the United Kingdom, will come within the automatic life sentence provisions. They will be eligible for release once the Parole Board has concluded that that would be safe. In other words, there would be quite heavy sentences. In view of these assurances, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not wish to press amendment No. 38 to a Division. I hope also that he is satisfied on Valerio Viccei.
      Mr. Michael: We have probed the issue and demonstrated that the Government went too low and that some people would have had shorter sentences. As a result of the amendments made in Committee to try to put that right, some people will now have longer sentences.
      In view of the Home Secretary's intervention on Monday, I have to say that Home Office Ministers appear to be quite cavalier about their calculation of the exact

      411
      impact of variations on Government finances. Nevertheless, we have succeeded in our aim, which was to highlight the problem. We recognise that it is difficult to be precise about the impact of the introduction of these measures or absolutely certain that the same sentence will be the practical outcome in the future as it was in the past—a point that we made at the beginning of the series of debates on this issue. Having achieved our aim, I do not think that we need to take up any more time, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9.15 pm

    Clause 27

      DURATION AND CONDITIONS OF LICENCES
      Amendment made: No. 39, in page 19, line 24, at end insert—
      '(6) In relation to a life prisoner who is liable to removal from the United Kingdom (within the meaning given by section 20(2) above), subsection (2) above shall have effect as if the words in parentheses were omitted.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 2

      REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS TO THE BRITISH ISLANDS
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 49, line 6, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.
      No. 22, in page 49, line 10, leave out '(ii)'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 4

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 58, line 26, after `summarily)' insert `(a)'.
      No. 24, in page 58, line 27, at end insert 'and
      (b) for the words "and section 62(6) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words ", section 14(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (committal for breach of conditions of release supervision order),".'.
      No. 25, in page 61, line 12, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      No. 26, in page 61, line 13, after 'if' insert—

      '(a) any hospital direction under section 45A above were a transfer direction under section 47 above; and

      (b)'.

      No. 27, in page 61, line 15, at end insert—
      '(5) Sections 80(5), 81(6) and 85(4) above shall have effect as if any reference to a transfer direction given while a patient was serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court included a reference to a hospital direction given by a court after imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a patient.".'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 5

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 64, line 13, leave out 'made' and insert 'having effect'.
      No. 41, in page 65, line 10, leave out from 'court' to end of line 11 and insert
      'less any period by which the sentence falls to be reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
      412
      (9) In sub-paragraph (8) above "the appropriate proportion" means one-half in the case of a term of less than four years and two thirds in the case of a term of four years or more.'
      No. 28, in page 65, line 26, after 'if' insert
      '—
      (a) after paragraph (b) of subsection (3), there were inserted the words 'and
      "(c) the provisions of this section as compared with those of sections 33(2) and 35(1) of the 1991 Act"; and
      (b)".'—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 6

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 68, line 43, column 3, at end insert—
      'In section 42(1), the words "or section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967".'.
      No. 30, in page 68, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert—
      'In section 37(4), the words "in the event of such an order being made by the court".'.
      —[Mr. Maclean.]

    Clause 31

      FINE DEFAULTERS: GENERAL
      Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 22, line 25, leave out from 'things;' to end of line 26.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 4, in page 23, line 7, leave out from `things;' to end of line 8.
      Mr. Straw: This a short point and we would be grateful for a response from the Minister. It relates to welcome arrangements being made in the Bill to provide for community service or curfew orders imposed for fine default. Our question is about how the courts should deal with those matters when there is a breach of the order for community service or curfew.
      My understanding is that, in other respects, where an offender breaches his community service order the court is able to take into account whether the offender has completed none of the original order or has completed all but a few hours in deciding what penalty to impose for the breach. The Bill as it stands takes an all-or-nothing approach, whereby an offender who does not complete his community service order or obey his curfew order has—quite rightly—to go back to court to be dealt with for that breach. It is not apparent on the face of the Bill whether the court will be able to take account how much community service has been undertaken by the offender when determining what further penalty should be imposed.
      This matter was raised in Committee, but we think that Ministers should give it further consideration.
      Mr. Sackville: The purpose of all matters of fine enforcement is to make the offender pay the fine.

      413
      Under our proposals, a person who is given a community sentence can reduce the term of that order by paying off the fine, just as at present fine defaulters can reduce the period of imprisonment imposed on them by paying off the fine. However, we do not think that offenders should be able to elect to work off part of their fine through partial compliance with a community service or curfew order, which would be the practical effect of the amendment.
      Offenders who are fined must pay the fine or face the consequences. If an offender fails to comply with a community penalty that is imposed as a punishment for failing to pay a fine imposed by the court, the fine remains outstanding in full. Under the provisions of the Bill, the court has the power to revoke the community penalty imposed for the original fine default and re-sentence in respect of that default.
      The House will understand that serving the community penalty in full will discharge the financial penalty in full, but short of total compliance with the community penalty we do not believe that offenders should have the freedom to take their pick between community service and outstanding financial penalties. It is therefore not our intention that the offender can select a package from among a range of available penalties. Hence I would not recommend accepting the amendment.
      Mr. Straw: I am grateful for that explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 35

      OFFENDERS
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 26, line 13, at end insert—
      '(2A) Where a court orders a person to be disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence under this section, the degree of punishment inflicted by the order, or by the combination of the order and any other order or orders made in respect of the offence, shall be such as in the opinion of the court are commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.'.
      The Bill contains the novel principle that someone can be disqualified from driving for an offence that had nothing to do with motor cars. There are, to be sure, related principles in, for instance, the salmon legislation. A person's car can be confiscated if he drives a car to carry out a salmon poaching offence, but in this case a person might travel to an offence on a bus and yet be disqualified from driving his motor car.
      I do not oppose the idea in principle but I wish to raise a concern expressed by the Magistrates Association and the Justices' Clerks Society about proportionality in relation to the use of driving disqualification as a penalty for offences unconnected with the motor car.
      Driving disqualification has a completely different effect on different people. For someone who hardly uses the car it may be of almost no consequence; for someone whose livelihood depends on it, it could mean a difference of thousands of pounds.
      414
      Many pieces of legislation, including the Criminal Justice Act 1991, set criteria requiring a sentence to be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The Minister has no difficulty with the principle at stake; indeed his view in Committee was that an amendment was unnecessary because the courts have a general duty to take account of the seriousness of the offence when passing sentence. Obviously the Minister does not have much confidence in the courts' ability to carry out such duties; otherwise he would not have introduced the legislation compelling courts to pass mandatory sentences.
      It seems odd that, with this novel penalty, the Minister should have departed from the widespread practice of imposing a statutory requirement for proportionality. The amendment seeks to import precisely that proportionality.
      Mr. Llwyd: I support the amendment, but I have reservations about the new form of penalty in any event. As I understand it, the Justices' Clerks Society was not consulted when the idea was first discussed. I acknowledge the need for proportionality, but it represents quite a departure from the usual criminal law to impose a wholly unconnected penalty for such offences. Indeed, it might have a detrimental effect and hamper the rehabilitation of an offender who, on release, might not be able to get employment as a result.
      I believe that the punishment must fit the crime, but this is not the right approach. It is laughable to think that the professional criminal will in any way be deterred by the fear that he might lose his licence.
      Mr. Maclean: I do not consider the amendment necessary, in view of the established principle of sentencing which already ensures that its aims are met. It is a fundamental principle of sentencing that the punishment should fit the crime. The courts must consider the nature of the offence and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances before deciding what sentence to impose. The sentencer must also have regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and of the offender.
      Consequently, a court will not impose disqualification from driving unless satisfied that such a penalty is appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the offence.
      The penalty will be introduced by way of pilot schemes; we cannot consult on every single change we wish to make. In this case we have chosen to run pilots before we finalise the scheme. The pilot process will identify the implications before we go for national implementation. The pilots will also identify any need to produce guidelines for the courts, such as those produced in other circumstances by the Magistrates Association. Therefore, as we will have pilot schemes, and in view of the fundamental principle that all sentences must at all times have regard to the particular circumstances of the offence and the offender, the amendment is unnecessary.
      Mr. Beith: The Minister's argument is unconvincing. He repeats what he said in Committee. This bit of the Bill is odd, but it is not one of principles on which we would wish to go to the stake. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 40

      CURFEW ORDERS
      Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 28, leave out line 26 and insert
      'for the word "sixteen" there shall be substituted the word "fifteen".'.
      Mr. Beith: The amendment relates to the electronic tagging of juveniles. Its purpose is to restrict the use of electronic tagging to young offenders who are 15 or over.
      The Government have issued much publicity on the merits of electronic tagging, aided by companies that were involved in the pilot project. I was struck that the press releases that came into my hands after an announcement over Christmas were not from the Home Office, but from Securicor. I began to wonder who was in charge at the Home Office—Securicor seemed to be setting the agenda.
      The research has had some useful results. It has demonstrated that considerable progress has been made in dealing with the technology, which failed lamentably at earlier stages. It looks as if it can be made to work, but, from that research, it is difficult to draw useful conclusions either about the cost of tagging or its suitability for very young offenders.
      It seems that tagging would have to be used much more than seems likely before it was cost-effective for the companies concerned. I have been told that there was heavy staff involvement from the companies concerned in the project and that one company had 25 staff involved for 50 offenders. That ratio is not going to be maintained. Unless courts make far more use of the electronic tagging system than seems likely, the cost will be high. Even in America, where it is more well established, the proportion of offenders involved in electronic tagging is small, but in the limited time that we have available tonight, I want to concentrate on its applicability to very young offenders—those under the age of 15.
      What young, increasingly hardened offenders need is not technology to ensure that they are kept under house arrest, but supervision. They need responsible adult role models—people who give them guidance and set an example. It is no use simply satisfying ourselves that we have confined a youngster embarking on a criminal career to a particular place unless we do some good in that place. If the youngster is under adequate supervision there, electronic tagging is of little importance or significance.
      The case for using electronic tagging of an adult offender may be easier to make if we are trying to ensure that that offender does not go into areas where he or she can readily commit crimes, but if we are talking about a 13 or 14-year-old persistent offender, that youngster should be under extensive supervision by a parent, teacher, social worker or probation officer—skilled professionals. If there is no family back-up, skilled professionals will have to do all the work. If there is some family back-up, skilled professionals should be helping the family. The last thing that is significant in this case is our ability to maintain an electronic tag to show that the young person is in that place. The important thing is who is there to ensure that that young person has the role model, guidance, help and all the rest of it.
      416
      Resources will be grossly misapplied if they go into the electronic tagging scheme, instead of appropriate supervision and management of difficult, seriously misguided and sometimes dangerous youngsters. Therefore, our amendment suggests that, if the Government want to proceed in developing the electronic tagging scheme for adults, let them do so, but, for the youngest offenders, the Government's efforts should be directed at their supervision, control, training and development, not at a scheme that can achieve none of those things and that would grossly misuse resources.
      I invite Ministers to think again. Courts will not be likely to make much use of electronic tagging for this purpose, but if they are able to do so at all, there is likely to be a significant misapplication of resources, which should be used in the way that I have described.
      Mr. Maclean: What I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands—although we had a good discussion about it in Committee—is that, in the Government's view, a curfew order for the 10-to-14 age group will be an additional valuable tool to deal with juvenile offenders. There is nothing to suggest that supervision orders and another range of activities cannot take place at the same time.
      The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that, if we have electronic tagging for youngsters, we will do nothing else—that we will simply invest all our hopes in the panacea of electronics. That is not the case. Indeed, research published recently shows that the tagging equipment works effectively: 75 per cent. of offenders were tagged successfully, and completed their curfew orders. It also shows that there is tremendous merit in using the new electronic technology that is available—and, of course, backing that up with supervision by parents, teachers, social workers, probation officers or anyone else. There is nothing to stop supervision orders being made in addition to tagging, or as part of it.
      9.30 pm
      We have made a number of modifications to the curfew order to reflect the younger age of the people to whom we are extending it. We have said that the maximum term should be three months rather than six, and that before making an order the court must obtain and consider information about the family circumstances and the effect that the order will have on the family. That is to ensure that the legislation is targeted appropriately on the youngsters on whom we think it will have the best effect.
      We intend to introduce the order on a pilot basis. There may be new and unanticipated difficulties with the younger age group, and a pilot study should help to identify the problems and ensure that we can use the system as effectively with that group as we have found from our studies that we can use it with the older age group.
      In view of those assurances—and, if he reads the report of the Committee stage, he will see that we made the point at greater length then—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will conclude that the amendment is unnecessary and his fears unjustified.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 42

      PUBLICATION OF REPORTS
      Mr. Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 29, line 16, leave out 'child or young person' and insert
      'person of over the age of sixteen years'.
      The amendment would restrict the identification of juveniles in reports of youth court proceedings to those aged 16 or over.
      Clause 42 allows convicted juveniles who appear in the youth court to be publicly named if the court
      "is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so".
      The current legal provisions on the anonymity of children and young persons are governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. Section 49 prohibits the identification of children and young persons who appear in youth courts. There are only two exceptions, which apply if the court believes that allowing publicity is appropriate to avoid injustice to the child—for example, if it is the only way in which to locate alibi or other defence witnesses—or if a young person involved in proceedings relating to a serious offence is unlawfully at large. In that instance, the court can authorise identification only on an application from the Director of Public Prosecutions.
      Section 39 of the Act states that the Crown court may direct that media reports shall not identify a child or young person. In practice, Crown courts normally prohibit identification, but exceptionally, after conviction, judges sometimes order that they may be identified.
      When clause 42 was debated in Committee, it transpired that the Government intended not that youth courts should follow the Crown court's current practice of using the power to identify juveniles sparingly, but that they should use the power extensively for certain categories of offender. On 10 December, the Minister of State said:
      "some people are persistent offenders. In their case, I should expect the power to be used extensively rather than rarely … I hope that courts will use the relevant power widely in the case of these offenders, as the rule rather than the exception. That would permit members of the local community, such as the chamber of commerce, traders, retailers, the neighbourhood watch, the police—or councils, perhaps, in instances of council estates being terrorised—to effect limited publication in a defined area of the names of those people for whom innocent members of the public should look out."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 316–17.]
      The Magistrates Association has not asked for any change in the law on the matter. When the proposal was canvassed in the media in late 1996, the Association issued a statement, which stated:
      "It is the Magistrates Association's view that reporting restriction on young offenders should not be changed … The Association points out that young children have a different psychological perception and are treated differently in youth courts where they are dealt with by magistrates who have been specifically training in dealing with juvenile matters.
      Repeat offenders for whom school, family etc have been a failure, gain kudos and popularity amongst their peer groups from offending and naming them would make them heroes."
      Probation service organisations and those involved in resettlement of offenders have also opposed the proposals. Their arguments were summarised in a statement, on 27 November 1996, by the Penal Affairs Consortium, which stated:
      418
      "Naming young offenders … will hinder rather than help the prospects for steering young people away from crime.
      The reason why the names of juvenile offenders are not normally published is that it can seriously hinder their rehabilitation. This is as true now as it was when the rule was introduced in 1933. The way the media have hounded a few young offenders after Crown Court trials, sometimes for years afterwards, shows how necessary the rule of anonymity is."
      I should say that I have 18 years' experience of juvenile courts, and to this day I have never met a juvenile who did not, on balance, have more good than bad in him or her. If we are to close the door on them and stigmatise them from the very beginning, one of the four core points of any penal code—rehabilitation—will go out of the window.
      In a briefing sent to members of the Standing Committee on the Bill, the Association of Chief Officers of Probation opposed the amendment. It stated:
      "Judges already have the power to lift the provisions which stop juvenile offenders being identified. This is only used very sparingly at the moment and where it has been done it has made work with the offender significantly more difficult."
      The Government have advanced two principal arguments for the amendment: first, it would help to protect the public; and, secondly, it would have a deterrent effect. On the first point, on 10 December 1996, the Minister said in Standing Committee:
      "It is important that members of the public should be protected from young offenders and that courts should be able, in the public interest, to permit identification of youngsters who have been convicted, especially when they are released into the community for punishment."
      He also said:
      "We are taking this action largely because the community does not know the names of persistent offenders and is vulnerable to further attack from them."
      The Minister went on to state:
      "But I am concerned about the hundreds of young offenders whose names are never revealed, so the public remain innocent dupes ready to be attacked by them the next time."
      Mr. Maclean: That is right.
      Mr. Llwyd: However, as the Magistrates Association pointed out in its statement on the proposal:
      "It is not necessary to name children in order to alert communities as they are already well known in their local areas."
      I believe that it is essential to realise how important the rehabilitation of young offenders is to the protection of communities and that—as bodies working with young offenders have pointed out—the rehabilitation of young offenders is likely to be damaged by this measure, which could very well be counter-productive and expensive because of the money expended and society's failure.
      The Government's second argument for the measure is based on deterrence. In Standing Committee, the Minister said:
      "I also believe that the prospect of being identified publicly should prompt many young offenders—and their families—to think more carefully about their actions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 10 December 1996; c. 310–15.]
      However, young offenders are the group least likely to be deterred by this type of measure. A high proportion of juvenile crime results from impulsive behaviour, risk-taking, the escalation of anti-social behaviour in groups and in other situations in which rational

      419
      calculations of deterrence play a small part. The possibility of public identification is also likely to have very little effect on the minority of young offenders who plan their offences more carefully as their principal concern is to plan and not get caught.
      By preventing the identification of juveniles under 16 in the reports of youth proceedings, the amendment would avoid the unnecessary stigmatisation of this group and reduce the damage to the rehabilitation of young offenders which would otherwise result from the clause. The clause is wrong in principle and will be detrimental to the cause of rehabilitation.
      Furthermore, the clause is illogical and impractical. For very good reasons, juvenile cases have been held in camera-in other words, the general public has been excluded. How can one therefore honestly say that it is acceptable to name a juvenile, perhaps in a sketchy and skewed reference in the local press, and, at the same time, to exclude the public, thereby depriving them of the true opportunity to hear the case in its totality? Sadly, I conclude that the clause has more to do with pre-election, right-wing muscle flexing than improving the criminal justice system. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman has rehearsed verbatim exactly the argument that he advanced in Committee. He has also been kind enough to read out the answers that I gave him.
      Mr. Llwyd: I did not speak to such an amendment in Committee so I do not know where the Minister gets that idea from. Perhaps it is a bit late in the day for him.
      Mr. Maclean: I recall the same argument being rehearsed verbatim. I am not impugning the hon. Gentleman's integrity but someone must have borrowed someone else's notes because I remember it well. How was the hon. Gentleman able to recite my answers if I did not reply extensively to the same debate in Committee? I have tonight heard the same argument as I heard in Committee. If it was not advanced by him, I apologise.
      There is not much more that I can add to what I said in Committee other than to stress that the court will have the discretion whether identification shall be made. The court may consider identification inappropriate in the case of some first-time offenders convicted of a less serious crime but think otherwise in the case of some hardened, persistent young thugs and hooligans who, unfortunately, exist in this country but are—thank goodness—in a minority.
      I am thinking of the type of hooligan about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) used to speak and who were called the Sutton posse. Gangs of dozens of youngsters terrorised town centres but could not be named although shopkeepers and members of the public were desperate to know who they were. They are the sort of offenders that we believe the court should have the power to name.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy has not made a convincing case for us to accept the amendment. The arguments that I advanced today and in Committee still stand.
      Mr. Llwyd: I am not convinced by that reply which was no doubt also trotted out in Committee, although I do not recall the exact words. I am increasingly becoming a fan of the other place which, I hope, will put the clause where it belongs—in the dustbin.
      Amendment negatived.

    Schedule 1

      TRANSFER OF PRISONERS WITHIN THE BRITISH ISLANDS
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 41, line 27, leave out
      '27 and 32 to 34'
      and insert '29(5), 33 and 35'.
      No. 44, in page 41, line 32, leave out 'sub-paragraph (3)' and insert 'sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A)'.
      No. 45, in page 41, line 39, at end insert—
      '(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-paragraph (2)(b) above, sections 13 to 15 of this Act shall not apply to a person whose transfer from Scotland to England and Wales is a restricted transfer.'.
      No. 46, in page 41, line 42, leave out 'section 32' and insert 'sections 29(5) and 33'.
      No. 47, in page 41, line 52, leave out '34' and insert '35'.
      No. 48, in page 41, line 53, leave out '32' and insert '33'.
      No. 49, in page 42, leave out line 7.
      No. 50, in page 42, leave out lines 11 to 14.
      No. 51, in page 42, line 14, at end insert—

      'Released by virtue of section 30 of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997

      Released by virtue of section 10 of this Act'.

      No. 52, in page 42, leave out line 17.
      No. 53, in page 42, line 32, leave out
      '27, 28 and 32 to 34'
      and insert
      '29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.
      No. 54, in page 42, line 47, leave out 'section 32' and insert 'sections 29(5) and 33'.
      No. 55, in page 43, line 5, leave out '28' and insert '30'.
      No. 56, in page 43, line 8, leave out '28' and insert '30'.
      No. 57, in page 43, leave out line 16.
      No. 58, in page 43, line 19, at end insert—

      'Justices for a petty sessions area

      Probation Board for Northern Ireland'.

      No. 59, in page 43, leave out lines 20 to 24.
      No. 60, in page 43, leave out line 28.
      No. 15, in page 43, line 38, leave out second 'and'.
      No. 16, in page 43, line 40, after '1976' insert
      'and Articles 26 to 28 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.
      No. 17, in page 44, line 7, after '1976' insert
      ',the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.
      No. 18, in page 44, line 25, leave out second 'and'.
      No. 19, in page 44, line 27, after '1976' insert
      'and Articles 26 to 28 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.
      No. 20, in page 44, line 43, after '1976' insert
      ',the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996'.
      No. 42, in page 45, line 47, at end insert—
      '(5) Where the relevant purposes in relation to a transfer to Scotland which is an unrestricted transfer include supervision, the person to whom the transfer relates shall be treated as if a supervised release order had been made in respect of him by such court as the Secretary of State may specify:.— [Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 2

      REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS TO THE BRITISH ISLANDS
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 49, line 6, leave out 'sub-paragraphs' and insert 'sub-paragraph'.
      No. 22, in page 49, line 10, leave out '(ii)'.
      No. 61, in page 50, line 11, after 'imposed' insert 'for offences committed'.
      No. 62, in page 50, line 35, after 'imposed' insert 'for offences committed'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 4

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 23, in page 58, line 26, after 'summarily)' insert '(a)'.
      No. 24, in page 58, line 27, at end insert 'and
      (b) for the words "and section 62(6) of this Act" there shall be substituted the words ", section 14(3) of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (committal for breach of conditions of release supervision order),".'.
      No. 25, in page 61, line 12, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      No. 26, in page 61, line 13, after 'if' insert—

      '(a) any hospital direction under section 45A above were a transfer direction under section 47 above; and

      (b)'.

      No. 27, in page 61, line 15, at end insert—
      '(5) Sections 80(5), 81(6) and 85(4) above shall have effect as if any reference to a transfer direction given while a patient was serving a sentence of imprisonment imposed by a court included a reference to a hospital direction given by a court after imposing a sentence of imprisonment on a patient.".'. —[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 5

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendments made: No. 40, in page 64, line 13, leave out 'made' and insert 'having effect'.
      No. 41, in page 65, line 10, leave out from 'court' to end of line 11 and insert
      'less any period by which the sentence falls to be reduced under section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
      (9) In sub-paragraph (8) above "the appropriate proportion" means one-half in the case of a term of less than four years and two thirds in the case of a term of four years or more.'
      No. 28, in page 65, line 26, after 'if' insert
      '—
      (a) after paragraph (b) of subsection (3), there were inserted the words 'and
      "(c) the provisions of this section as compared with those of sections 33(2) and 35(1) of the 1991 Act"; and
      422
      (b)".'
      No. 63, in page 67, line 14, leave out
      '29 and 33 to 35'
      and insert
      '29(5), 33 and 35'.
      No. 64, in page 67, line 28, leave out
      '29 and 33 to 35'
      and insert
      '29(5), 33 and 35'.
      No. 65, in page 68, line 1, leave out
      '29, 30 and 33 to 35'
      and insert
      '29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.
      No. 66, in page 68, line 11, at end insert
      'and the Table set out in that sub-paragraph contained the following entry—

      "Probation officer appointed for or assigned to such petty sessions area

      Probation Officer appointed by the Probation Board for Northern Ireland".'.

      No. 67, in page 68, line 15, leave out
      '29, 30 and 33 to 35'
      and insert
      '29(5), 30, 33 and 35'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

    Schedule 6

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 29, in page 68, line 43, column 3, at end insert—
      'In section 42(1), the words "or section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967".'.
      No. 30, in page 68, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert—
      'In section 37(4), the words "in the event of such an order being made by the court".'.
      —[Mr. Maclean.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time—[Mr. Howard.]
      9.44 pm
      Mr. Beith: The Bill is an attempt at the general deception of the public. The prison system has no affect on most crimes. Most are undetected and most offences do not, and will not, following the passage of the Bill, result in a prison sentence.
      Prison is essential for some offenders, but its record for rehabilitation does not lead one to believe that the placing of the maximum possible number of people in prison will lead to fewer crimes—indeed, quite the contrary. The Bill requires 11,000 more people—perhaps many more; that is the Government's estimate—to be put in an already overcrowded prison system, at a cost, according to Government figures, of £1.2 billion. Many estimate that the additional prison building programme will cost more.

      423
      There is no provision in the public finances for that expenditure, which leads me to believe, as I said earlier, that the Government are not serious about bringing all the provisions of the Bill into force. The Minister of State said earlier that the provisions would be brought into force as resources allowed. We know what that means—that the resources are not likely to be found and the Bill is an exercise in trying to convince the public that the Government are being tough when the money is not there to do it. If the money is found, it will be at the expense of the rest of the Home Office budget, much of which goes on policing and the prevention of crime. As a result, more crimes will be committed.
      Labour Members seem prepared to go along with most of that. They have probed the details of the Bill and sought amendments to some parts of it, but they appear committed to the main principle of mandatory sentencing and must therefore be committed to the cost implications that I have described. They were not willing—
      Mr. Straw: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks with care. He was not a member of the Standing Committee—nor was I—and he was also not present on Monday, as far as I remember, when we had an interesting debate about sentencing policies in different parts of the country. Is he aware that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) brought to the attention of the House the fact that in Hereford, where he sat as a recorder, there were much tougher sentences? He accepted that that contributed towards Hereford being a more orderly area than some others.
      Mr. Beith: I am aware of my hon. and learned Friend's speech. I enjoyed his references to sheep stealing in particular, which is a problem in my part of the country. He certainly did not commit himself to the scale of sentencing and imprisonment implicit in the Bill, which the Labour party appears to support. A little earlier this evening, we had a debate about whether the principle that the courts should have at their disposal when considering whether to apply a mandatory sentence should be a narrow one or a wider one, to serve the interests of justice. The Labour party could not even bring itself to support the amendment, even though some Conservative Members, such as the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), voted for it. Labour Members have run away from the issue. If they get into the habit of standing on their heads, they may find that they cannot get back on their feet.
      9.47 pm
      Mr. George Walden: I should like to place on record briefly exchanges that I have had with my hon. Friend the Minister about the Bill. Those exchanges concern Adam Dent, the son of a constituent of mine, who has suffered a grave injustice at the hands of the law and the press.
      Adam Dent, a 15-year-old student of chemistry at Oxford—something of a prodigy—was publicly accused of the attempted rape of a fellow student. Subsequently, the Crown Prosecution Service decided, on the basis of his age, his previous good character and the nature of the evidence, that no charge was to be brought against him.
      424
      Meanwhile, however, the accusations—and Adam Dent's name—were bandied about freely in the press. Delays by the Crown Prosecution Service meant that there was plenty of time to spread his alleged crimes far and wide. The Daily Mail, for example, did a centre-page spread. As a direct result of exposure to allegations, on which the Crown Prosecution Service later decided not to prosecute, it became impossible for Adam to continue with his studies at Oxford. For a gifted student, this was a double tragedy. He was fortunate in having determined and articulate parents to protect his interests. That is not the case for everyone.
      It was possible for the press to behave in that fashion because of a technical loophole in the law. I shall not take up the House's time with the details, but paradoxically and scandalously, it is possible to name an alleged juvenile offender who was subsequently not charged. Guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers advises police officers not to name individuals under investigation. However, that does not prevent anyone else from speaking to the media.
      Meanwhile, the woman concerned received the full protection of the 1988 Act and can never be named. Obviously, I am in favour of that protection. I have no means of assessing whether her complaint was brought in good faith or whether it was to any extent malicious. Either way, she—an adult—was protected, whereas Adam—a juvenile who had not been charged—was not.
      The case relates to the Bill in the following way: when I drew the injustice to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, he recognised the need to close the loophole in the law and undertook to do so. I am grateful to him for that and for his co-operation on the matter. However, it was subsequently decided that it would be difficult to do so in the Bill as it concerns sentencing.
      I need hardly add that my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Dent, are disappointed. They had been pressing for a change in the law not so much for the sake of their own son—it being rather too late to redress his grievance—as for others who might be caught in the same trap. Meanwhile, their son remains exposed to innuendo and misleading reporting. Incidentally, it is with the family's agreement that I have named Adam Dent in the House tonight in the hope of making it clear beyond any doubt that no charges were ever brought against the boy. I hope that the press will continue to exercise some restraint about naming him or identifying him in any way.
      Ideally, I should like the Bill to include the legislation that the Minister agrees is necessary to prevent identification of juveniles before charge. That cannot be done for technical reasons and I wish to place on public record his assurance, for which I am grateful, that the Government will introduce legislation as soon as a suitable opportunity arises.
      It is appalling to think that any rape case might be hushed up, but it is equally appalling to think that the good name of any young man anywhere could at any time be ruined on the affirmation of any woman, even if he is never charged while she rightly enjoys lifelong protection. I am not concerned with sexual politics, simply with the scope for patent injustice as the law stands.
      9.52 pm
      Mr. Michael Stephen: I agree with every word of the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden). I introduced a ten-minute Bill in 1995 to provide for anonymity for defendants in rape cases. Like my hon. Friend, I thought it a gross injustice that an accused man should have his name plastered all over the press before being acquitted. After I introduced that Bill, I was approached by Mrs. Irene Jackson, whose son Mark was accused of rape. He was acquitted, but he could not live with the shame and he hanged himself. I do not wish that to happen to any other young man. I have discussed the matter several times with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This is outside the scope of the Bill.
      9.53 pm
      Mr. Straw: As I made clear in answer to the Home Secretary's statement on 3 April 1996, we have never disputed the overall aim of the Bill, which is to ensure more consistency, progression and honesty in sentencing. However, we have challenged the methods and the justice and practicality of those methods in some areas of the law.
      The proposals in the Bill for more honesty in sentencing have been improved in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) among others for securing that improvement. None the less, we have yet to be convinced that the Minister's method for achieving honesty in sentencing is more effective and understandable than our simpler alternative.
      We have made it clear that we support the principle of indeterminate life sentences for repeat rapists and others. The Secretary of State must, however, accept that the only thing that will be automatic for those sentences is the label attached to them. The length of the tariff to be served will be set by the trial judge, and as the Minister of State made clear in Committee, that will be within the "complete discretion" of the trial judge. The decision about the release date after the tariff has been served will be made by the Parole Board on the basis of whether it would be safe to release.
      We have had a dispute about the total list of trigger offences. The objections that we have raised in respect of section 18 wounding are serious, and Ministers ought to think again about it. In my judgment, the net effect of including section 18 wounding will be more downgrading of the charge to section 20 and fewer people being convicted of the former significant charge.
      On minimum determinate sentences, the Bill's propositions are a far cry from those in the Home Secretary's conference speech in 1995. Then, he refused to admit that there would be exceptions. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said in 1991 and since then, once there are exceptions the character of automaticity is changed. Indeed, that is very much so. The Home Secretary knows that, if serious injustice arises from rigidity in the system, British juries will simply not convict, and guilty people will walk free.
      426
      We have not been impressed by the way in which Ministers have sought to hide behind the doctrine of Pepper v. Hart and, as it were, pass the parcel of what will be included, in exceptional circumstances, back to the Court of Appeal. Ministers ought to have been very much more explicit about what they had in mind when they agreed to the phrase. That will no doubt be explored in the other place.
      The Secretary of State asked me on Monday what our overall approach would be to the Bill. As I said then, we shall make our final decisions when the Bill is in its final form, which will be when it has been through the other place. At present, it is a moving, shifting target. It has been changed in Committee and may well change again. We are not going to block its Third Reading. The Minister of State is well aware of the constructive approach that we took to the Bill in Committee.
      Even on the Secretary of State's wildly optimistic assumptions about public spending, many of the Bill's proposals cannot come into force in practice until 2001. Meanwhile, the Government have to recognise that, despite the fact that this is the 34th criminal justice Bill to be introduced in the past 18 years, crime has doubled, convictions are falling and a party that was elected on a manifesto to create greater law and better order 18 years ago has presided over the greatest epidemic of crime and disorder that this country has ever seen.
      9.57 pm
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): It may just about be comprehensible that the Labour party will not come to a final view on the Bill's proposals until the Bill has completed its passage through the other place, but what we completely fail to understand is why it cannot come to a view today on the Bill as it stands at present, having just about completed its passage through this House. There is no mystery about the Bill's form, its content or the proposals that the Government have placed in it. It is absolutely extraordinary that, after all the words that have been used in arguing about the proposals, we still do not know the principal Opposition party's position. It says, "Wait and see."
      I suppose that such a reaction is in itself something of an improvement from the Labour party's initial reaction to the proposals. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) described the proposals as ill thought through and ill-considered; the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) described them as daft; the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) described them as a farce. They have moved—I suppose—some way since then.
      The Bill substantially reinforces not only the power but the duty of the courts in sentencing serious, dangerous and persistent offenders. The mandatory penalties at the heart of our proposals are carefully targeted at crimes of particular concern to the public: serious violent and sexual offences, domestic burglary and dealing in hard drugs.
      Our proposals for honesty in sentencing will restore credibility to the court's sentence and ensure proper supervision after the offender is released. The Bill will provide more flexible and effective community penalties and new powers for the courts when dealing with mentallydisordered and juvenile offenders. Most importantly, the Bill will provide protection and

      427
      reassurance for the public and thereby help to improve public confidence in the criminal justice system. I commend it to the House.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 21.

      Division No. 41]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Eggar, Tim

      Alexander, Richard

      Elletson, Harold

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Emery, Sir Peter

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

      Amess, David

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      Atkins, Robert

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bates, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Beggs, Roy

      Forman, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forth, Eric

      Bitten, John

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Booth, Hartley

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Boswell, Tim

      Freeman, Roger

      Bowis, John

      French, Douglas

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gallie, Phil

      Brazier, Julian

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Gamier, Edward

      Brooke, Peter

      Gill, Christopher

      Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Burns, Simon

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Butcher, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butler, Peter

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Butterfill, John

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, John (Luton N)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hawksley, Warren

      Carttiss, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Channon, Paul

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Higgins, Sir Terence

      Churchill, Mr

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Clappison, James

      Horam, John

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hordern, Sir Peter

      Coe, Sebastian

      Howard, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Howell, David (Guildf'd)

      Congdon, David

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Conway, Derek

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Cope, Sir John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Couchman, James

      Jack, Michael

      Currie, Mrs Edwina

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Curry, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jopling, Michael

      Day, Stephen

      King, Tom

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Devlin, Tim

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Knox, Sir David

      Dover, Den

      Kynoch, George

      Duncan Smith, lain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunn, Bob

      Lang, Ian

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      428

      Legg, Barry

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Leigh, Edward

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lilley, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)

      Lord, Michael

      Soames, Nicholas

      Luff, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      MacGregor, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Maclean, David

      Spring, Richard

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Sproat, Iain

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Malone, Gerald

      Stanley, Sir John

      Mans, Keith

      Stephen, Michael

      Mariow, Tony

      Stem, Michael

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Stewart, Allan

      Merchant, Piers

      Streeter, Gary

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Sumberg, David

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Nelson, Anthony

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Newton, Tony

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexlyhth)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Tracey, Richard

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Page, Richard

      Trend, Michael

      Paice, James

      Trotter, Neville

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Patten, John

      Viggers, Peter

      Pattie, Sir Geoffrey

      Waldegrave, William

      Pawsey, James

      Walden, George

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Pickles, Eric

      Waller, Gary

      Porter, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Watts, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Wells, Bowen

      Redwood, John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Richards, Rod

      Whittingdale, John

      Riddick, Graham

      Widdecombe, Miss Ann

      Robathan, Andrew

      Wilkinson, John

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Willetts, David

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

      Wilshire, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Rowe, Andrew

      Wolfson, Mark

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Wood, Timothy

      Sackville, Tom

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Mr. Roger Knapman and

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Ashdown, Paddy

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Berth, A J

      Rendel, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Steel, Sir David

      Dafis, Cynog

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Thurnham, Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Tyler, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Wallace, James

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is obvious that the Crime (Sentences) Bill is leaving this House with a magnificent majority of 208. I hope that it would meet with the approval of everyone here if the House further along the Corridor did not interfere with the conclusions of this House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Although the House will admire the mathematics of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that was not a point of order.

PETITION

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust
  10.11 pm
  Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to present to the House a petition that has been signed by 1,200 constituents and others from different parts of Inverness and the highlands of Scotland. The petition calls on the Raigmore hospital NHS trust not to proceed with its proposal to levy car parking charges for those employed by and using the facilities of the hospital. The petition states:
  "To the House of Commons. The petition of staff, patients and visitors of Raigmore Hospital, Inverness, declares that the NHS trust management are considering the introduction of car parking charges. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons support their opposition to such an imposition. And the petitioners remain, etc."
  To lie upon the Table.

Firearms Control (Mr. Thomas McIntyre)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
10.13 pm
Dr. John Reid: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of the tragic murder of one of my constituents, Thomas McIntyre. The subject of the debate—although the murder occurred seven years ago—is timeous. The debate comes relatively soon after our discussions in this House on handguns, and immediately prior to a discussion of the firearms legislation in another place.
Only two short months ago, I spent several hours, as did many other hon. Members, with the parents of the children tragically massacred at Dunblane. Those parents were in Parliament for the opening of the debate on handguns, and I, like many others, was deeply moved not only by their circumstances but by their dignity and courage in the face of so much suffering.
At that stage, I and many of my hon. Friends—along with some Government Members—strongly urged the Government to allow a free vote on the issue of handguns. The Government refused. They allowed a free vote on caning in schools, but not on handguns. I do not understand how the administering of a smack on the hand can be such a profound matter as to require a free vote of conscience, while the possibility of using a gun to take a life is less profound in the Government's eyes.
At that time, my constituents wrote to me in sackfuls to support the banning of handguns. However, that was partly influenced by the fact that many of them had shared in a tragedy of our own, long before Dunblane. Everyone has heard of the tragic events of last March in Dunblane, but not many will have heard of the death of Thomas McIntyre, a 19-year-old student teacher from my constituency who was brutally murdered after a night out with some friends, after he had gone to the assistance of a young woman who had been hit by a vehicle as she crossed a road in Glasgow.
My constituent, Thomas McIntyre, was shot and died in a Glasgow street at 1.40 am as a result of multiple gunshot wounds to the chest, at the hands of a gun owner, Alan Parkhill, with no history of mental illness, who was a gun club member, trained to shoot, with a legally held licence.
Thomas McIntyre and Alan Parkhill were two young men buried on the same day, one having been murdered and the murderer in turn having committed suicide with his own gun immediately afterwards: two tragedies; two families in grief; two communities in grief.
A public inquiry was held in Glasgow into both deaths, during six days in September and October 1990, before Sheriff Brian S. Lockhart. The findings of that inquiry hold no comfort for those who would have us believe that the potential misuse of widely available handguns can somehow be curbed—or, in the case of Dunblane, should have been curbed—by police action in searching criminal records, or by psychological profiling or other personal or personality searches.
That detailed report, nearly seven years ago, concluded that no reasonable precautions could have been taken by the chief officer of police or by the police themselves in terms of the then legislation, or by any other person or body,

431
whereby the deaths might have been avoided. The actions of the gunman could not have been predicted, and they remain to this day unexplained.
The sheriff directed that the transcript of the evidence to the inquiry and its determination be remitted to the Secretary of State with the recommendation that he refer them to the Firearms Consultative Committee for consideration, and that the committee give particular attention to the age or ages at which persons should be permitted to hold a firearms certificate relating to weapons of different calibres; the number of firearms and the amount of ammunition that any member of the public should be entitled legally to possess; and all aspects of the storage of firearms and ammunition owned by members of the public. That was in 1990.
The families of both Thomas McIntyre and Alan Parkhill sat through the proceedings in court numb and unbelieving while the events of the tragedy unfolded. Both families—of the victim and of the murderer—were bewildered, precisely because the action of the gunman Alan Parkhill was apparently so out of character.
Alan Parkhill first obtained a shotgun certificate when he was only 16 years of age, and a firearms certificate when he was only 17. That certificate permitted him to acquire a .22 pistol, a .357 revolver and a .22 rimfire rifle. He made application for a firearm certificate under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968.
In accordance with normal procedure, the police checked criminal records, special branch records and divisional intelligence. The report from the sergeant on the application said that the applicant had been a member of a pistol club for some time, that he seemed to be very knowledgeable about firearms, and, moreover, that he had gone to some considerable expense to ensure the security of the firearms that he intended to purchase. He was a responsible gun club member. He seemed to be a sensible young man, and had the full approval of his parents, which had been sought for his application.
Alan Parkhill and his family were of good character. They were not listed in divisional intelligence officers' files, and there were no local objections to the granting of the certificate. It had been ascertained that he was a member of the Glasgow and District pistol club and the Balornock rifle and pistol club, and that he would use only authorised ranges. After the necessary checks had been made, the applicant was granted his firearms certificate.
When Mr. Parkhill reached 18 years of age, the certificate was altered to allow him to possess one .357 Smith and Wesson revolver and to purchase or acquire one 3 mm pistol, one .357 revolver, one .223 rifle, one .22 pistol and one .22 rimfire rifle, with appropriate ammunition.
Applications were received from the applicant for renewal of his certificate every three years. The same investigations were carried out by the police at the time of each application for renewal as had been carried out when the application was first presented.
In 1989, after normal checks had been carried out by the police, a certificate was issued that allowed Mr. Parkhill to possess—I apologise for going through the list, but it is illustrative—one .357 Smith and Wesson revolver, one .22 Winchester rifle, one .45 Colt pistol, one .22 Colt revolver, one 9 mm Browning pistol and one .223 Remington rifle, as well as 600 rounds of .223 ammunition, 600 rounds of 9 mm ammunition, 500 rounds
432
of .44 ammunition, 500 rounds of .45 ammunition, 400 rounds of .38/.357 ammunition and 1,200 rounds of .22 ammunition. He was also given authority to acquire a further .44 pistol.
At the time of Parkhill's death, the police accounted for all those weapons, with the exception of the .45 colt pistol, which could not be traced. A Crossman pistol, for which no certificate had been obtained, was found in his possession. The ammunition found at Alan Parkhill's house at the time of his death—apart from six rounds—was within permitted limits. Once again, it was perfectly legal. In view of that list, it may surprise some hon. Members to know that Strathclyde police considered the firearms held by Alan Parkhill at the time of his death to be normal for an average gun enthusiast.
Mr. Parkhill was described by witnesses at the inquiry—people who knew him—as friendly, unaggressive, calm, shy, even-tempered, quiet, well-mannered, respectful, easy-going, level-headed, funny, humorous, a nice guy and a normal bloke. He was described as a diligent and conscientious worker, keen to better himself, a very competent shooter and extremely safety conscious.
After the Hungerford shootings, Mr. Parkhill wrote to the secretary of the Shooters' Rights Association applying for membership. He said:
"I realise that now is the time to safeguard shooting in Britain so I offer my full support to the case and hopefully my Club."
On the evening of 17 March 1990, Mr. Parkhill, the easy-going boy of good character, fully responsible, shy and retiring, set out to celebrate a friend's birthday. To celebrate a birthday, he took with him a 9 mm Browning pistol, two magazines of ammunition, some loose live rounds and a sheath knife. He then consumed from 5.30 pm onwards a minimum of four cans of Budweiser, six pints of lager and two gin and tonics. Unsurprisingly, he could not remember where he had parked his Land Rover. However, he did go behind the wheel that fateful evening.
A young girl, Tracey Patrick, and her friend, David Carracher, had been walking in Sauchiehall street, Glasgow, and had decided to cross Renfield street in the early hours of the morning. They stepped from between parked vehicles and walked into the path of the Land Rover driven by Parkhill, who braked and swerved. Young David was able to jump clear, but the Land Rover struck Tracey Patrick. As she lay unconscious in front of the van, my young constituent Thomas McIntyre, a good Samaritan, ran to her assistance.
As Thomas approached to assist Tracey, Alan Parkhill got out of the Land Rover and drew a 9 mm Browning pistol. As Thomas McIntyre ran across the road to help Tracey Patrick, the gunman of almost impeccable character stood with both arms stretched in front of him and with his feet apart fired his pistol at Thomas. The first shot struck Thomas above the right wrist. As Thomas turned to run from the gunman, Parkhill fired four further shots into his back. He died immediately. One bullet went through his body and struck a taxi driver. Parkhill fired further shots, injuring several others, before placing the pistol close to his right temple, firing the gun and penetrating his brain.
Alan Parkhill was 24 years old when he committed murder and then killed himself. He was said to have been, as I hinted, an able young man, capable of conversing on a range of subjects and interests with a wide variety of people. He was not grossly affected by the fascination of weapons. Thomas McIntyre was murdered for being a

433
good Samaritan. He was a bright young man of 19, with a great future as a teacher in front of him. The sudden death of one so young brings not only grief but numbness and bewilderment. Why such a waste of life and talent? My sympathy, and that of the constituency, went out, and still goes out, to the family of young Thomas McIntyre, in particular.
That was seven years ago, in 1990, so why am I raising the matter after all this time? Why did I decide that it might be of use to the House? Why did Thomas McIntyre's family allow—indeed, encourage—me to raise it? Does it matter after all those years? I raise it because it is a fulcrum of one of the major arguments about handguns. It gives a timely reminder of the danger of widespread availability of handguns. Perhaps above all, it brings home to us the tragic effects.
The case illustrates the massacres of Dunblane and Hungerford in microcosm, in a quieter but no less tragic way. However, the case of Thomas McIntyre and the character of Alan Parkhill, to the eternal bewilderment of everyone involved, also remind us that no amount of character checking, psychological analysis, searching of records or personalty probing can guarantee that tragedies such as this, in which handguns are used to maim and kill, will not happen if handguns are widely available. It gives the lie to those who say that Hungerford or Dunblane would not have happened had the police done their job correctly, or that it should be possible to predict that this or that man may turn out to be a mass murderer.
As the sheriff in the report of the case seven years ago quite specifically stated, the actions of young Alan Parkhill could not have been predicted—indeed, to this day, they remain unexplained.
I have heard it said that, in the hands of a mad man or a drunk, a car or a knife could also maim or kill. It is sometimes said that that possession is also unpredictable. That is to miss one central point. A handgun is not a car, a knife or a rifle. Of course all can be used to kill. But unlike a car, a handgun was not designed for the utility of transporting, or of any other utility. It was designed to be an anti-personnel weapon. Unlike a knife, it has no social utility in essence in its beginning, other than an anti-personnel weapon.
The case reminds us that it is so easy to ignore lessons. I trust that the Minister will concentrate on the difficulty of predictability. The sheriff's report specified directly that his determinations be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, and recommended that he in turn should refer them to the Firearms Consultative Committee, to give particular regard to various matters that I have mentioned. He, the Secretary of State, was to refer the report to that committee, and he did so. The report was read and noted. As far as I am aware, no action was taken.
The issue has relevance to the debate on handguns, and I have raised it in honour of the parents of the two young men who tragically died. Both their families have encountered tragedy, grievous losses and bewilderment. Both families realise, to their eternal regret, how it is not possible to predict the actions of anyone who holds handguns. We owe it to the two families not to forget the horror and the implications of such a tragic event. Perhaps, in discharging that debt, we serve a wider purpose in alerting the public once more to the dangers of handguns.
10.31 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Miss Ann Widdecombe): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) on raising such an important issue. I note that interest has been shown in the hon. Gentleman's concerns by the presence of other hon. Members, especially that of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). Throughout the debate, the hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mrs. Liddell) has been in her place. The same must be said of the hon. Members for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). Other hon. Members are present, but they have not been in their places throughout the debate.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North has clearly raised a matter of importance when at this hour of the night, after all the business that has been dealt with, there should still be sufficient concern for Members to be present.
Seven years have passed since the extremely tragic incident to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, I express deep sympathy to all the victims and to the relatives of everybody involved. Having seen the very thorough report of the fatal accident inquiry, chaired by Sheriff Lockhart, I agree that what happened on that tragic night in March 1990 raises issues which remain of great significance as we consider further changes to the law on the possession of firearms in the wake of the tragic incident in Dunblane.
I wholly share the view about unpredictability. Time and again, both I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State have said that there is no measure that any Government could take that would guarantee that there would never be another tragic incident. We can only do our best and endeavour to learn lessons from past events.
I want to concentrate on the three issues to which the hon. Gentleman specifically alluded and which the sheriff picked out for detailed consideration by the Firearms Consultative Committee. The Firearms (Amendment) Bill is currently under consideration in another place, and, if I have time, I want also to discuss the way in which our proposals in that Bill will affect the specific concerns mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that they will make an important difference.
Before doing so, I believe that it would help the House if I briefly described the circumstances in which Alan Parkhill came to be in possession of the pistol and ammunition that he used to shoot Mr. McIntyre and wound others. As we have heard, and as the inquiry report makes quite clear—and as the hon. Gentleman emphasised forcefully tonight—Mr. Parkhill was perfectly legally entitled to own those weapons. He had a firearms certificate for them that was issued, perfectly properly, by the police.
Under section 19 of the Firearms Act 1968, it is an offence for anybody to be in possession of a firearm and ammunition in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. In having the pistol and the ammunition with him in his car on that night, Mr. Parkhill was committing just such an offence. I thoroughly concur with the great question mark introduced by the hon. Gentleman as to what that sort of equipment had to do with celebrating a friend's birthday.
The police certificate authorised him to purchase the pistol and ammunition, and, indeed, to keep them at home. As the inquiry report says, his certificate also allowed him to own one other pistol, two revolvers, two rifles, and a total

435
of 3,800 rounds of ammunition of different types and calibre, depending on their suitability for use with the particular weapons involved. On the night of the shooting, Mr. Parkhill had with him one of his pistols—a Browning 9 mm—two magazines of ammunition for it and some loose rounds.
Mr. Parkhill first obtained a gun licence at the age of 16, when he applied to Strathclyde police for a shotgun certificate. He applied for and obtained a firearms certificate the following year, at the age of 17—the youngest age at which, by law, a person may purchase a firearm. In applying for that certificate, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, in renewing it subsequently every three years as he was required to do, Mr. Parkhill told the police that he wanted firearms for target shooting. That was true. Mr. Parkhill was a member of local shooting clubs—the Glasgow and District rifle and pistol club, and the Balornock rifle and pistol club—which were approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Firearms Acts, which were run perfectly properly, and about which the police had no reason to feel any concern.
The law requires that anybody who wants a firearms certificate should have a good reason for being in possession of a firearm and ammunition. Home Office guidance to the police on administering firearms controls makes it clear that target shooting is a good reason, and it has been recognised as such ever since systematic firearms controls were first introduced in this country in 1920.
The sheriff's report describes two other occasions before the night of the shootings when Mr. Parkhill had a gun with him in public; and it also emerged after the shootings that one of his guns was missing. I want to make it clear that none of those matters had been reported to the police. As far as they knew, Mr. Parkhill was punctilious in adhering to all the rules and regulations relating to his possession of firearms and ammunition and they had no reason to be concerned that he posed a danger to anybody.
Sheriff Lockhart concluded in his report:
"there were no reasonable precautions which could have been taken by the chief officer of police in terms of the current legislation"—
that is, the legislation then in force—
"whereby the deaths might have been averted".
I fully agree with that assessment.
The police investigation of the shootings was unable to uncover why Mr. Parkhill acted as he did. The sheriff could not shed any new light on the matter. He also concluded that Mr. Parkhill had not taken advantage of any loophole in the law to obtain guns or ammunition.
The sheriff went on to conclude that the Secretary of State for Scotland should refer three specific topics to the Firearms Consultative Committee: the age or ages at which persons should be permitted to hold a firearms certificate; the number of firearms and the amount of ammunition which any member of the public should be entitled to possess; and all aspects of the storage of firearms and ammunition owned by members of the public.
We shared the sheriffs concern, and the Government asked the committee to discuss these three points. It did that in some detail, and the hon. Gentleman is aware that it
436
concluded that there should be no change to the current arrangements. I hope I misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman; he appeared at one point to be saying that the report was not acted on. In fact, the report recommended no change, so there were no changes recommended on which to act.
Dr. Reid: I said that the report was considered and noted, and that no further action was taken.
Miss Widdecombe: Indeed. The committee published these conclusions in 1992 in chapter 5 of its third annual report. There is, of course, a copy of the report in the Library of the House.
On age limits, there are, as the Committee said, very detailed provisions in the Firearms Acts. The minimum age for purchasing or hiring a firearm of any kind is 17. The law does provide for people of less than that age to be in possession of firearms and ammunition without having bought them, but it imposes significant restrictions. I gave the Standing Committee a detailed description of age limits, which it would not be profitable to repeat tonight in the limited time available.
On the quantities of firearms and ammunition which people should be allowed to own, the Firearms Consultative Committee concluded that the present arrangements are adequate. I agree with that conclusion. In addition, the greater controls imposed by the Firearms (Amendment) Bill will place important new restrictions upon the ownership of legally held firearms.
As far as security is concerned, the Committee correctly pointed out that the law imposes a requirement on all owners of firearms and shotguns to keep them secure from theft at all times.
It is tempting to draw parallels between this case and that of Thomas Hamilton. Both involved the tragic shooting of innocent people by men who were perfectly legally entitled to possess large calibre handguns. There are, however, some differences. There was nothing to indicate that Mr. Parkhill was not fit to be entrusted with a firearm. There was no evidence that he had planned his crime. There was, as the hon. Gentleman kept saying tonight, no apparent motive. There were no grounds to refuse the granting of a firearm certificate to him. All these concerns, however, were identified by Lord Cullen as applying to Thomas Hamilton.
I therefore accept the hon. Gentleman's basic premise: that there is no easy method of predicting who may act out of character, and no easy method of preventing a tragedy such as Dunblane. But there is a major responsibility on Government to do their best to make sure that these things do not happen. Lessons have been learnt from Dunblane. We have had an independent examination, the vast majority of whose conclusions we have accepted.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his concerns so eloquently tonight, and I apologise to at least one of his hon. Friends who was indeed present throughout the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Departmental Nurseries
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which Ministers of the Crown currently make use of the departmental nursery for their children. [10806]

  The Deputy Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 4 November 1996, Official Report, column 333.

  Information on the parents who use departmental nurseries is not held centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Research Institutes
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Roslin Institute; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10106]

  (2) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10138]

  (3) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Institute of Arable Crops Research; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10042]

  (4) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Silsoe Research Institute; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10130]

  (5) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Babraham Institute; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10110]

  (6) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Institute of Food Research; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10046]

  (7) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the Institute for Animal Health; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10102]

  (8) how much has been spent to date on the prior options review of the John Innes Centre; and from which budget these sums were paid. [10134]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Work on these reviews has principally involved existing staff in the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council which is funded from the science budget. BBSRC estimates the total staff and other incidental costs as £240,000. It is not possible to quantify
  238
  the costs incurred by the several Government Departments involved in the prior options procedures without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Fairtrade Foundation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received from the Fairtrade Foundation; and if he will take steps to introduce products marketed by the foundation into the cafeterias in his Department. [10892]

  Mr. Nelson
  I have not received any representations recently from the Fairtrade Foundation. The foundation is free to compete with other suppliers to Halliday Catering Services, who hold the contract to run my Department's catering facilities.

  Science Budget
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the allocation of the science budget. [11469]

  Mr. Lang
  I have discussed the allocations with the director general of research councils and have decided that, subject to parliamentary approval of the supply estimates in due course, the science budget of £1,330.327 million should be allocated as follows:

  Science budget allocations and planning assumptions

  £ Million

  Allocation

  Planning figures

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  BBSRC

  183.300

  185.445

  184.193

  ESRC

  64.896

  66.021

  65.132

  EPSRC

  386.373

  381.098

  379.050

  MRC

  289.070

  288.949

  287.618

  NERC

  165.116

  169.131

  168.295

  PPARC

  191.850

  194.289

  194.094

  International Sub.Reserve

  8.800

  13.000

  13.000

  CCLRC

  1.450

  1.450

  1.000

  Pensions

  11.530

  9.547

  9.547

  Royal Society Royal

  22.271

  22.621

  22.871

  Academy

  3.370

  3.436

  3.486

  OST Initiatives

  2.302

  2.381

  2.381

  Foresight Challenge

  —

  1.000

  2.000

  Total

  1,330.327

  1,338.367

  1,332.667

  These allocations will enable the research councils and other funded bodies to maintain the momentum in the key areas identified for national research and to carry forward the policies set out in the 1993 White Paper, "Realising Our Potential". An additional £17 million over three years has been allocated for urgent additional research into transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.

  Further details are available in the paper, "Allocation of the Science Budget 1997–98", which I have placed in the Library of the House.

  Telecommunications Council
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EC Telecommunications Council on 18 December 1996. [11408]
  239
  Mr. Page
  I represented the UK at the Telecommunications Council held in Brussels on 18 December, arranged at short notice to discuss the postal services directive.

  The Council reached political agreement on the further liberalisation of postal services. The UK supported the final compromise on the directive's further liberalisation proposals after successfully invoking the Ioannina agreement to secure improvements. Netherlands, Sweden and Finland voted against the agreement.

  Under the agreement direct mail and cross-border mail will stay in the reserved area for the time being. The Commission will come forward with a proposal for further liberalisation by end 1998. The Council and the European Parliament will decide by 1.1.2000 on further liberalisation measures, in particular with a view to liberalisation of cross-border and direct mail as well as a further review of the price and weight limits, with effect from 1 January 2003. The directive will end in 2004 if no decisions have been made.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Pupil Costs
  Mr. Keen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list(a) the actual unit cost per full-time equivalent student, (b) the equivalent figure at constant 1996–97 prices and (c) the consequent efficiency improvement for each of the years from 1989–90 to 1996–97 and the projected figures for the years 1997–98 to 1999–2000 assumed in the Budget for (i) higher education institutions, (ii) further education colleges, (iii) maintained secondary schools and (iv) assisted places in independent secondary schools. [8844]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 December 1996]: The relevant information is set out in the following text and tables. Figures for each education sector are, however, not directly comparable.

  Participation in higher education has risen substantially. One in three young people now attend university full time, compared with only one in eight in 1979. The expansion in student numbers has been accompanied by substantial improvements in efficiency and continuing high quality as demonstrated by the Higher Education Funding Council for England's quality assessments. Participation is planned to continue at record levels in the future and planned expenditure on higher education will increase by £200 million over the next two years.

  Higher education institutions

  Financial year

  (a) public funding per full-time

  (b) public funding per full-time equivalent student at 1996–97 prices

  (c) efficiency improvement

  (£)

  (£)

  Per cent.

  1989–90

  5,350

  7,050

  —

  1990–91

  5,310

  6,480

  8.1

  1991–92

  5,350

  6,130

  5.4

  1992–93

  5,110

  5,620

  8.4

  1993–94

  5,010

  5,360

  4.5

  1994–95

  4,970

  5,230

  2.6

  1995–96

  4,970

  5,100

  2.4

  1996–97

  4,800

  4,800

  5.8

  1997–98

  4,860

  4,760

  0.8

  240

  Higher education institutions

  Financial year

  (a) public funding per full-time

  (b) public funding per full-time equivalent student at 1996–97 prices

  (c) efficiency improvement

  (£)

  (£)

  Per cent.

  1998–99

  4,840

  4,650

  2.4

  1999–00

  4.720

  4,450

  4.3

  Since the transfer of responsibility for the further education sector from local education authorities to the Further Education Funding Council on 1 April 1993, both expenditure on further education and the number of full-time equivalent student numbers have increased. Colleges have also made significant improvements in their efficiency. The Government will make available an extra £80 million over the next two years.

  Further education colleges

  Financial year

  (a) public funding per full-time

  (b) public funding per full-time equivalent student at 1996–97 prices

  (c) efficiency improvement

  (£)

  (£)

  Per cent.

  1993–94

  2,820

  3,020

  —

  1994–95

  2,810

  2,950

  2.4

  1995–96

  2,750

  2,810

  4.8

  1996–97

  2,650

  2,650

  6.2

  1997–98

  2,560

  2,510

  5.6

  1998–99

  2,490

  2,390

  4.9

  1999–00

  2,410

  2,270

  5.3

  Comparable figures before 1993–94 are not available because of the transfer of responsibility for funding the further education sector from local education authorities to the FEFC from 1 April 1993.

  LEAs are responsible for the allocation of resources to pre-primary, primary and secondary schools which they maintain. Since 1979 spending per pupil has increased in real terms by 48 per cent. For 1996–97 and 1997–98 total additional funds of £1.7 billion have been provided for maintained schools. Since spending depends upon decisions made by individual LEAs, the Government do not make projections for future years and does not set targets for efficiency gains.

  LEA-maintained schools

  Financial year

  (a) LEA-maintained NIE1 per pupil (£)

  (b) LEA-maintained NIE1 per pupil at 1996–97 prices (£)

  1989–90

  1,490

  1,960

  1990–91

  1,620

  1,980

  1991–92

  1,750

  2,010

  1992–93

  1,860

  2,040

  1993–94

  1,870

  1,990

  1994–95

  1,890

  1,990

  1 NIE—net institutional expenditure—represents the direct costs in schools of salaries and wages, premises and certain supplies and services, and from 1990–91 includes unspent balances held by schools under local management schemes.

  LEA-maintained schools include pre-primary, primary and secondary schools. The figures have not been adjusted for any changes in the functions of LEAs, such as, for example, the transfer of sixth-form colleges to the new further education sector on 1 April 1993.

  Spending on the assisted places scheme has increased since 1989–90. The amount of spending per assisted pupil depends upon a number of factors, including changes in approved fees and in parental incomes and contributions. Net expenditure per place has risen in real terms as the

  241
  scheme has included an increasing proportion of lower income families whose contributions are smaller. Forecasting the relevant factors is subject to a range of uncertainty, and the Department does not publish projections of spending per pupil. Similarly, for these reasons it is not possible to calculate efficiency changes.

  Assisted places scheme

  Financial year

  (a) spending per pupil (£)

  (b) spending per pupil at 1996–97 (£)

  1989–90

  2,280

  3,000

  1990–91

  2,580

  3,140

  1991–92

  2,960

  3,390

  1992–93

  3,300

  3,630

  1993–94

  3,490

  3,740

  1994–95

  3,640

  3,820

  1995–96

  3,770

  3,860

  1996–97

  3,880

  3,880

  All table use GDP deflators published December 1996. All figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  Hampstead Garden Suburb Institute
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she received the report by the inspector into the proposed compulsory purchase order in respect of the institute, London NW11, and when she expects to make a decision. [10807]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department received the inspector's report on 4 November 1996. A decision on the inspector's recommendations will be made as soon as possible.

  Assaults on Teachers
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what information she has collated concerning the number of assaults on teachers(a) by children and (b) by parents in the last five years. [10832]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will name those schools to which she has made official visits in 1996, and to date in 1997, in which standards of space, heating and sanitary provisions(a) were represented to her as inadequate and (b) did not meet statutory standards; and what action she has taken or intends to take in each case. [10899]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visits a large number of schools each year in the course of her official duties. Any matters of concern raised during such a visit, including standards of accommodation, are noted at the time and dealt with on an individual basis, usually through correspondence between officials in the Department and the school or local education authority involved.

  The responsibility for ensuring that school premises comply with the standards laid down in the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996 falls to the LEA for LEA-maintained schools, and the governing bodies of grant-maintained schools.

  Teachers (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers in Wiltshire local education authority schools in the year 1995–96 were granted early retirement(a) with and (b) without enhancement; and under which budget head the financial consequences for each school are recorded. [10334]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The number of teachers granted premature retirement in Wiltshire LEA schools in 1995–96 was 26 without enhancement and 36 with enhancement. Payments in respect of premature retirement compensation cannot normally be treated by LEAs as a charge on the budgets of individual schools. Nor, where they are so charged, need they be separately identified in the LEAs' statutory local management of schools financial statements or in any other statement or return collected by the Department.

  Schools (Wiltshire)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for(a) Ridgeway school, Swindon, (b) Greendown school, Swindon, (c) Westwood St. Thomas school, Salisbury and (d) Malmesbury school, the (i) numbers on the roll, (ii) social needs budget, (iii) grants for education support and training, (iv) flat rate allowance, (v) age weighted pupil unit, (vi) devolved total 1 budget, (vii) amount retained by the local education authority from devolved 1 budget, (viii) devolved 2 budget total and (ix) total budget for each school for years April 1996 to March 1997. [10335]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information in the following table is taken from the local management of schools budget statement for 1996–97 published by Wiltshire local education authority under section 42 of the Education Reform Act 1988, now section 122 of the Education Act 1996. This statement does not contain, nor is it required to contain, the information requested at items (iii) and (vi) to (viii) of the question. The figures in the last line of the table represent the delegated budgets allocated to the schools and do not include GEST—grants for education, support and training—or other devolved funding.

  The Ridgeway School, Wroughton1

  Greendown Community School, Swindon

  Westwood St. Thomas' School, Salisbury

  Malmesbury School

  Number on Roll

  1,412

  847

  823

  931

  Amount allocated through social needs factor

  £0

  £13,856

  £2,965

  £0

  Flat rate allowance

  £170,950

  £146,500

  £170,950

  £170,950

  Amount allocated by age weighted pupil numbers

  £2,482,875

  £1,386,910

  £1,659,525

  £1,651,518

  Budget share

  £2,820,030

  £1,653,823

  £1,924,713

  £1,997,945

  1 Incorporated as a grant-maintained school on 1 September 1996.

  Office for Standards in Education Inspections
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools have been inspected by Ofsted; and how many teachers have been graded in each of categories one to seven since 1 April 1996. [10911]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

  Investors in People
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of organisations with 200 or more employees are(a) recognised as and (b) committed to investors in people in each English region and in Wales. [11249]

  Mr. Paice
  The latest available data for Government Office regions in England are provided in the following table. Responsibility for Investors in People in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  The percentages of organisations with 200 or more employees recognised as and committed to Investors in People, by Government Office region and nationally, are given against agreed baselines of organisations with 200 or more employees.

  Region

  Percentage of employers recognized

  Percentage of employers committed

  Total percentage of employers covered

  North-east

  18

  40

  58

  North-west

  14

  59

  73

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  13

  48

  61

  Merseyside

  24

  50

  74

  West Midlands

  18

  55

  73

  East Midlands

  15

  62

  77

  Eastern Counties

  12

  58

  70

  South-west

  23

  53

  76

  South-east

  18

  71

  89

  London

  9

  50

  59

  Total England

  15

  55

  70

  The agreed baselines are the numbers of organisations of the relevant size eligible for separate Investors in People recognition as counted by English training and enterprise councils in spring 1996.

TRANSPORT

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the road damage calculations quoted in the recent consultation document, "Lorry Weights", are based upon static conditions on a level surface; and what estimates have been made of road damage characteristics associated with typical dynamic conditions taking account of speed, uneven road surfaces and the variable quality of vehicle suspensions. [10906]

  Mr. Watts
  The dynamic effect of a given axle weight is dependent upon a number of factors including road surface, axle spacing, tyre and suspension type. The fourth 244
  power rule was derived from a series of dynamic tests in which different types of lorries were run repetitively over sections of road surface. The best approximation between road wear and lorry weight was found to be the fourth power of the static axle load.

  Further work has been carried out in Germany and at the Transport Research Laboratory to take greater account of vehicle suspension and road types. But these effects are relatively small and static axle load remains the dominant factor. The TRL is currently participating in a European programme to determine the road wear effects of different tyre types.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions there are to seek an extension of the derogation from EC directive 96/53 admitting 40-tonne lorries to Britain; and what plans he has to do so. [10904]

  Mr. Watts
  None. Under the terms of the original directive, 85/3/EEC now consolidated as 96/53/EEC, the United Kingdom would have been obliged to accept 40-tonne lorries on international journeys from July 1986. The Government negotiated a derogation from this requirement which expires on 1 January 1999.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has had made of how much greater damage will be caused by the drive axles of 40-tonne lorries to road pavements when fully laden than is caused by 38-tonne lorries. [10905]

  Mr. Watts
  The 11.5 tonne axle weight of 40-tonne lorries would cause about 45 per cent. more road wear than the 10.5 tonne drive axle weight of 38-tonne vehicles, assuming in both cases that the axles are fully laden.

  Jubilee Line Extension
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the estimated overall capital cost of the Jubilee line extension(a) at the time of Royal Assent to the Bill, (b) updated following the indexation of prices adopted by his Department for (i) 1996, (ii) 1997 and (iii) 1998; and if he will list the estimated deficit against the original estimate at 1997 prices, indicating from what source he expects this sum to be defrayed. [10877]

  Mr. Bowis
  At the time of Royal Assent the estimated overall cost of the Jubilee line extension was £2.1 billion in cash terms. The 1996 estimated outturn cost of the project was £2.6 billion in cash. That remains the estimated outturn cost. The difference between the two figures will come from London Transport's total resources, which include substantial amounts of Government grant. Additional grant has been made available specifically in respect of cost overruns related to delays arising from the new Austrian tunnelling method collapse on the Heathrow express project.

ENVIRONMENT

  Noise Act 1996
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have
  245
  indicated that they (a) will and (b) will not implement the Noise Act 1996 on 1 April 1997; how much expenditure will be incurred or saved in each case; and if he will make a statement. [10347]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not available centrally. However, my Department is commissioning research to establish the level and type of noise complaints service provided by local authorities in October 1996 and to track development of these services, including take-up of the new night noise offence in the Noise Act 1996.

  Landfill
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission research into the biodegradation rates of domestic waste in landfill sites; and if he will make a statement. [10518]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department's research programme into the management of solid wastes with particular emphasis on landfill disposal processes has now been largely transferred to the Environment Agency. The waste strategy policy on landfill set out in the White Paper, "Making Waste Work", is to promote landfill practices which will achieve stabilisation of landfill sites within one generation.

  Current research is directed towards a bio-chemical—bio-reactor—engineering approach to landfill to reduce the time taken for a site to become stable. Research results inform guidance set out in the revised series of waste management papers on landfill. WMP 26B, "Landfill Design, Construction and Operational Practice", published in 1995, describes the issues and indicates practices to achieve accelerated stabilisation.

  Building Research Establishment Conservation Support Unit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 304, for what reasons the recommendations and conclusions submitted by the consultant authors of the BRECSU reports 38 and 39 on ultra low energy homes were not published with the reports. [10659]

  Mr. Clappison
  Best practice publications, including reports 38 and 39 on low energy housing, take into account a range of inputs, including those from the participating consultants. They reflect generally accepted good practice taken from a number of sources and not just the recommendations and conclusions from individual consultant authors.

  New Housing
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the findings of his Department's consultation to extend part M of the Building Regulations to improve access to new housing. [10795]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Given the very high response to the consultation, work on the analysis of the responses is just being completed. In the light of comments made further work is to be undertaken on the compliance cost assessment, and action on this is in hand. The findings will be considered by the
  246
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee, along with the analysis of the responses to the consultation, prior to officials making recommendations to Ministers. Given the uncertainty of the timing of the outstanding work, it is difficult to give a firm commitment, but I hope that it will be possible to make a statement in the early summer.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of his officials are currently working on his Department's consultation to extend part M of the Building Regulations to improve access to new housing. [10794]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: There is currently one official working directly on the analysis of the consultation.

  Rented Housing
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for improving(a) services to tenants and (b) quality of management of rented housing in 1997. [10767]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: In the private rented sector, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has approved two management codes for residential property to be published by the Royal Institution of Charted Surveyors. These cover service charge and rent only properties respectively and will come into force on 17 March. Copies are available in the Library.

  The Government will shortly also be implementing most of its package on houses in multiple occupation, which is contained in the Housing Act 1996. These will significantly strengthen the existing powers available to local housing authorities to control standards in houses in multiple occupation. Later in 1997 we intend to publish a code of practice for landlords and local authorities, to be followed by the introduction of a duty on landlords to ensure that their properties are safe.

  Later in the year the Housing Corporation will be producing a new social housing standard. This will require registered social landlords to meet certain key standards, including a number related to housing management and services to tenants. In addition, it is further developing the performance indicator system, under which information about RSLs' management and services is made available. It is also updating its tenants' guarantees to reflect these and other developments.

  We expect compulsory competitive tendering of local authority housing management and increased involvement of tenants to improve the quality of services by making them more responsive and efficient. Provisions in the Housing Act 1996 will enable landlords in the social rented and private sectors to respond more effectively to the problem of anti-social behaviour.

  Planning Application (Wallsend)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will call in the decision taken by North Tyneside council to grant approval to planning application 96/02804/REM for the construction of 103 dwellings at the Victor Products site, Wallsend. [10910]
  247
  Sir Paul Beresford
  No. Outline planning permission was granted by North Tyneside borough council for this development on 20 May 1996, and the current application—96/02804/REM—is for approval of reserved matters. The original application was advertised as a departure from the development plan, but the council considered that it should not be referred to the Secretary of State.

  I am aware that there are local concerns about the proposal, particularly the density and character of the proposed housing, its impact on traffic and the need for local play facilities. I understand that council officers met local residents in November 1996 and are confident that the residents' concerns can be satisfactorily resolved.

  Manchester Airport
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if planning permission will be granted for the proposed second runway at Manchester airport; and if he will make a statement. [11505]

  Mr. Gummer
  Together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I have decided to grant planning permission for a second runway at Manchester airport.

  It is important to build on Manchester airport's success. It is already the 18th busiest airport in the world in terms of international traffic, with more passengers than Chicago. The second runway will cater for long-term customer demand. It will also create thousands more jobs and bring benefits for the whole of the north-west. This decision will be a boost for Manchester and the whole of the north-west.

  A development of this scale will inevitably have impacts on the local environment, but the applicants have put together an impressive package of proposals to reduce these impacts and to seek the balance implicit in the concept of sustainable development.

  Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Report
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the Government response to the 19th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution on the sustainable use of soil will be published. [11506]

  Mr. Gummer
  We have today published the Government response to the 19th report of the royal commission on environmental pollution, on the sustainable use of soil. Soil is a vital resource, and different activities can constrain its future use. It is necessary to seek to understand these effects more clearly in order to avoid causing unwitting damage. The commission's report provides a valuable contribution to this process.

  We have accepted their main recommendations that we should produce a more explicit strategy for soil protection. We intend to publish this for public consultation in the spring. This will allow us to build on the many policies and action which are already contributing to the effective stewardship of soil. The soil strategy will draw together existing work, clarify our goals and identify clear commitments for future action. It will also address the
  248
  overall monitoring framework for soils, including the issues of access to soil data and the better integration of existing data.

  Our detailed responses to the 90 other recommendations, made by the royal commission, which cover all aspects of soil use, are also set out in the Government response. Among the most important recommendations accepted by the Government are:

  implementing the new contaminated land regime as soon as is practicable—recommendation 2. The Department of the Environment is currently evaluation the responses to its consultation on statutory guidance.
  reviewing legislation relating to the Environment Agencies once they have had time to establish themselves—recommendation 4. A study of existing legislation is planned in order to identify the scope for rationalisation.
  considering further ways to encourage farmers to seek advice on erosion control—recommendation 18. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for example, is planning to issue an advisory booklet to complement the soil code in 1997.
  pursuing action to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions—recommendation 41.
  Among other measures, the Government are contributing to the European Union acidification strategy planned for mid-1997.

  Copies of the Government response are being placed in the Library of the House.

  Water Directives
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the costs in each of the next five years to the water companies of the proposed revision to European Union directives on(a) bathing water and (b) drinking water; and if he will take steps to ensure that these costs are not passed on to customers. [10202]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The capital cost of implementing the European Commission's proposals for a revision of the bathing water and drinking water directives in the UK has been estimated to be in the range of £1.6 billion to £4.2 billion and £2.2 billion to £3.5 billion respectively, with the majority of the expenditure in the case of the proposed drinking water directive being spread over 15 years from its adoption. Estimates for the next five years would depend on the precise terms of what is adopted and when.

  The effect of new quality obligations on customers' bills is a matter for the director general of Water Services in regulating charges. Under section 2 (2) (b) of the Water Industry Act 1991 the director general has a duty to ensure that companies can finance their functions. When new quality obligations are placed on companies, the director general will need to make sufficient allowance in price limits for companies to comply.

  Housing (Newcastle)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many houses were(a) started, (b) under construction and (c) completed in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in the half-years commencing in April and October from 1993 to 1996; [10290]

  (2) how many houses were completed in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne from 1 January 1988 to the latest available quarter. [10291]
  249
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The table shows figures as reported to the Department by Newcastle upon Tyne borough council and the National House Building Council.

  Housebuilding: all dwellings: Newcastle on Tyne

  Started

  Number of dwellings Under construction at end of period

  Completed

  1988

  Q1

  165

  470

  98

  Q2

  241

  647

  64

  Q3

  80

  636

  91

  Q4

  208

  686

  158

  1989

  Q1

  115

  709

  92

  Q2

  142

  762

  89

  Q3

  224

  870

  116

  Q4

  85

  805

  150

  1990

  Q1

  90

  713

  182

  Q2

  103

  696

  120

  Q3

  95

  653

  138

  Q4

  119

  672

  100

  1991

  Q1

  51

  658

  65

  Q2

  70

  654

  74

  Q3

  80

  726

  8

  Q4

  100

  734

  92

  1992

  Q1

  33

  711

  56

  Q2

  152

  591

  272

  Q3

  155

  725

  21

  Q4

  122

  590

  257

  1993

  Q1

  138

  637

  91

  Q2

  165

  578

  224

  Q3

  85

  596

  67

  Q4

  138

  642

  92

  1994

  Q1

  136

  716

  62

  Q2

  185

  683

  218

  Q3

  166

  707

  142

  Q4

  91

  700

  98

  1995

  Q1

  102

  614

  188

  Q2

  78

  542

  150

  Q3

  41

  393

  190

  Q4

  36

  267

  162

  1996

  Q1

  65

  251

  81

  Q2

  68

  244

  75

  Q3

  35

  198

  81

  Anglian Water (Pollution)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list (i) the location, (ii) the number of fish killed and (iii) the loss of amenity value for each category 1 and category 2 pollution incident caused by Anglian Water in 1995–96. [10199]
  250
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Details of category 1 and 2 water pollution incidents attributed by the Environment Agency to sewers, pumping stations, water treatment works or sewage treatment works operated by Anglian Water Services Ltd. in 1995 are available in the Libraries of the House. Pollution incident data for 1996 is still being compiled. Information on any loss of amenity value is not recorded.

  Water Company Returns
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the items in the water companies' July returns to Office of Water Services which are not being made publicly available. [10203]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: A list of the information excluded from the July returns public documentation is given in appendix B of Ofwat's "A guide to the 1996 July returns for the water industry in England and Wales", a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Pollution Incident Categories
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the National River Authority's and the Environment Agency's definitions of pollution incident categories for categories 1, 2, 3 and 4. [10198]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The Environment Agency's definition of pollution incidents is as follows:

  Category 1
  A major incident involving one or more of the following:

  (a) potential or actual persistent effect on water quality or aquatic life;

  (b) closure of potable water; industrial or agricultural abstraction necessary;

  (c) extensive fish kill;

  (d) excessive breaches of consent conditions;

  (e) instigation of extensive remedial measures;

  (f) significant adverse effect on amenity value;

  (g) significant adverse effect on site of conservation importance.

  Category 2
  A significant incident which involves one or more of the following:

  (a) notification of abstractor necessary;

  (b) significant fish kill;

  (c) readily observable effect on invertebrate life;

  (d) water unfit for stock watering;

  (e) bed of watercourse contaminated;

  (f) amenity value to downstream users reduced by odour or appearance.

  Category 3
  A minor incident resulting in localised environmental impact only. Some of the following may apply:

  (a) notification of abstractors not necessary;

  (b) fish kill of fewer than 10 fish (species of no particular importance to the affected water);

  (c) no readily observable effect on invertebrate life;

  (d) water not unfit for stock watering;

  251

  (e) bed of watercourse only locally contaminated;

  (f) minimal environmental impact and amenity value only marginally affected.

  Category 4
  A reported pollution incident which on investigation proves to be unsubstantiated in that no evidence can be found of a pollution incident having occurred.

  Water Pressure
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in how many households the water pressure in the communication pipe fell below 7m static head for more than one hour on two occasions in any period of 28 days in(a) 1991–92, (b) 1992–93, (c) 1993–94, (d) 1994–95 and (e) 1995–96; and in how many households this occurred more than once in (i) 1991–92, (ii) 1992–93, (iii) 1993–94, (iv) 1994–95 and (v) 1995–96. [10201]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information requested is not available. Information on inadequate water pressure for the years 1991–92 to 1995–96, measured against the Director General of Water Services' service indicator, DG2, is available for each year for which information is requested in Ofwat's annual "Report on levels of service for the water industry in England and Wales", copies of which are in the Library. DG2 uses a reference level of 10m static head with a flow of 9 litres per minute to measure the adequacy of pressure. This should be sufficient to fill a one gallon—4.5 litre—container in 30 seconds from a ground floor kitchen tap.

  Minke Whales
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the Norwegian Government expressing the United Kingdom's opposition to Norway's draft proposal to downlist the north-east and central Atlantic minke whales at the next convention on international trade in endangered species meeting. [10465]

  Mr. Clappison
  The position of the UK and other EU member states in such matters requires a collective decision. Following a letter to Norway from the then Irish Presidency, my Department wrote to the Norwegian Government last month confirming that the UK would oppose the transfer of any species of cetaceans to appendix II of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora while the moratorium on commercial whaling agreed by the International Whaling Commission remains.

  Endangered Species (Import and Export Act 1976)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what special training and qualifications in the identification of threatened animals and plants are required for those persons responsible for policing the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976; [10412]

  (2) how many successful prosecutions have been brought under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. [10411]
  252
  Mr. Clappison
  The Act originally implemented the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora in the UK. In 1984 it was largely superseded by EC legislation, which implemented the convention throughout the Community.

  There is no comprehensive record of convictions for CITES offences. However, we are aware that since 1990, 40 successful cases have been brought under the CITES enforcement regulations, 13 people have been successfully prosecuted under Customs legislation and a further six people have been prosecuted under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act.

  Training is primarily a matter for the enforcement authorities. HM Customs and Excise include CITES in their basic training and the police advise their forces that wildlife issues should be included in their initial training. Customs officers at ports and airports have access to comprehensive written guidance on CITES and the species it covers. Each of the 14 Customs zones has designated a CITES liaison and intelligence officer, and every police force now has at least one designated police wildlife liaison officer. These officers are a source of information and advice.

  Both Customs and the police can call upon experts for assistance in species identification and other specialist matters, including from my Department's wildlife inspectorate, non-governmental organisations and universities.

  Industrial Pollution
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate how many(a) sites and (b) hectares are currently contaminated by industrial pollution; and if he will make a statement. [10427]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The basis for an adequate estimate of the extent of land affected by industrial pollution does not exist. We are preparing to bring into force part HA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—inserted into that Act by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995—which will give local authorities a specific duty to cause their areas to be inspected to identify land which meets the statutory definition of contaminated land.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of staff were taken on as(a) full-time, (b) short-contract, (c) part-time, (d) casual employees and (e) outside contractors by the CSA during the period 31 October 1995 to 31 October 1996. 19559]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for its chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.
  253
  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 14 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about staff taken on by the Child Support Agency.
  During the period from 31 October 1995 to 31 October 1996, the Agency employed a total of 229 fixed term contract staff; of this number 198 were recruited as full time staff and 31 as part time staff. During the same period, 780 casual staff were recruited, of whom 735 were full time and 45 were part time.
  The Agency does not directly employ any outside contractors.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of the CSA's staff are(a) full-time, (b) short-contract, (c) part-time, (d) casual employees and (e) outside contractors; and how many ceased working for, or being contracted to, the CSA during the period 31 October 1995 to 31 October 1996. [9560]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 14 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency staffing.
  At the 31 October 1996, the Agency employed a total of 6986 full time staff, of whom 178 were fixed term contracts and 510 were casual employees. The number of part time staff was 1395, of whom 22 were fixed term contracts and 36 casual employees.
  The number of permanently employed staff who ceased working for the Agency for any reason in the 12 months to 31 October 1996 was 434. The number of fixed term contract staff and casual staff who's contract came to an end during this period was 834.
  The Agency does not directly employ any outside contractors.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of the staff of the CSA were dismissed or had their contracts terminated for disciplinary infringements during the period 31 October 1995 to 31 October 1996. [9558]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 14 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency staffing.
  The number of Child Support Agency staff dismissed for disciplinary infringements during the period 31 October 1995 to 31 October 1996 is 17.
  This does not include any staff dismissed within the Belfast Child Support Agency Centre, as staffing issues at this Centre are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Child Support Agency.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many letters of inquiry or complaint from hon. Members were received by the Child Support Agency during each month between January and October. [9557]
  254
  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for its chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Mr. James Pawsey, dated 14 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about letters from honourable Members to the Child Support Agency.
  The number of letters received by the Chief Executive of the Agency and the Child Support Agency Centre managers for each month between January 1996 and October 1996 are shown in the attached table.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Total number of MPs letters received by the chief executive and by child support agency centre managers each month in the period January 1996 to October 1996

  Month

  Chief executive correspondence

  CSAC manager correspondence

  January

  715

  682

  February

  896

  754

  March

  801

  752

  April

  686

  736

  May

  899

  741

  June

  753

  587

  July

  738

  696

  August

  584

  564

  September

  780

  649

  October

  697

  704

  Partners' Working Hours Rule
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers gaining from the abolition of the hours rule for partners of income support and jobseeker's allowance claimants. [10213]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The cost of abolishing the hours rule for partners of income support and income-based jobseekers' allowance claimants is estimated to be in the range of £200 million to £300 million per annum, with between 70,000 and 90,000 gainers. This is at 1997–98 levels of benefits and incomes, assumes families claim the benefit which is of most reward to them, and takes no account of possible behavioural changes.

  Child Care Disregard
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of extending the child care disregard to those on maximum family credit and disability working allowance by allowing the amount which would have been disregarded subject to a(a) 70 per cent. taper and (b) 50 per cent. taper. [10214]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the table.
  255

  Estimated cost of extending the child care disregard to those on maximum family credit subject to different tapers (1996 prices)

  Family credit cost (per annum) £ million

  70 per cent. taper

  10

  50 per cent. taper

  5

  1. Figures are based on the May 1996 family credit statistics, and use actual weekly child care expenditure reported at that time, subject to the appropriate limit. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  2. Figures do not include any offsetting savings in housing benefit or council tax benefit.

  3. A number of maximum family credit cases gain from the childcare disregard, but by less than the full amount as it is the help with child care that brings them to the maximum. Estimates include allowing these cases to gain by the full amount subject to a 70 per cent. taper or a 50 per cent. taper.

  4. Estimates do not include behavioural effects.

  5. Estimates do not include disability working allowance as the sample size would be too small to support a reliable estimate.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To as the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas Adjournment; [9813]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and Summer Adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9812]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13 January,Official Report, columns 12–13.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many asylum seekers have been refused benefits in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [9871]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows: from 20 November 1995 up to 17 December 1996 the number of income support claims terminated because a decision had been made on their asylum application was 7,564.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of(a) the cost and (b) the numbers gaining if a full disregard of spouse earnings were to be introduced into disability working allowance. [10211]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 9 December,Official Report, column 67.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times the temperatures at(a) Loch Glascarnoch and (b) Aultbea monitoring stations have indicated levels entailing cold weather payments; and how many recipients have received such payments as a result. [10841]
  256
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Charles Kennedy, dated 14 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many times the temperatures at (a) Loch Glascamoch and (b) Aultbea monitoring stations have indicated levels entailing Cold Weather Payments; and how many recipients have received such payments as a result.
  The weather station at Loch Glascarnoch has identified five periods of cold weather. No periods of cold weather have been identified by Aultbea Weather Station.
  Figures are not kept on how many people actually receive payments per weather station.
  However data on the estimated number of people who would qualify (qualifiers) is available, for each time a weather station identifies a period of cold weather. For Aultbea weather station the estimated number of qualifiers is 238 and for Loch Glascamoch the estimated number of qualifiers is 1,880. Therefore, an estimated 9,400 payments have been issued to those customers covered by Loch Glascamoch Weather Station.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefits Agency (Doctors)
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many doctors the Benefits Agency has trained in the operation of the all-work test; how many of those doctors(a) were found unsuitable and (b) left of their own accord after training; and how many have worked with the Benefits Agency medical services for a time but since left. [10219]

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

  Letter for Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 14 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question about how many doctors the Benefits Agency have trained in the operation of the All Work Test; how many of those doctors (a) were found unsuitable and (b) left of their own accord after training; and how many have worked with the Benefits Agency Medical Services for a time but since left.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is set out in the enclosed table.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Doctors trained to undertake medical examinations in connection with the incapacity benefit all work test1

  Fee-paid doctors2

  Employed doctors

  Trained

  1,627

  290

  Found unsuitable after training3

  76

  0

  Left4,5

  186

  54

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Notes: 1 The table shows information from 1 February 1995 to 30 November 1996.

  2 Fee-paid doctors are not employees, but independent contractors.

  3 Doctors who have repeatedly failed to achieve a satisfactory standard at various stages of the approval process.

  4 Figures include those who left for personal reasons, retirement, etc., and fee-paid doctors whose contracts were terminated after approval, for failure to maintain a satisfactory quality standard.

  5 Separate figures are not available to show the number who left immediately after training of their own accord.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 286, how many (a) single pensioners and (b) pensioner couples there were in which three quarters or more of the total income was derived from national insurance retirement and similar pensions and other state benefits in each of the last five financial years. [10844]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  Year

  Number of single pensioners

  Number of pensioner couples

  1989 calendar

  2,750,000

  950,000

  1990 calendar

  2,550,000

  950,000

  1992 calendar

  2,550,000

  1,000,000

  1993 calendar

  2,600,000

  1,000,000

  1994–95 financial

  2,650,000

  1,000,000

  Notes:

  1. The pensioners' incomes series gives estimates for pensioner units. A pensioner unit is defined as being either a single person over state pension age (SPA) or a couple where the man is over SPA.

  2. Income from state benefits has been calculated as income form national insurance benefits and all other benefits that may be received above SPA, such as income related benefits and disability benefits.

  3. The figures given are for the last five years for which pensioners' incomes series data is available, and rounded to the nearest 50,000. Due to this rounding, the totals may not necessarily sum to the totals given in my answer of 11 December Official Report, column 286.

  Source:

  Pensioners' incomes series. This is based mainly on data from the family expenditure survey carried out over calendar years up to and including 1993, and carried out over financial years from 1994–95 onwards, covering the whole of the United Kingdom.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount was budgeted for the national insurance contributions holiday in 1996–97; what level of contributions has been forgone to date; and what is the present estimate for the year. [10907]

  Mr. Heald
  The original estimate for 1996–97 was £28 million. However, this has now been revised and the current estimate is £1.5 million. Information about the level of contributions reclaimed by employers will not be available until their end of year returns have been received and processed.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list for(a) each English region, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales the number of (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful applications made to date for a national insurance contributions holiday for the recruitment of an unemployed person. [10908]
  258
  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is as follows:

  Number of applications: 2,718

  Successful applications: 2,312

  Unsuccessful applications: 296

  Awaiting further information: 110

  Regional breakdown (successful applications)

  North

  247

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  332

  East Midlands

  232

  East Anglia

  77

  South East

  329

  South West

  207

  West Midlands

  246

  North West

  247

  Wales

  115

  Scotland

  197

  Greater London

  83

  1. The number of unsuccessful applications by region is not available.

  2. Statistics relate to the position on 6 January 1997.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Carrickmannon Lake
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Carrickmannon lake in Saintfield, Co. Down, is classed as a designated water; and who owns the fishing rights. [10801]

  Mr. Ancram
  Carrickmannon lake is designated as a rainbow trout water under the Fisheries Consolidated and Amendment Byelaws (Northern Ireland) 1989. The Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland has no information on the ownership of fishing rights in this water, but it is operated a private sector put-and-take rainbow trout fishery by Dr. D. McVeigh.

  Veterinary Laboratory, Omagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which(a) agricultural, (b) farming and (c) veterinary organisations were consulted prior to the decision to close Omagh veterinary laboratory; and if he will make a statement. [10834]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Consultation is not possible in relation to announcements on the public expenditure survey.

  Veterinary Post-mortems
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many full post-mortem cases were carried out, and on which species, in each of the past five years at the veterinary laboratories at(a) Stormont and (b) Omagh. [10836]
  259
  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Cattle1

  Sheep

  Pigs

  Miscellaneous

  Omagh

  Stormont

  Omagh

  Stormont

  Omagh

  Stormont

  Omagh

  Stormont2

  1992

  1,399

  1,280

  796

  563

  726

  501

  23

  837

  1993

  1,507

  1,379

  903

  701

  778

  559

  47

  575

  1994

  1,674

  1,344

  1,006

  691

  757

  544

  58

  825

  1995

  1,749

  1,210

  996

  668

  780

  399

  65

  688

  1996

  1,560

  1,314

  1,047

  744

  892

  327

  182

  672

  1 Excluding BSE cattle.

  2 Miscellaneous submissions at Stormont include zoo animals, pigeons, exotic birds, badgers, marine mammals and material connected with the wildlife investigation scheme.

  Year

  Poultry

  Horses

  BSE/Cattle

  Omagh

  Stormont1

  Omagh

  Stormont

  Omagh

  Stormont

  Fish Stormont

  1992

  1,932

  16,533

  19

  with misc

  134

  293

  4,696

  1993

  2,792

  20,855

  15

  with misc

  263

  403

  2,789

  1994

  5,793

  24,750

  3

  with misc

  127

  443

  4,349

  1995

  3,261

  23,485

  3

  with misc

  70

  229

  2,790

  1996

  2,813

  19,753

  11

  39

  26

  125

  3,900

  1 Poultry submissions at Stormont include both diagnostic and statutory. In 1996 the split was 5,983 for diagnostic purposes, while 13,770 were received for statutory purposes. Statutory submissions do not generally have a detailed post-mortem examination carried out.

  Subway Security (Belfast)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the subway between Cairnshill close and Newton heights, Belfast, is regularly patrolled by the security forces. [10802]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The subway between Cairnshill close and Newton heights has consistently been the subject of police attention by both uniform and plain clothes patrols.

  The area continues to receive police attention.

DEFENCE

  Radioactivity (Greenham Common)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the findings of the study, "An Assessment of Radioactive Levels around the Former Air Base at Greenham Common, Berkshire, NRPB-M752, published on 19 December 1996; what was the cost to his Department of this study; and what follow-up studies are planned. [10893]

  Mr. Soames
  We are pleased to note the conclusions of this independent study by the NRPB which my Department has funded at a cost in the region of £50,000. The study has provided definitive reassurance that, on the basis of the measurement data, the doses received from artificial radionuclides by people living in the area around Newbury and Greenham Common are no different to those received in similar areas elsewhere in the country. The findings of the study are entirely consistent with my Department's assurances that there is no basis to the allegations made last year about a nuclear weapon accident at the base. There are no plans to commission any further such studies.

  Sandhurst
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement regarding the outsourcing of the operation of Sandhurst. [10875]
  260
  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. L. Elliott to Mr. John Spellar, dated 15 January 1997:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence concerning the outsourcing of the operation at Sandhurst as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Army Individual Training Organisation (AITO).
  A feasibility study was undertaken at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS) to identify the scope for involving the Private Sector in delivering activities undertaken there. The study reported at the end of April 1996 and concluded that a range of activities could usefully be exposed to competitive tendering. There were:

  Domestic Services/Management

  Equipment Support/Management

  Estate Services/Management

  Personnel Services/Management

  Sports Facilities/Management

  Stores Services/Management

  Transport and Distribution/Management.

  The total annual net cash value of these services is £7.9M (which includes current contracts valued at £3.03M) with some 227 civilians and 92 military personnel affected.
  The study concluded that best value for money would be achieved by market testing the services within the scope of the competition; as such an in-house bid team has been formed to mount a bid for the services.
  A detailed Statement of User Requirement is currently being developed and the aim is to issue an invitation to tender in March 1997 and to award a Service Level Agreement (to a successful in-house bid) or a contract to a winning contractor, in March 1998.
  You may also be aware of activities concerned with the running of the Joint Services Command and Staff College which is also located at Sandhurst. The College is not part of the ALTO and I cannot therefore comment on this.

  Royal Marines
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals have left the Royal Marines in each of the last five years. [10868]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Naval Manning Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Year

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Officers

  50

  32

  29

  44

  51

  Other ranks

  621

  420

  358

  262

  557

  Total

  671

  452

  387

  306

  608

  I hope this is helpful
  262
  Letter from F. M. Mahon to Mr. John Spellar, dated 15 January 1997:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of Royal Marines leaving Her Majesty's Service in each of the last five years, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Naval Manning Agency.
  The figures for RM discharges from the trained strength in financial years 1991–92—1995–96 are as shown below:

  Defence Evaluation and Research Agency
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete the sale of DERA's support services division; and if he will make a statement. [11471]

  Mr. Soames
  Following competition, we have assessed the bid put forward by the venture capital group, Apax Partners and Co., who propose working with the existing DSSD management team, as offering the best value for money. Consequently, Apax have been granted a period of exclusivity to allow them to carry out the due diligence process and to conclude a contract with DERA on the basis of their offer. Subject to the satisfactory completion of both of these processes, it is intended that a sale should be completed by mid-February.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the appointments of members to the Criminal Cases Review Commission are full time and which are part time; what is the period of appointment in each case; if each appointment is renewable; and how many of the appointments are of women. [10882]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Year

  Full-time or part-time

  Period of appointment (years)

  Sir Frederick Crawford

  Part-time

  5

  Miss Fiona King

  Part-time

  5

  Mr. Laurence Elks

  Part-time

  5

  Mr. David Kyle

  Full-time

  3

  Mr. John Leckey

  Part-time

  5

  Miss Jill Gort

  Part-time

  3

  Mr. Baden Skitt

  Full-time

  5

  Dr. James MacKeith

  Part-time

  3

  Mr. Karamjit Singh

  Full-time

  5

  Professor Leonard Leigh

  Full-time

  3

  Mr. Edward Weiss

  Part-time

  3

  Mr. Anthony Foster

  Part-time

  5

  Mr. Barry Capon

  Part-time

  3

  Under the terms of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 members of the commission are eligible for re-appointment on expiry of their term of appointment, subject to the proviso that no one may hold office as a member for a continuous period of more than 10 years. As the table shows, two of those appointed as members of the commission are women.

  Police Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the spending limit for police authorities(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands in each year since 1992 (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a percentage change over the previous year. [9746]
  264
  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is as follows:

  Total spending powers

  West Midlands £ million

  Percentage change

  England and Wales1 £ million

  Percentage change

  1992–93

  286.2

  —

  2—

  —

  1993–94

  302.7

  5.8

  2—

  —

  1994–95

  314.9

  4.0

  2—

  —

  1995–96

  329.3

  4.6

  6,366.5

  —

  1996–97

  344.2

  4.5

  6,612.8

  3.9

  1997–98

  357.2

  3.8

  6,859.3

  3.7

  1 Excludes City of London: no separately identifiable figures are available for the police service.

  2 Figures are not available as shire police services were funded from county council budgets.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funds were made available from central Government for spending by police authorities(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands for each year since 1992 (i) in cash terms and (ii) as a percentage change over the previous year. [9747]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information is as follows:

  Total external support for police authorities including all grants and income from national non-domestic rates

  West Midlands £ million

  Percentage change

  England and Wales1 £ million

  Percentage change

  1992–93

  2—

  —

  3—

  —

  1993–94

  272.0

  —

  3—

  —

  1994–95

  282.4

  3.8

  3—

  —

  1995–96

  295.9

  4.8

  5,589.4

  —

  1996–97

  310.0

  4.8

  5,801.9

  3.8

  1997–98

  317.4

  2.4

  5,930.0

  2.2

  1 Excludes City of London: no separately identifiable figures are available for the police service.

  2 Full information is not available.

  3 Figures are not available as shire police services were funded from county council budgets.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from police authorities(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands regarding their spending allowances for the coming year. [9748]

  Mr. Maclean
  To date 14 individual police authorities, plus the police authorities of Wales, have made representations about the level of proposed spending limits for 1997–98. In relation to the west midlands we have received representations from the chairman of the Police Authority, from the chief constable, the chairman of the West Midlands joint committee and the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Ainsworth).

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list for(a) each individual police authority, (b) each class of police authority and (c) all police authorities the increase in pounds in (i) the

  265
  aggregate of each police authority's capped expenditure limit or in the case of the Metropolitan police the estimated budget requirement and police rule 2 and rule 3 grants in 1997–98 over 1996–97 and (ii) total external support including all police grants in 1997–98 over 1996–97 and the difference between (i) and (ii) in pounds and as a percentage of 1996–97 cash precepts; [10308]

  (2) if he will list for (a) each individual police authority, (b) each class of police authority and (c) all police authorities the increase in pounds in (i) the

  Increase in capped expenditure limit and rule 2 and 3 grants over 1996–97

  Increase in total external support1 including all grants over 1996–97

  Increase in capped expenditure limit including rule 3 grant over 1996–97

  Increase in total external support except rule 2 grant over 1996–97

  Difference between columns (1) and (2) and between columns (3) and (4)

  Difference between columns (1) and (2) and between columns (3) and (4) as a percentage of 1996– cash precept

  Police authorities:

  (£ million) (1)

  (£ million) (2)

  (£ million) (3)

  (£ million) (4)

  (£ million) (5)

  (£ million) (6)

  Avon and Somerset

  6.0

  2.7

  4.9

  1.6

  3.4

  15.0

  Bedfordshire

  2.2

  1.1

  1.8

  0.7

  1.2

  14.0

  Cambridgeshire

  2.6

  1.1

  2.1

  0.6

  1.5

  14.7

  Cheshire

  3.9

  1.7

  3.1

  0.9

  2.2

  14.6

  Cleveland

  2.8

  1.4

  2.3

  1.0

  1.3

  18.5

  Cumbria

  2.2

  1.0

  1.9

  0.7

  1.2

  14.5

  Derbyshire

  3.8

  1.9

  3.1

  1.2

  1.9

  14.5

  Devon and Cornwall

  6.1

  3.7

  4.9

  2.5

  2.4

  9.8

  Dorset

  2.7

  1.0

  2.2

  0.5

  1.7

  11.1

  Durham

  2.7

  1.3

  2.3

  0.9

  1.4

  17.7

  Essex

  6.0

  2.6

  4.8

  1.4

  3.4

  13.1

  Gloucestershire

  2.3

  1.0

  1.9

  0.6

  1.3

  14.7

  Hampshire

  6.9

  3.0

  5.6

  1.7

  3.9

  13.9

  Hertfordshire

  3.6

  1.5

  2.9

  0.8

  2.1

  13.4

  Humberside

  3.9

  2.0

  3.2

  1.3

  1.9

  16.2

  Kent

  6.4

  3.0

  5.2

  1.8

  3.4

  13.4

  Lancashire

  6.3

  3.0

  5.2

  1.9

  3.3

  16.8

  Leicestershire

  3.7

  1.7

  3.0

  1.0

  2

  15.7

  Lincolnshire

  2.5

  1.9

  2.0

  1.5

  0.5

  4.0

  Norfolk

  3.0

  1.3

  2.4

  0.7

  1.7

  14.3

  Northamptonshire

  2.4

  1.0

  2.0

  0.6

  1.4

  11.4

  North Yorkshire

  2.8

  1.5

  2.2

  0.9

  1.3

  11.0

  Nottinghamshire

  4.4

  3.3

  3.7

  2.5

  1.1

  8.2

  Staffordshire

  4.3

  2.0

  3.5

  1.2

  2.3

  14.6

  Suffolk

  2.5

  1.0

  2.0

  0.6

  1.4

  14.2

  Surrey

  3.4

  2.8

  2.8

  2.2

  0.5

  3.7

  Sussex

  5.9

  2.6

  4.8

  1.4

  3.4

  13.1

  Thames Valley

  8.1

  3.3

  6.5

  1.7

  4.8

  13.3

  Warwickshire

  1.9

  0.8

  1.6

  0.5

  1.1

  13.9

  West Mercia

  4.1

  1.6

  3.3

  0.8

  2.5

  14.5

  Wiltshire

  2.4

  1.0

  1.9

  0.5

  1.4

  13.8

  Total English shire authorities

  122

  59

  99

  36

  63

  13.1

  Greater Manchester

  12.8

  6.5

  10.9

  4.6

  6.4

  18.6

  Merseyside

  8.3

  4.3

  7.2

  3.3

  3.9

  16.9

  Northumbria

  7.1

  4.1

  6.0

  3.0

  3

  16.0

  South Yorkshire

  5.9

  3.0

  4.9

  2.1

  2.9

  17.4

  West Midlands

  13.0

  7.3

  11.0

  5.4

  5.6

  16.4

  West Yorkshire

  9.9

  4.9

  8.0

  3.4

  4.6

  16.9

  Total metropolitan authorities

  57

  30

  48

  22

  26

  17.1

  Metropolitan police 2

  55.4

  29.5

  48.7

  22.8

  25.9

  316.7

  City of London police4

  266
  aggregate of each police authority's capped expenditure limit or, in the case of the Metropolitan police, the estimated budget requirement and police rule 3 grant in 1997–98 over 1996–97 and (ii) total external support including all police grants other than police rule 2 grant in 1997–98 over 1996–97 and the difference between (i) and (ii) in pounds and as a percentage of 1996–97 cash precepts. [10309]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  267

  Increase in expenditure limit and rule 2 and 3 grants over 1996–97

  Increase in total external support1 including all grants over 1996–97

  Increase in capped expenditure limit including rule 3 grant over 1996–97

  Increase in total external support except rule 2 grant over 1996–97

  Difference between columns (1) and (2) and between columns (3) and (4)

  Difference between columns (1) and (2) and between columns (3) and (4) as a percentage of 1996– cash precept

  Police authorities:

  (£ million) (1)

  (£ million) (2)

  (£ million) (3)

  (£ million) (4)

  (£ million) (5)

  (£ million) (6)

  Dyfed Powys

  1.9

  1.5

  1.6

  1.2

  0.4

  5.1

  Gwent

  2.4

  1.9

  2.0

  1.5

  0.5

  6.1

  North Wales

  2.7

  2.1

  2.2

  1.6

  0.6

  5.6

  South Wales

  5.7

  4.5

  4.8

  3.6

  1.2

  5.6

  Total Welsh authorities

  13

  10

  11

  8

  3

  6.0

  Total (all authorities)

  247

  129

  207

  89

  118

  14.0

  1 Includes principal police grant, additional rules 1, 2 and 3, police damping grant, revenue support grant and income from national non-domestic rates.

  2 Total external support includes provision for services other than police functions.

  3 Includes other service block element of 1996–97 cash precept.

  4No separately identifiable figures exist for the City of London police.

  All figures have been rounded from the original calculations. Figures for total external support were provided by the Department of the Environment.

  Paedophiles
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the average weekly costs of accommodation and what are the subsequent recidivism rates for paedophile offenders(a) in prison and (b) in the Wolvercote clinic. [9601]

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

  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Mr. Peter Thurnham, dated 15 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the average weekly cost of accommodation and the subsequent recidivist rates for paedophile offenders (a) in prison and (b) in the Wolvercote Clinic.
  Cost per place figures relating specifically to paedophile offenders are not available. The average cost per prisoner for the financial year 1995–96 was £466 per week. The weekly charge for the Wolvercote Clinic is £550.
  A 10 year follow-up study on reconviction rates for a sample of paedophiles released from prison in 1980 showed that 36 per cent of paedophiles committed further sexual offences. For serious offences, which included sex or violent offences, the rate of reoffending increased to 45 per cent. This information may appear to be dated but follow-up studies must be for a substantial period of time. Social and legal changes may also affect reconviction rates. A 10 year reconviction study is currently in progress on the Sex Offender Treatment Programme but it is too early for results.
  To date, only three offenders have completed the full programme at the Wolvercote Clinic which opened in August 1995. No information is available yet on recidivists.

  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which Government Departments and other public bodies maintain lists of(a) convicted and (b) alleged paedophile offenders; what guidance has been issued to local authorities concerning that information on such offenders; what co-ordination there is between the different bodies concerned; and if he will make a statement. [10683]
  268
  Mr. Maclean
  Information about convicted and alleged paedophiles is held by the following Government Departments and public bodies.

  The police hold information about those convicted of sexual offences against children on the Phoenix database of the police national computer and on microfiche records held by the national identification service. They may also retain information locally about alleged paedophiles.

  The national criminal intelligence service—NCIS—maintains a database of known or suspected paedophiles.

  The Department for Education and Employment maintains a list of persons barred from working in education and in respect of whom the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has made a direction under the Education (Teachers) Regulations 1993, as amended—"List 99".

  The Department of Health consultancy index holds information on those notified to it by the police who are or were employed in child care work and who have been convicted of an offence, including sexual offences against children; the information on "List 99", and notifications from employers of the names of persons who formerly worked with children and who have been dismissed or who have resigned in circumstances where the welfare of a child has been put at risk through physical, sexual or emotional abuse or a child has suffered or was likely to suffer harm arising from the action of a member of staff or volunteer engaged to work with children.

  Guidance issued to local authorities includes the Department for Education and Employment circular 11/95, "Misconduct of Teachers and Workers with Children and Young Persons", and the joint circular from the Home Office (HOC 47/93), Department for Education (DfEE 9/93), Department of Health (LAC 93(17)), and the Welsh Office (WOC 54/93) on "Protection of Children: Disclosure of Criminal Record Background of those with

  269
  Access to Children". This includes an explanation of the information available to local authorities from police records, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment.

  NCIS passes on information about paedophiles to the force in whose area the paedophile is working or living. In addition to this, the police notify the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment of convictions of those individuals working in child care posts or as teachers or workers with children or young persons.

  £ thousand

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Commission for Racial Equality

  not recorded separately

  89.8

  84

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority

  115

  206

  1,600

  746

  225

  Gaming Board for Great Britain

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  5

  0

  0

  50

  47

  Police Complaints Authority

  0

  149

  74

  129

  84

  Total per year

  120

  355

  1,674

  1,014.8

  440

  Police Grants
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the total external support including all police grants to be received by(a) each individual police authority, (b) each class of police authority and (c) all police authorities in (i) 199697 and (ii) 1997–98 and the change in each in pounds and as a percentage; [10304]

  Total external support1 including all grants

  Increase over 1996–97

  Total external support excluding rule 2 grant

  Increase over 1996–97

  Police authorities

  1996–97 £ million

  1997–98 £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1996–97 £ million

  1996–98 £ million

  £ million

  Per cent

  Avon and Somerset

  132.2

  134.8

  2.7

  2.0

  131.6

  133.2

  1.6

  1.2

  Bedfordshire

  49.1

  50.2

  1.1

  2.2

  48.9

  49.6

  0.7

  1.3

  Cambridgeshire

  56.2

  57.3

  1.1

  1.9

  55.9

  56.5

  0.6

  1.0

  Cheshire

  83.5

  85.1

  1.7

  2.0

  83.1

  84.0

  0.9

  1.1

  Cleveland

  66.2

  67.6

  1.4

  2.1

  66.0

  67.0

  1.0

  1.5

  Cumbria

  49.9

  50.9

  1.0

  2.1

  49.7

  50.4

  0.7

  1.3

  Derbyshire

  79.2

  81.1

  1.9

  2.4

  78.8

  80.0

  1.2

  1.6

  Devon and Cornwall

  129.3

  133.0

  3.7

  2.9

  128.7

  131.2

  2.5

  2.0

  Dorset

  53.1

  54.1

  1.0

  1.9

  52.9

  53.4

  0.5

  1.0

  Durham

  63.8

  65.1

  1.3

  2.1

  63.5

  64.4

  0.9

  1.4

  Essex

  127.2

  129.8

  2.6

  -).0

  126.6

  128.1

  1.4

  1.1

  Gloucestershire

  49.7

  50.6

  1.0

  2.0

  49.5

  50.0

  0.6

  1.1

  Hampshire

  147.4

  150.5

  3.0

  2.0

  146.8

  148.5

  1.7

  1.1

  Hertfordshire

  74.6

  76.1

  1.5

  1.9

  74.3

  75.1

  0.8

  1.0

  Humberside

  91.5

  93.4

  2.0

  2.2

  91.1

  92.5

  1.3

  1.5

  Kent

  138.7

  141.7

  3.0

  2.2

  138.2

  140.0

  1.8

  1.3

  Lancashire

  143.9

  146.9

  3.0

  2.1

  143.4

  145.3

  1.9

  1.3

  Leicestershire

  82.2

  83.9

  1.7

  2.1

  81.8

  82.9

  1.0

  1.3

  Lincolnshire

  50.3

  52.3

  1.9

  3.9

  50.1

  51.6

  1.5

  3.0

  Norfolk

  64.3

  65.7

  1.3

  2.0

  64.1

  64.8

  0.7

  1.2

  Northamptonshire

  49.8

  50.8

  1.0

  2.0

  49.6

  50.1

  0.6

  1.2

  North Yorkshire

  57.8

  59.2

  1.5

  2.5

  57.5

  58.4

  0.9

  1.6

  Nottinghamshire

  101.5

  104.8

  3.3

  3.3

  101.1

  103.6

  2.5

  2.5

  Staffordshire

  94.2

  96.2

  2.0

  2.1

  93.8

  95.1

  1.2

  1.3

  Suffolk

  51.9

  52.9

  1.0

  2.0

  51.6

  52.2

  0.6

  1.1

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10194]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information requested is set out for executive non-departmental public bodies funded by the Home Office.

  (2) if he will list the total external support including all police grants other than police rule 2 grant for additional police officers to be received by (a) each individual police authority, (b) each class of police authority and (c) all police authorities in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 1997–98 and the change in each in pounds and as a percentage. [10305]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information requested is set out in the table.
  271

  Total external support1 including all grants

  Increase over 1996–97

  Total external support excluding rule 2 grant

  Increase over 1996–97

  Police authorities

  1996–97 £ million

  1997–98 £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  1996–97 £ million

  1997–98 £ million

  £ million

  Per cent.

  Surrey

  72.8

  75.6

  2.8

  3.9

  72.5

  74.7

  2.2

  3.1

  Sussex

  125.6

  128.1

  2.6

  2.0

  125.0

  126.5

  1.4

  1.2

  Thames

  Valley

  168.0

  171.3

  3.3

  2.0

  167.2

  168.9

  1.7

  1.0

  Warwickshire

  41.4

  42.2

  0.8

  2.0

  41.2

  41.7

  0.5

  1.1

  West Mercia

  86.2

  87.8

  1.6

  1.8

  85.8

  86.6

  0.8

  0.9

  Wiltshire

  51.1

  52.1

  1.0

  1.9

  50.9

  51.5

  0.5

  1.0

  Total English

  shire

  authorities

  2,633

  2,691

  59

  2.2

  2,621

  2,658

  36

  1.4

  Greater

  Manchester

  308.7

  315.2

  6.5

  2.1

  307.8

  312.3

  4.6

  1.5

  Merseyside

  203.4

  207.7

  4.3

  2.1

  202.9

  206.2

  3.3

  1.6

  Northumbria

  169.6

  173.7

  4.1

  2.4

  169.0

  172.1

  3.0

  1.8

  South

  Yorkshire

  138.4

  141.4

  3.0

  2.2

  137.9

  140.0

  2.1

  1.5

  West

  Midlands

  310.0

  317.4

  7.3

  2.4

  309.0

  314.4

  5.4

  1.7

  West

  Yorkshire

  233.3

  238.2

  4.9

  2.1

  232.5

  235.9

  3.4

  1.4

  Total

  metropolitan

  authorities

  1,363

  1,394

  30

  2.2

  1,359

  1,381

  22

  1.6

  Metropolitan

  police2

  1,518.8

  1,548.3

  29.5

  1.9

  1,515.5

  1,538.2

  22.8

  1.5

  City of

  London

  police3

  Dyfed Powys

  40.7

  42.2

  1.5

  3.7

  40.5

  41.7

  1.2

  2.9

  Gwent

  54.6

  56.5

  1.9

  3.5

  54.4

  55.9

  1.5

  2.8

  North Wales

  58.6

  60.7

  2.1

  3.6

  58.4

  60

  1.6

  2.8

  South Wales

  132.7

  137.2

  4.5

  3.4

  132.3

  135.9

  3.6

  2.7

  Total Welsh authorities

  287

  297

  10

  3.5

  286

  294

  8

  2.8

  Total (all authorities)

  5,801

  5,930

  129

  2.2

  5,781

  5,870

  89

  1.5

  1 Includes principal police grant, additional rules 1, 2 and 3, police damping grant, revenue support grant and income from national non-domestic rates.

  2 Includes provision for services other than police functions.

  3 No separately identifiable figures exist for the City of London police.

  All figures have been rounded from the original calculations. Figures for total external support were provided by the Department of the Environment.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those local authority areas which have applied for CCTV grants for the north west region, in the chronological order of application; and if he will indicate the dates on which successful applicants were awarded grants. [10779]

  Mr. Maclean
  Bids to the two completed closed circuit television challenge competitions were invited from partnerships, rather than local authorities. The following bids were received from north-west government region—Cheshire, Cumbria, Greater Manchester and Lancashire-and Merseyside. Winning bids are marked with an asterisk:

  1994–95 Challenge competition (submitted by 27 January 1995)

  Accrington, Hyndburn Sports Centre

  Altrincham town centre

  272

  Ashton under Lyne, Hattersley Community Centre

  Ashton under Lyne, Hattersley Schools

  Ashton under Lyne shopping centre

  Ashton under Lyne town centre

  Blackpool town centre*

  Bolton, Mancroft Avenue Estate

  Bolton, Westhoughton town centre

  Bolton town centre

  Bootle Hospital Maternity Unit

  Bootle Leisure Centre and North Park

  Burnley town centre

  Bury town centre*

  Carlisle city centre*

  Carlisle, Rosehill Industrial Estate

  Chester city centre*

  Chorley town centre

  273

  Clitheroe town centre*

  Congleton town centre

  Denton (Tameside) Business Development Centre*

  Denton, Tameside, town centre

  Droylsden town centre

  Egremont village centre

  Fylde mobile CCTV system

  Heaton Park, Wythenshawe Park and Miles Platting swimming pool

  Hyde town centre*

  Kendal town centre

  Kirkby railway station*

  Lancaster city centre*

  Liverpool city centre

  Liverpool, Huyton Sports Centre car park

  Liverpool, Park Road Sports Centre

  Liverpool, Picton sports centre

  Liverpool, Wheathills and Holt Lane Industrial Estates

  Macclesfield town centre

  Maryport and Cockermouth town centres

  Middleton, Rochdale town centre

  Morecambe seafront*

  Neston town centre*

  Northwich town centre

  Oldham town centre

  Old Trafford town centre

  Partington town centre

  Penrith town centre*

  Preston College

  Preston, Longridge

  Preston town centre

  Rochdale town centre*

  Sale town centre

  Sefton Schools Pilot Security Initiative

  Stalybridge town centre

  St. Helens town centre

  Stockport, Stepping Hill General Hospital

  Tameside, Richmond Park Estate

  Trafford General Hospital

  Trafford, Seymour Park Primary School

  Urmston town centre

  Whitehaven, Cleator Moor Square

  Whitehaven, West Cumberland Hospital

  Wigan, Howe Bridge

  Wigan, Marsh Green

  Wigan town centre*

  Wythenshawe Civic Centre and two schools

  Wythenshawe Hospital

  Wythenshawe Park

  1996–97 Challenge competition (submitted by 29 March 1996)

  Accrington, Borough of Hyndburn

  Accrington, Peel Park County Primary School*

  Aintree Railway Station

  Alston, Samuel Kings School

  Altrincham town centre

  Ashton, Broadoak School

  Ashton, Holden Clough, Hurst Methodist, St. Christopher's Roman Catholic, Hartshead High, St. Damian's Roman Catholic schools

  274

  Askam in Furness, Askam Village School

  Astley, St. Ambrose Barlow Primary School

  Astley, St. Mary's Roman Catholic High School

  Atherton, Howe Bridge Sports Centre

  Atherton, Parklee County Primary School, nursery and grounds

  Atherton town centre

  Bacup, Saint Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School

  Barrow in Furness, Bram Longstaffe Nursery and Barrow Island Primary School

  Barrow in Furness, Furness General Hospital

  Barrow in Furness, Newbarns Primary School

  Barrow in Furness, Thorncliffe School and six primary schools

  Bebington Railway Station

  Birkenhead, Beechwood Drive and surrounding areas

  Birkenhead, Rock Ferry Railway Station

  Blackburn, Our Lady and St. John Roman Catholic High School*

  Blackburn, St. Mary's College

  Blackburn, St. Matthew's Church of England Primary School

  Blackburn, Witton Park County High School

  Blackpool, Collegiate High School

  Blackpool, Devonshire County Infant and Junior School

  Blackpool, Merseyside County Primary School

  Blackpool, St. George's High School

  Blackpool, St. Mary's Roman Catholic High School

  Bolton, Eight schools/leisure centres

  Bolton town centre and car parks*

  Bootle, North Park and Leisure Centre

  Bootle, Strand Shopping Centre

  Brampton, William Howard School

  Burnley, Habergham High School*

  Burnley town centre*

  Bury, Broad Oak High School

  Carlisle, North Cumbria Technology College

  Carlisle, Petteril Bank Primary School and Community Centre site

  Carlisle, Raffles Housing Estate

  Carlisle, Trinity School

  Chester, Queens Park County High School

  Chester, The Parade, Blacon

  Chester, Upton by Chester County High School

  Chorley, Albany High School

  Chorley, Southlands High School

  Chorley town centre*

  Cleator Moor, Cleator Moor Square

  Cleator Moor, Ehenside and Montreal Schools

  Dalston, Caldew School

  Dalton in Furness, George Romney Junior School

  Darwen, Moorland High School

  Darwen town centre

  Denton, Tameside, Three primary schools and one high school

  Earlestown Railway Station

  Egremont, Main Street

  Ellesmere Port, Poole Hall Industrial Estate

  Ellesmere Port, Little Sutton, Overpool, Capenhurst and Bache Hooton Railway Stations

  Fleetwood, Fleetwood High School

  Fleetwood, St. Mary's Roman Catholic Primary School

  Formby Railway Station

  Garstang, Garstang High School

  275

  Heywood, Siddal Moor High School*

  Hindley town centre

  Hooton Railway Station

  Hough Green, Hough Green Railway Station

  Huyton Railway Station

  Hyde, Bradley Green School, Oakfield School, St. Paul's Roman Catholic School

  Hyde, Flowery Field Primary School, Hyde High School

  Kendal town centre*

  Keswick and Wigton town centres*

  Keswick, St. Kentigerns Church of England Infant School

  Kirby multi-storey car park

  Lancaster, Skerton High School

  Lancaster, St. Joseph's Roman Catholic Primary School

  Leigh, Bedford High School

  Leigh, Westleigh High School*

  Leyland, St. Mary's Roman Catholic School

  Leyland, Wellfield High School

  Liverpool, Duke Street*

  Liverpool, Fazakerley village centre

  Liverpool, Granby, Toxteth and Dingle

  Liverpool, King David High School

  Liverpool, Litherland Town Hall, Car Park and adjacent War Memorial

  Liverpool, Valley and Netherley

  Liverpool, Wavertree Technology Park

  Lytham St. Anne's, Lytham St. Anne's High School

  Macclesfield, Macclesfield District General Hospital

  Macclesfield, Tytherington County High School

  Manchester, Market Street, Manchester City Centre*

  Manchester, Miles Platting

  Manchester, Rack House School*

  Maryport, Netherhall School

  Middleton, Middleton Technology School

  Millom, Millom Square*

  Nelson, Walton High School

  Northwich town centre*

  Oldham town centre*

  Partington village centre

  Penrith, Beaconside Church of England Junior School

  Preston, Ashton High School

  Preston, St. Mary's and St. Benedict's Roman Catholic Primary School*

  Preston, Ribbleton Avenue Methodist Junior School

  Preston, Tulketh High School

  Prestwich, Prestwich High School

  Rochdale, Freehold Housing Estate, Khubsuret House and Milkstone Road*

  Rochdale, Guider Hill School*

  Runcorn, Grange Comprehensive School

  Runcorn, Holy Spirit Primary School

  Runcorn, Murdishaw West County Primary School

  Runcorn, St. Chad's Roman Catholic Comprehensive School

  Sale town centre

  Salford, Lowry High School, Ascension Church of England Primary School and Broughton Recreation Centre*

  Salford, Salford Shopping City, Market and car parks

  Skelmersdale, Glenburn High School*

  276

  Speke/Garston, Liverpool, Speke Parade, St. Mary's Road, Northern Airfield site

  Stalybridge, Town Centre Shopping Area, Bus Station and Car Parks

  Standish, St. Marie's Roman Catholic Primary School

  Standish village centre

  St. Helens Central Railway Station

  Stockport, Stepping Hill Hospital

  Stretford, Euro 96 venue

  Trafford, Neighbourhood Parades

  Trafford, Old Trafford

  Trafford, park village*

  Trafford, Sheltered Accommodation

  Tarleton, Tarleton High School

  Ulverston, Victoria High School

  Upton by Chester, Upton by Chester County High School

  Urmston, Trafford General Hospital

  Warrington, Helsby High School*

  Westhoughton, Market Street

  Whitehaven, Whitehaven School and Hensingham Rugby Club

  Widnes and Runcorn town centres

  Wigan, Ashton-in-Makerfield town centre

  Wigan, Hawkley Hall High School

  Wigan Pier

  Wigan, Shevington High School and Community Centre

  Wigan, St. John Fisher Roman Catholic High School and Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Primary School

  Wigan, Two School buildings and community areas

  Wirral, Bebington High School*

  Workington, Workington and District Primary Schools

  Wythenshawe, South Manchester University Hospital National Health Service Trust.

  The grant awards from the first competition were announced in March 1995 and those from the second in June 1996.

PRIME MINISTER

  Netherlands (Visit)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister which persons representing which bodies were present at the meetings he attended recently with the President of the European Council in the Netherlands. [10873]

  The Prime Minister
  I met the Prime Minister of the Netherlands in The Hague on 7 January. Mr. Kok was accompanied by his State Secretary for Foreign Affairs and three officials. I was accompanied Her Majesty's ambassador at The Hague and three officials.

  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Prime Minister who represented the British Government at the OECD conference on 16 December on economic flexibility and social cohesion in the 21st century. [10871]

  The Prime Minister
  Participants to this conference were invited as individuals and not representatives of Governments. Professor Snower of Birbeck college attended, and presented a paper concerning long-term implications of current economic and social policies.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister which department is responsible for matters relating to the illegal trade in CFCs. [10804]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The Department of the Environment has responsibility for the United Kingdom's domestic and international policy on the control of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol, including trade controls. CFCs imported into the European Union require a licence from the European Commission. Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is responsible within the UK for checking that such imports are properly licensed.

  Royal Travel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects parliamentary approval to be sought for the estimate relating to official royal travel by rail and air. [9904]

  The Prime Minister
  The new grant-in-aid for royal travel will be payable from 1 April 1997 and will be administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Pending approval of the main estimates for 1997–98, authority for payment will rest on the vote on account for 1997–98 and the winter supplementary estimate for class V, vote 3, both of which have already been approved by Parliament. Specific provision for royal travel is planned to be made in the main estimates for the Department of Transport's votes. Main estimates are normally laid before Parliament shortly before the financial year to which they relate.

SCOTLAND

  Suckler Cow Premium
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to pay the 1996 suckler cow premiums. [9744]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Suckler cow premium advance payments commenced in December. The bulk of these should be with producers by the end of January.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much has been spent to date on converting the Forestry Commission Research Laboratories into a next steps agency; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10006]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of converting the Forestry Commission research laboratories into a next steps agency; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10007]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Work on the prior options review of the Forestry Commission's research division and subsequent work, which is nearing completion, converting it to a next steps agency was undertaken mainly by commission staff. The cost to the
  278
  commission has been approximately £30,000. Only modest additional costs are likely to be incurred before the division becomes an agency on 1 April 1997.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how much has been spent to date on converting the fisheries research services into a next steps agency; and from which budget these sums were paid; [10022]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the future costs of converting the fisheries research services into a next steps agency; and from which budget these sums will be paid. [10023]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Work on the prior options review of the fisheries research services and subsequent work, which is nearing completion, on converting it to a next steps agency was undertaken mainly by Scottish Office staff. The cost to my Department has been approximately £40,000. Only modest additional costs are likely to be incurred before FRS becomes an agency on 1 April 1997.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees include employees of the Forestry Commission Research Laboratories as representatives of UK interests; and how many of these employees are leading the UK team on their committee. [10008]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom

  European

  International

  Representative

  20

  14

  14

  Leader

  —

  2

  2

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) United Kingdom, (b) European and (c) international committees are chaired by employees of the Forestry Commission research laboratories. [10009]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information is as follows:

  United Kingdom: 4

  European: 1

  International: 3.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each local authority in Scotland the actual capital receipts at the mid-point of 1996–97, indicating for each authority(a) receipts from right to buy, (b) receipts from stock transfer and (c) receipts from land sales; and if he will indicate for each authority and for each category of receipts the mid-year targets set out in the estimates at the start of the year. [10697]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The table which follows lists the actual capital receipts from the sale of housing stock and land reported by local authorities as having been achieved in the six months to 30 September 1996. The Scottish Office does not set mid-year targets for capital receipts.
  279

  Housing capital receipts achieved between 1 April and 30 September 1996

  £million

  Right to buy

  Stock transfers

  Land sales

  Aberdeen City

  1.750

  0

  0

  Aberdeenshire

  1.682

  0

  0.056

  Angus

  1.576

  0

  0.024

  Argyll and Bute

  1.315

  0

  0

  Clackmannanshire

  0.928

  0

  0

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2.697

  0

  0

  Dundee City

  1.179

  0

  0.013

  East Ayrshire

  2.273

  0

  0

  East Dunbartonshire

  0.845

  0

  0

  East Lothian

  1.477

  0

  0

  East Renfrewshire

  0.350

  0

  0

  City of Edinburgh

  3.476

  0

  0.105

  Falkirk

  1.666

  0

  0

  Fife

  4.302

  0

  0.121

  City of Glasgow

  4.121

  0

  0.853

  Highland

  3.457

  0

  0.054

  Inverclyde

  1.231

  0

  0

  Midlothian

  0.970

  0

  0.151

  Moray

  1.664

  0

  0.104

  North Ayrshire

  1.108

  0

  0.320

  North Lanarkshire

  6.055

  0

  0.112

  Orkney

  0.452

  0

  0

  Perth and Kinross

  1.119

  0

  0

  Renfrewshire

  1.477

  0

  0.318

  Scottish Borders

  1.179

  0

  0.002

  Shetland

  0.494

  0

  0.004

  South Ayrshire

  1.155

  0

  0

  South Lanarkshire

  1.831

  0

  0.030

  Stirling

  2.096

  0

  0.030

  West Dunbartonshire

  0.983

  0

  0

  West Lothian

  1.413

  0

  0

  Western Isles

  0.246

  0

  0

  Farmers (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the number of farmers with negative equity; and if he will make a statement. [10522]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  None. However, in each of the last three years for which results are available, around 1 per cent. of farm businesses in the farm accounts survey in Scotland had liabilities exceeding total business assets.

  Strathclyde Police Force
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many police officers of ethnic minority origin there are in the Strathclyde force above the rank of constable; and what ranks they have reached. [10633]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Strathclyde police there is one such officer, in the rank of sergeant.

TREASURY

  Petrol and Diesel Duties
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total income to the Treasury, measured against an indexed base, resulting from an increase in petrol and diesel duties of(a)3p per litre and (b)4.5p per litre. [10204]
  280
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Indexed base estimates strip out the effect of the pre-announced 5 per cent. real increase in road fuel duties. In the 1996 Budget, this accounts for £1.2 billion of the £1.4 billion total increase in revenue in 1997–98 referred to in my previous written answer to the hon. Member,Official Report, 11 December 1996, column 209. Accordingly, on an indexed base alone, a 3p per litre increase in petrol and diesel duties in the 1996 Budget would yield the remaining £0.2 billion in 1997–98. Similarly, on a purely indexed base, a 4.5p per litre increase in petrol and diesel duties would yield £0.9 billion, bringing the total yield to the £2.1 billion referred to in my previous answer.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10178]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The amount spent on external consultants by the Chancellor's non-departmental public bodies for the period in question is shown in the table:

  Year

  £

  1991–92

  761,703

  1992–93

  1,378,560

  1993–94

  1,858,776

  1994–95

  1,328,711

  1995–96

  932,640

  281
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the actions his Department has taken on each of the recommendations contained in the Cabinet Office report, "The Government's Use of External Consultants". [10179]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The Treasury has taken, or is taking, all the actions necessary to comply with the report both as a central Department and as a user of consultants.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the level of United Kingdom gross domestic product for each year since 1970 at(a) current prices and (b) 1996–97 prices; and what was the percentage annual change each year at constant 1996–97 prices. [10758]

  Gross national and domestic product1

  £ million

  At current prices

  At 1990 prices

  At market prices

  At factor cost

  Gross domestic product "Money GDP"

  Net property income from abroad

  Gross national product

  less Factor cost adjustment2

  Gross domestic product3

  Gross national product4

  Gross domestic product at market prices

  less factor cost adjustment5

  Gross domestic product at factor cost

  CAOB

  AIMD

  GIBF

  DIAA

  CAOM

  GIBD

  CA00

  DIAS

  CAOP

  1988

  471,430

  4,566

  475,996

  70,002

  401,428

  405,994

  537,215

  71,469

  465,746

  1989

  515,957

  3,502

  519,459

  74,198

  441,759

  445,261

  548,940

  72,712

  476,228

  1990

  551,118

  1,269

  552,387

  72,232

  478,886

  480,155

  551,118

  72,232

  478,886

  1991

  575,674

  150

  575,824

  79,421

  496,253

  496,403

  540,308

  71,395

  468,913

  1992

  598,916

  3,124

  602,040

  80,784

  518,132

  521,256

  537,448

  70,992

  466,456

  1993

  631,158

  2,197

  633,355

  83,133

  548,025

  550,222

  548,947

  71,822

  477,125

  1994

  668,255

  8,691

  676,946

  89,078

  579,177

  587,868

  570,290

  73,913

  496,377

  1995

  700,890

  9,572

  710,462

  96,631

  604,259

  613,831

  584,340

  75,533

  508,807

  Seasonally adjusted

  1993

  Q1

  154,499

  423

  154,922

  20,848

  133,651

  134,074

  136,067

  18,004

  118,063

  Q2

  156,353

  714

  157,067

  20,379

  135,974

  136,688

  136,421

  17,792

  118,629

  Q3

  159,746

  580

  160,326

  20,820

  138,926

  139,506

  137,783

  17,992

  119,791

  Q4

  160,560

  480

  161,040

  21,086

  139,474

  139,954

  138,676

  18,034

  120,642

  1994

  Q1

  163,441

  2,528

  165,969

  21,517

  141,924

  144,452

  140,301

  18,199

  122,102

  Q2

  165,760

  2,231

  167,991

  22,064

  143,696

  145,927

  142,029

  18,371

  123,658

  Q3

  168,773

  2,071

  170,844

  22,468

  146,305

  148,376

  143,425

  18,580

  124,845

  Q4

  170,281

  1,861

  172,142

  23,029

  147,252

  149,113

  144,535

  18,763

  125,772

  1995

  Q1

  172,513

  1,754

  174,267

  23,720

  148,793

  150,547

  145,079

  18,811

  126,268

  Q2

  174,659

  2,512

  177,171

  23,930

  150,729

  153,241

  145,693

  18,882

  126,811

  Q3

  175,933

  2,571

  178,504

  24,269

  151,664

  154,235

  146,503

  18,900

  127,603

  Q4

  177,785

  2,735

  180,520

  24,712

  153,073

  155,808

  147,065

  18,940

  128,125

  1996

  Q1

  179,559

  3,039

  182,598

  24,957

  154,602

  157,641

  147,668

  18,986

  128,682

  Q2

  181,808

  3,654

  185,462

  25,267

  156,541

  160,195

  148,472

  19,090

  129,382

  Q3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  282
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 13 January 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. Michael Meacher, dated 15 January 1997:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the level of United Kingdom gross domestic product.
  The most recent estimates of gross domestic product (GDP) are published in table Al of the ONS publication United Kingdom Economic Accounts, which has annual data from 1988 to 1995. Alteratively the data are available for a longer time series on the ONS CSDB database. Both are available through the House of Commons Library.
  The ONS does not estimate at 1996–97 prices, however GDP data are available at 1990 constant prices. These are also available in the United Kingdom Economic Accounts publication or via the CSDB database.
  283

  Gross national and domestic product1

  £ million

  At current prices

  At 1990 prices

  At market prices

  At factor cost

  Gross domestic product "Money GDP"

  Net property income from abroad

  Gross national product

  less Factor cost adjustment2

  Gross domestic product3

  Gross national product4

  Gross domestic product at market prices

  less factor cost adjustment5

  Gross domestic product at factor cost

  Percentage change, latest year on previous year

  1995

  4.9

  5.0

  8.5

  4.3

  4.4

  2.5

  2.2

  2.5

  Percentage change, latest quarter on previous quarter

  1996

  Q2

  1.3

  1.6

  1.2

  1.3

  1.6

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Percentage change, latest quarter on corresponding quarter of previous year

  1996

  Q2

  4.1

  4.7

  5.6

  3.9

  4.5

  1.9

  1.1

  2.0

  1 Estimates are given to the nearest £ million and in case of indices to one decimal place but cannot be regarded as accurate to this degree. Estimates at current market prices are affected by the abolition of domestic rates and the introduction of the community charge.

  2 Equals taxes on expenditure less subsidies.

  3 The factor cost estimate of GDP is obtained from the market price estimate by subtracting the factor cost adjustment.

  4 Gross national product equals Gross domestic product plus Net property income from abroad.

  5 Represents Taxes on expenditure less Subsidies both valued at 1990 prices.

  Data in this table update those contained in ONS Blue Book table 1.1.

  Some additional quarterly data are available on the ONS's Databank. These data can also be provided on paper—for details see notes on additional data.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Union for 1995–96; and what factors underlie the discrepancies between this figure and the estimate of the European Union Court of Auditors. [10234]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The Treasury estimates the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community budget in the financial year 1995–96 to be £3,852 million. However, since this figure relates to a UK financial year while the European Court of Auditors' report provides calendar year data, the two are not directly comparable. The Treasury estimate of our net contribution to the European Community in the calendar year 1995 is £4,017 million. This compares with the figure of £3,866 million in the Court of Auditors report—assuming an exchange rate of £1=1.2211 ecu. One of the main reasons for the difference is that the Court of Auditors' figures include payments by the Community direct to the UK private sector which are not to be taken into account in the Treasury's estimate which relates to UK public sector transactions. There may also have been differences in the years to which particular public sector transactions near to year-end were scored. A fuller explanation of the differences between the two figures will be included in the Government's White Paper statement on the 1997 EC Budget.

  Duty Free Allowance
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps his Department is taking to maintain the duty free allowance. [10327]
  284
  Mr. Oppenheim
  Duty free sales for intra-EU travel would have ceased on 1 January 1993 with the introduction of the single market. However, the decision to allow such sales to continue until 30 June 1999 was taken by the Council of Finance Ministers, including the then British Chancellor, towards the end of 1991. The UK supported this measure because additional time to remove an anomaly in the single market would permit the various trade interests time to make adjustments to their businesses. At this stage, there is no reason to change the underlying analysis.

  Duty free sales for travel outside the EU will continue after 30 June 1999.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what sums were received by the Exchequer from the pension funds of each Government asset prior to privatisation of that asset. [10630]

  Mr. Jack
  No sums have been received prior to the privatisation of any public sector industry, but in three cases a pension fund surplus, or part of it, has been, or is being, paid to the Exchequer after privatisation. In the case of the National Bus Company, a £120 million surplus on its pension schemes was paid to HM Treasury in 1990, two to four years after the privatisation of the various NBC subsidiaries. In the case of the British Coal Corporation pension fund, a first payment of £39.5 million was received in 1996—more than a year after privatisation; in the case of Harland and Wolff, which was privatised in 1989, it was agreed that Harland and Wolff Holdings plc would repay to the Department of Economic Development a £6.5 million pension fund surplus: £1.15 million has been repaid to date.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle Cull
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans there are for the future disposal of cattle slaughtered to comply with the EC instructions. [10341]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is not clear to which specific EC instructions the question refers. However, in the context of the Government's BSE eradication programme, all BSE suspect animals are slaughtered on farm and sent for direct incineration in incineration plants contracted to the Ministry. Cattle purchased under the over-30-months scheme are slaughtered in compliance with Commission regulation 716/96 which requires the carcases to be disposed of by incineration or rendering and destruction.

  The Government announced on 16 December 1996 that the selective cull would go ahead and the disposal of any animal slaughtered under this scheme will be in compliance with regulation 1484/96, which also requires incineration or rendering and destruction.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas Adjournment; [9811]

  (2) how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer Adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9810]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 13 January 1997,Official Report, columns 12–13.

  BSE
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals in respect of the crates used for the storage and transportation of animal carcases in the BSE eradication programme. [9891]

  Mr. Baldry
  Crates are used only for the transportation and storage of over-30-months scheme carcases going into or out of cold storage.

  When carcases are removed from cold stores the operators have been instructed to store the crates safely pending destruction.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what methods of incineration are currently being(a) used and (b) experimented with in connection with the BSE eradication programme. [9892]

  Mrs. Browning
  Current incineration methods include burning carcases in dedicated incinerators and meat and bonemeal in a high-temperature waste incinerator. Other possibilities under consideration include the burning of MBM and tallow for energy recovery in power stations.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture,286
  Fisheries and Food what payments have been made to date to slaughterers in connection with the BSE eradication programme. [9895]

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 6 January, £57,753 million has been paid in slaughter fees to abattoirs participating in the over-30-months slaughter scheme.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the total consultancy costs to date associated with the BSE eradication programme; and what are the projected costs. [9896]

  Mr. Baldry
  Consultancy costs associated with the current BSE eradication programme and incurred by MAFF have amounted to £3,386,693 to date in the current financial year. This includes work in respect of the rendering industry, slaughterhouses, cutting plants and unsaleable stocks. IBEA has incurred costs of £150,000 in respect of the over 30-month scheme.

  At the present time, the projected future costs of MAFF and IBEA amount to £1,925,000. The above costs do not include the costs of implementing the cattle traceability system.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grain stores have been converted for storage of animal by-products associated with the current BSE eradication programme; and what has been the cost to date. [9898]

  Mr. Baldry
  Three government-owned warehouses have been converted to cold stores at a cost of £3 million. When no longer required in connection with BSE-related schemes the stores will provide cost-effective storage for intervention beef and butter.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to date of the storage of non-frozen beef as meat or bonemeal and tallow; and what quantities are currently in storage awaiting disposal under the BSE eradication programme. [9899]

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 5 January, storage payments amounting to £4,316 million had been made. As at 30 November 1996, the quantities of meat or bonemeal and tallow in store were 114,530 tonnes and 80,128 tonnes respectively.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost to date of long-term rental agreements for cold stores under the BSE eradication scheme; and how many cold stores are currently available to his Department. [9900]

  Mr. Baldry
  The total cost to date of long-term rental agreements for cold storage is £28.2 million. There are currently 41 cold stores available in the Department.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to date of(a) thawing, (b) disposal of crates, (c) cleaning and sterilising of cold stores and (d) other on-costs not covered by storage charges in respect of carcase disposal under the BSE eradication scheme. [9901]

  Mr. Baldry
  There has been no expenditure to date on the items listed at (a), (b) and (c). Expenditure in respect of other on-costs not covered by storage charges was £75,700 as at 5 January.
  287
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost to date of the refrigerated transportation to cold stores of animals culled as part of the current BSE eradication programme. [9902]

  Mr. Baldry
  As at 5 January, –1.991 million had been paid for refrigerated transportation of cull carcases to cold stores.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the cost to public funds of carcase transportation to renderers under the BSE eradication scheme; and how many carcases are currently awaiting transportation. [9903]

  Mr. Baldry
  The cost of transport from the abattoir to the rendering plant is included in the fee paid to the rendering plant and is not separately identifiable. Carcases are transported either to cold stores or direct for rendering on the day that the animals are slaughtered so none are awaiting transportation from abattoirs.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the disposal of the(a) blood, (b) run-off from thawed-out carcases and (c) water used for cleaning and sterilising stores and vehicles, associated with the current BSE eradication programme. [9894]

  Mr. Baldry
  Under the over 30-month scheme blood must be destroyed or be controlled in such a way that it does not enter the human or animal food chains and cannot be used in cosmetic for pharmaceutical products. The Intervention Board has introduced arrangements for the collection and disposal of blood from OTMS cattle slaughtered in Great Britain and is making similar arrangements for Northern Ireland.

  Limited trials have taken place on the rendering of frozen OTMS carcases. Most involved the crushing of material prior to immediate processing. The results of these trials are being evaluated.

  There are various controlled disposal routes for water used for cleaning and sterilising stores and vehicles including sewerage treatment works, soil injection and mains drainage following on-site treatment.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what safety measures are currently available to those engaged in the handling and disposal of carcases associated with the BSE eradication process; and what safety monitoring is in place. [9897]

  Mrs. Browning
  General guidance for all occupational groups who may be exposed to the agent of BSE was published in August 1996 by the Health and Safety Commission, the Department of Health and the Ministry following a review of existing guidance material on BSE. This new guidance includes those involved in the handling and disposal of carcases under the Government's BSE eradication programme. the guidance, prepared by the independent Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, recommended the maintenance of high standards of hygiene when working with cattle and advised on new methods of working to avoid or minimize 288
  exposure to tissues of cattle that may carry the BSE agent. These precautions are considered prudent although there is no evidence of any risk to those in occupations in which exposure to the BSE agent may occur. To date approximately 2,500 copies of the guidance have been distributed and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and regulations made under it apply to abattoirs and rendering plants that are engaged in the handling and disposal of carcases. Health and Safety Executive inspectors visit such premises during normal preventative inspections; protection from exposure to BSE agent is considered along with other matters.

  Quarantine Regulations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has completed his review of the current quarantine regulations; and if he will make a statement. [9893]

  Mrs. Browning
  Our work is not yet complete.

  Arable Area Payments
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of arable area aid payments in 1996 were made within the 31 December deadline. [11580]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I am pleased to say that arable area payments were sent out to 99 per cent. of claimants in England by 31 December, covering around 98 per cent. of payments by value. This successful result bears testimony both to the prompt and accurate return of claims by farmers and to the efforts made by the Ministry's staff to process payments as required by EU rules.

WALES

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will collate and publish the figures provided in the Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector's school inspection reports of maintained primary schools on class size in each year. [9589]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Office of Her Majesty's chief inspector does not collect information on class size in each year group. Statistics on the average size of registered classes within maintained primary schools are published in "Statistics of Education and Training in Wales: Schools No. 4 1996".

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full time and (2) part time basis. [9485]
  289
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested as at December 1996 is as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total staff

  Male

  1,146

  17

  1,163

  Female

  970

  273

  1,243

  Total

  2,116

  290

  2,406

  Figures shown include staff in the Executive Agency, Cadw.

  Health Service Expenditure
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date the sections of the appropriation account for Wales concerning central Government expenditure on the NHS in Wales were published. [10280]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 December 1996,Official Report, column 446–47.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the principal areas to which the additional £30 million for the national health service provided for in the winter supplementary estimates will be applied. [9956]

  Mr. Hague
  Of the £30 million end-year flexibility entitlement take-up in the winter supplementary estimate, £18 million related to capital expenditure—£6 million for NHS trusts and £12 million for slippage on centrally funded schemes—mainly Wrexham Maelor phase 2, Ynys-y-Plwm, Princess of Wales phase 2 and Torfaen community hospital. The remaining £12 million was taken up for a number of revenue expenditure items including 2.5 million for GP fundholder carry-forward, £3 million for the dental initiative, £1 million for the clinical effectiveness initiative and £3 million for health authority liquidity.

  Ambulance Services
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) sanctions and (b) incentives he has to encourage ambulance trusts to meet the targets of 60 per cent. of ambulance staff trained as paramedics and one paramedic on each emergency call-out ambulance within his timetable; and if he will make a statement. [10268]

  Mr. Hague
  No sanctions have been introduced. Training funds are provided centrally to encourage the ambulance trusts to meet the set targets.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the Government response to the Third Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, HC 91, Session 1996–97, what is his current estimate of the proportion of ambulance staff trained as paramedics in each ambulance trust; and what assessment he has made of the probability of their meeting the 60 per cent. target within his timetable. [10270]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 16 December 1996,Official Report, column 446.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the Government response to the Third Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee on the Training of Ambulance Paramedics, HC 91, Session 1996–97, if he will make a statement on(a) the proposed new patients charter standard in relation to life-threatening call-outs,
  290
  (b)the pilot study on prioritisation of emergency calls and (c) the research project into the costs and benefits of calls prioritisation, with particular reference to sparsely populated areas. [10269]

  Mr. Hague
  Any new patients charter standard in Wales in relation to life-threatening calls will be announced after my Department has fully researched the benefits and costs of calls prioritisation. No pilot study will be introduced until I am satisfied with the results of the research which is likely to be completed by April 1997.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to the Government response to the Third Report of the Welsh Affairs Committee, HC 91, Session 1996–97, on the Training of Ambulance Paramedics what(a) interim arrangements for funding training and (b) top-sliced funds he has agreed with the Ambulance Trusts for (i) first time paramedic training and (ii) re-training for 1997–98. [10267]

  Mr. Hague
  Current funding arrangements, including the continuation of one-off funding for refresher training, will be kept in place in 1997–98. There will be no change in top-sliced funding in 1997–98 in respect of ambulance paramedics training.

  Ministerial Leave
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days of leave he plans to take during the Christmas Adjournment. [9825]

  Mr. Hague
  Five.

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many days leave he has taken in the Easter, Whitsun and summer Adjournments; and how many days leave he took during the time in which Parliament was prorogued this year. [9824]

  Mr. Hague
  The following is the information:

  Easter: three

  Whitsun: three

  Summer: nine

  Prorogued: none.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) trainee GPs and (b) GP training places there were in each Welsh GP training centre in (i) August 1995 and (ii) August 1994; and if he will make a statement on the vacancy rate for the 1994, 1995 and 1996 GP training schemes. [9958]

  Mr. Hague
  Information obtained from the University of Wales college of medicine, relating to August 1995, is given in the following table. The college is unable to provide information relating to August 1994.
  291

  GP training places

  Training centre

  Number of places Available

  Filled

  Aberystwyth

  10

  2

  Bridgend

  9

  9

  Carmarthen

  5

  3

  Clwyd North (Rhyl)

  Not known

  Clwyd South (Wrexham)

  6

  5

  East Glamorgan

  8

  3

  Gwynedd (Bangor)

  15

  7

  Haverfordwest

  4

  1

  Gwent North(Abergavenny)

  6

  1

  Gwent South(Newport)

  6

  2

  South Glamorgan(Cardiff)

  6

  5

  Swansea Bay

  8

  8

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what specific action he has taken to eliminate bed blocking in north-east Wales; and if he will make a statement. [9962]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is a matter for local resolution by the health and local authorities concerned.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he is taking to enable general practitioners in north Wales to obtain hospital emergency medical beds for frail elderly patients; and if he will make a statement. [9964]

  Treatment centres-funding and number of cases 1995–96 activity

  Health authority

  Treatment Centre

  Bridgend ophthalmic

  Bridgend surgical

  Rhydlafar orthopaedic

  Hips

  Knees

  Joint revisions

  Procedures

  Funding

  Procedures

  Funding

  Procedures

  Funding

  Procedures

  Funding

  Procedures

  Funding

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Clwyd

  0

  0

  8

  3,893

  8

  23,656

  14

  51,016

  0

  0

  Dyfed

  156

  138,134

  65

  31,627

  35

  103,495

  14

  51,016

  2

  12,986

  Gwent

  235

  208,087

  158

  76,879

  29

  85,753

  23

  83,812

  8

  51,944

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  2

  973

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid

  Glamorgan

  445

  394,036

  541

  263,237

  31

  91,667

  21

  76,524

  7

  45,451

  Powys

  11

  9,740

  1

  487

  8

  23,656

  4

  14,576

  2

  12,986

  South

  Glamorgan

  60

  53,128

  172

  83,691

  26

  76,882

  19

  69,236

  7

  45,451

  West

  Glamorgan

  173

  153,187

  113

  54,983

  23

  68,011

  12

  43,728

  5

  32,465

  Total

  1,080

  956,312

  1,060

  515,770

  160

  473,120

  107

  389,908

  31

  201,283

  1996–97 current allocations

  Health authority

  Treatment centre

  Bridgend ophthalmic

  Bridgend surgical

  Rhydlafar orthopaedic1

  Hips

  Knees

  Joint Revisions

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  North Wales

  0

  0

  2

  1,000

  10

  28,440

  30

  105,750

  0

  0

  Dyfed Powys

  200

  175,226

  93

  46,495

  31

  88,164

  19

  66,975

  12

  77,916

  Gwent

  340

  297,884

  190

  94,992

  25

  71,100

  20

  70,500

  15

  97,395

  292
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The North Wales health authority has confirmed that for all categories of patient, emergency care remains the authority's highest priority and will have first call on the additional resources available to it during 1996–97.

  The improved arrangements for forecasting and managing need in 1996–97 are working well.

  Treatment Centres
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 December,Official Report, column 448, if he will place in the Library a copy of the consultation letter and the responses on the future of the treatment centres. [10285]

  Mr. Hague
  I have placed copies of the Department's consultation letter of 28 June together with a summary of the responses on the future of the treatment centre initiative in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the funding arrangements and the numbers of cases to be dealt with in 1997–98 in each treatment centre indicating funding and numbers of cases in each health authority area; and what are the equivalent figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [10286]

  Mr. Hague
  For 1997–98 ring-fenced funding for the treatment centre initiative will be put into health authorities allocations. The allocation of places at each centre next year, and hence the funding to be made available, is currently being determined in discussion with the centres themselves. Activity at and funding for the treatment centres in 1995–96 and that currently planned for 1996–97 is shown in the following table:
  293

  1996–97 current allocations

  Health authority

  Treatment centre

  Bridgend ophthalmic

  Bridgend surgical

  Rhydlafar orthopaedic1

  Hips

  Knees

  Joint Revisions

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  Allocation

  Funding

  Bro Taf

  245

  214,652

  374

  186,982

  24

  68,256

  17

  59,925

  18

  116,874

  Iechyd' Morgannwg

  295

  258,458

  401

  200,481

  17

  48,348

  12

  42,300

  15

  97,395

  Total

  1,080

  946,220

  1,060

  529,950

  107

  304,308

  98

  345,450

  60

  389,580

  1 Does not include mid-year reallocations for the Rhydlafar centre—discussions are currently on-going.

  Hospital Admission Units
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Welsh acute hospitals have opened admission units; and what analysis he has made of the impact of admission units on(a) rapid admission and (b) treatment (i) generally and (ii) patients brought in on emergency ambulances. [10259]

  Mr. Hague
  I understand that the majority of Welsh hospitals have opened admission-assessment units; their individual operation is a matter for the respective trusts.

  Clwydian Community Trust
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the headings and amounts of his subventions to the Clwydian Community Trust indicating the amounts for the current financial year; and if he will make a statement. [9963]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Clwydian community NHS trust has drawn down one long-term loan of £1,000,000 during the current financial year.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the annual operating costs of the Cardiff Bay barrage; and what proposals he has discussed with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation and the two riparian local authorities concerning the sharing of those costs after the winding up of the corporation. [9957]

  Mr. Hague
  None. The corporation has not yet provided a detailed estimate of the operating costs of the barrage beyond December 1999; but will do so later this year, following completion of the wind-up consultation exercise and consideration of a management company option.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated cost to public funds of(a) completing the construction of the Cardiff Bay barrage and (b) dismantling and removing the superstructure and foundations already in place and returning the site to the condition which obtained before construction commenced; and if he will make a statement. [10723]

  Mr. Hague
  The barrage contracts are operational matters for the corporation; I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his response to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what targets the Welsh Office has set for attracting inward investment and jobs to Cardiff by 2000; and what 294
  assessment he has made of the effect a failure to complete the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage would have on the ability of the region to meet those targets. [10722]

  Mr. Hague
  I have not set any specific inward investment or job creation targets for Cardiff or for Cardiff bay. I have noted that the targets set by the development corporation in its corporate plan are to provide by the year 2000 around £1 billion private sector investment and 15,000 new jobs. The barrage is a key component in the corporation's regeneration strategy and is expected to be completed in 1998.

  Rugby World Cup
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions his rugby world cup co-ordinating group has met; if he will list its members and organisations represented and the date of the next meeting. [10472]

  Mr. Hague
  The rugby world cup liaison group has met three times. The chief officers of the following bodies have been invited to attend or sent representatives:the Welsh Rugby Union, the Wales Tourist Board, the Welsh Development Agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales, the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, the Welsh Local Government Association, Cardiff Marketing, Cardiff county council, the Sports Council for Wales, the Arts Council of Wales, Welsh Food Promotions, the Welsh Language Board, Carmarthen county council and CADW.

  Other organisations are invited to send representatives if the group is discussing items in which they might have an interest.

  The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday 16 January.

  EU Regional Affairs Commissioner
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 December, if he will list the principal reasons for not meeting the European Commissioner responsible for regional affairs(a) on 6 December and (b) at another point during her visit to Wales. [10476]

  Mr. Hague
  Constraints on my diary and on the programme for the Commissioner's visit meant that we were unable to meet on this occasion.

  Housing
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) local authority and (b) housing association houses have been built in Wales in each of the last 10 years. [10484]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Information on the number of completions, by tenure for each of the last 10 years, has been published in table 2.3 of "Welsh Housing Statistics,
  295
  1996", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. The numbers shown for housing association completions are based on local authority returns.

  Jobs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to announce details of the remaining 700 new jobs of the total new jobs package he announced in the Welsh Grand Committee on 30 November 1996,Official Report, column 10. [10501]

  Mr. Hague
  Further announcements are expected very soon.

  Sea Empress Oil Spill
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to continue funding research into the environmental impacts of the Sea Empress disaster after the publication of the Sea Empress environmental effects committee report in 1997. [10482]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend will consider this in the light of the report of the Sea Empress environmental evaluation committee.

  School Assessment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors underlie the omission of the subject of Welsh in his projection of school assessment results; and if he will make a statement. [10403]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The results for Welsh are included alongside those for the other core subjects in the national curriculum results booklets. As part of the bright future programme to raise standards of literacy and numeracy, Welsh is included in the performance indicators developed for the end of each key stage.

  Farmers (Negative Equity)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of farmers with negative equity problems; and if he will make a statement. [10520]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This information is not collected by the Department.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each of the county and county borough councils in Wales and for Wales as a whole in constant prices(a) the estimated cost of the 1997 teachers' pay award, (b) the estimated cost of community care, (c) the estimated cost of provision for police authorities and (d) the remaining amount of total standard spending assessments announced on 12 December indicating, in each case, the actual and percentage increase or decrease relative to equivalent figures for 1996–97 set after consultation in January 1996; [10726]

  (2) if he will publish for each of the county and county borough councils and for Wales as a whole in constant prices (a) total standard spending assessments, including provision for community care and police authorities, set after consultation with local authorities in January 1996
  296
  for 1996–97, (b) the equivalent provisional standard spending assessments following his statement to the House on 12 December 1996 for 1997–98 and (c) the percentage change between (a) and (b) in each case. [10719]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Specific costs such as teachers' pay are not identified separately within local authorities' standard spending assessments. The 1997 teachers' pay award will be announced by the School Teachers' Review Body in the near future. It has been directed to have regard to affordability in the light of the 1997–98 local government revenue settlements for England and Wales.

  Provision in respect of care in the community is included within local authorities' standard spending assessments. Individual allocations for 1996–97 and 1997–98 at constant prices are shown in table 1. The remaining information requested for councils standard spending assessment at constant prices is given in tables 2 and 3.

  Provision for police authorities is assessed separately and comprises SSA and police grant. These figures at constant prices are shown in table 4. The figures provided in the tables have not been adjusted to take account of changes in local authority functions between 1996–97 and 1997–98.

  Table 1: Allocations within total standard spending assessments in respect of care in the community

  Council

  1997–981 (£000)

  1996–97 (£000)

  Change (£000)

  Percentage change

  Blaenau Gwent

  4,157

  3,758

  399

  10.6

  Bridgend

  7,133

  6,401

  732

  11.4

  Caerphilly

  8,968

  8,085

  884

  10.9

  Cardiff

  15,677

  14,109

  1,568

  11.1

  Carmarthenshire

  10,924

  9,839

  1,085

  11.0

  Ceredigion

  4,174

  3,753

  421

  11.2

  Conwy

  7,182

  6,485

  697

  10.8

  Denbighshire

  5,678

  5,170

  508

  9.8

  Flintshire

  7,115

  6,393

  722

  11.3

  Gwynedd

  7,553

  6,804

  749

  11.0

  Isle of Anglesey

  3,909

  3,608

  301

  8.3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  3,746

  3,413

  333

  9.8

  Monmouthshire

  4,451

  3,941

  510

  12.9

  Neath Port Talbot

  8,734

  7,794

  940

  12.1

  Newport

  7,212

  6,553

  658

  10.0

  Pembrokeshire

  6,229

  5,597

  632

  11.3

  Powys

  7,400

  6,687

  713

  10.7

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  15,248

  13,748

  1,501

  10.9

  Swansea

  13,329

  12,092

  1,237

  10.2

  Torfaen

  4,536

  4,088

  448

  11.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  5,875

  5,363

  512

  9.5

  Wrexham

  6,660

  5,963

  697

  11.7

  All county and county borough councils

  165,891

  149,644

  16,247

  10.9

  1 Allocations in the provisional 1997–98 local government revenue settlement estimated at 1996–97 prices.

  297

  Table 2: Allocations within total standard spending assessments in respect of care in the community

  Council

  1997–981 (£000)

  1996–97 (£000)

  Change (£000)

  Percentage change

  Blaenau Gwent

  59,937

  60,738

  -801

  -1.3

  Bridgend

  100,649

  101.186

  -538

  -0.5

  Caerphilly

  135,717

  136,242

  -524

  -0.4

  Cardiff

  230,477

  230,924

  -448

  -0.2

  Carmarthenshire

  138,167

  138,519

  -352

  -0.3

  Ceredigion

  56,240

  56,162

  78

  0.1

  Conwy

  84,105

  83,563

  542

  0.6

  Denbighshire

  73,029

  73,384

  -356

  -0.5

  Flintshire

  106,235

  106,166

  70

  0.1

  Gwynedd

  99,975

  99,599

  376

  0.4

  Isle of Anglesey

  56,737

  57,194

  -457

  -0.8

  Methyr Tydfil

  51,807

  52,446

  -639

  -1.2

  Monmouthshire

  60,396

  60,104

  293

  0.5

  Neath Port Talbot

  111,319

  112,657

  -1,338

  -1.2

  Newport

  109,344

  110,963

  -1,618

  -1.5

  Pembrokeshire

  93,878

  94,833

  -955

  -1.0

  Powys

  108,848

  108,961

  -114

  -0.1

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  191,365

  193,338

  -1,973

  -1.0

  Swansea

  179,302

  181,451

  -2,149

  -1.2

  Torfaen

  72,492

  73,709

  -1,217

  -1.7

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  88,245

  89,270

  -1,025

  -1.1

  Wrexham

  92,158

  92,595

  -436

  -0.5

  All councils

  2,300,424

  2,314,005

  -13,581

  -0.6

  1Provisional 1997–98 local government revenue settlement estimated at 1996–97 prices.

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

  Council

  1997–981 (£000)

  1996–97 (£000)

  Change (£000)

  Percentage change

  Blaenau Gwent

  64,094

  64.496

  -402

  -0.6

  Bridgend

  107,782

  107,587

  194

  0.2

  Caerphilly

  144,686

  144,327

  359

  0.2

  Cardiff

  246,154

  245,034

  1,120

  0.5

  Carmarthenshire

  149,091

  148,358

  733

  0.5

  Ceredigion

  60,415

  59,915

  500

  0.8

  Conwy

  91,287

  90,048

  1,239

  1.4

  Denbighshire

  78,707

  78,555

  152

  0.2

  Flintshire

  113,350

  112,559

  792

  0.7

  Gwynedd

  107,528

  106,403

  1,125

  1.1

  Isle of Anglesey

  60,646

  60,802

  -156

  -0.3

  Merthyr Tydfil

  55,554

  55,859

  -306

  -0.5

  Monmouthshire

  64,847

  64,045

  803

  1.3

  Neath Port Talbot

  120,053

  120,451

  -398

  -0.3

  Newport

  116,556

  117,516

  -960

  -0.8

  Pembrokeshire

  110,106

  100,430

  -324

  -0.3

  Powys

  116,248

  115,649

  599

  0.5

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  206,614

  207,086

  -472

  -0.2

  298

  Table 3: Total standard spending assessments

  Council

  1997–981 (£000)

  1996–97 (£000)

  Change (£000)

  Percentage change

  Swansea

  192,631

  193,543

  -912

  -0.5

  Torfaen

  77,028

  77,796

  -769

  -1.0

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  94,121

  94,634

  -513

  -0.5

  Wrexham

  98,818

  98,558

  260

  0.3

  All councils

  2,466,315

  2,463,649

  2,666

  0.1

  1 Provisional 1997–98 local government revenue settlement estimated at 1996–97 prices.

  Table 4: Total standard spending assessments and allocations of police grant for police authorities

  Police authority

  1997–981(£000)

  1996–97 (£000)

  Change (£000)

  Percentage change

  Dyfed-Powys

  48,777

  48,579

  198

  0.4

  Gwent

  63,237

  62,752

  485

  0.8

  North Wales

  69,818

  69,340

  478

  0.7

  South Wales

  152,097

  151,074

  1,023

  0.7

  All police authorities

  333,929

  331,745

  2,184

  0.7

  1 Provisional 1997–98 local government revenue settlement estimated at 1996–97 prices.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in the intergovernmental conference. [9254]

  Mr. David Davis
  Negotiations in the intergovernmental conference will continue under the Dutch Presidency on the basis of the draft revision of the treaties submitted by the Irish Presidency. The Dublin European Council reaffirmed the target of completing the IGC at the Amsterdam European Council.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the principal agreements of the Dublin European Union summit of 13 and 14 December; and, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral statement on 16 December what public responses Her Majesty's Government have received on the summit conclusions on intergovernmental conference matters. [9784]

  Mr. Davis
  The principal agreements reached at the Dublin European Council were outlined by the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 16 December,Official Report, columns 615–17, and are set out in full in the Presidency's conclusions, which have been placed in the Library of the House. There have been a number of public responses to the Dublin outcome, including the IGC conclusions.

  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals on social policy are being discussed at the intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement. [9259]
  299
  Mr. Davis
  A number of proposals relating to social policy are under discussion in the intergovernmental conference.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals have been put forward at the intergovernmental conference to extend qualified majority voting. [9235]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Several member states have put forward proposals which involve extending the use of qualified majority voting in particular areas.

  Poland
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Poland's applications to join NATO and the EEC. [9255]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  NATO will decide at a summit in Madrid on 8 and 9 July which countries will be invited to open accession negotiations, and the European Commission's opinion on Poland's application to join the EU will happen later this year.

  China
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Sino-British relations. [9256]

  Mr. Hanley
  Relations with China have recently shown good progress in many areas. Both countries attach importance to a successful transfer of sovereignty in Hong Kong later this year, and are continuing their efforts to achieve that end.

  Israel
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Britain and Israel. [9257]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our relations with Israel remain good.

  Serbia
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the situation in Serbia with his EU counterparts. [9258]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary last discussed the situation in Serbia with EU counterparts at the European Council in Dublin on 13 December last. We continue to monitor the situation and remain in constant contact with partners and allies.

  Burma
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Burma. [9260]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UK maintains diplomatic relations with Burma. Through our embassy in Rangoon and our contacts with the Burmese embassy in London, we continue our policy of critical dialogue with the ruling State Law and Order Council—SLORC—with the aim of encouraging democratic reform and full respect for human rights in Burma.
  300
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the steps taken by the Government to encourage an improvement in human rights and a respect for democracy in Burma. [9249]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).

  Brazil
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Brazil. [9261]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Our relations with Brazil are excellent.

  Former Yugoslavia
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in apprehending indicated war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. [9262]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Seven indictees are held in custody in The Hague. One more is awaiting extradition from Croatia. We strongly support the work of the International Criminal Tribunal and have committed significant resources to it.

  NATO, Western European Union and Partnership for Peace
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's strategic proposals relating to the expansion of NATO, the Western European Union and Partnership for Peace. [9263]

  Mr. David Davis
  A NATO summit will be held on 8 and 9 July in Madrid. It will take a number of landmark decisions, including:inviting one or more countries to begin accession negotiations;
  finalising the arrangements for the establishment of a European security and defence identity in NATO;
  strengthening partnership for peace and, we expect, launching the Atlantic Partnership Council as a new body for co-operation between NATO and other countries.

  The Government's proposals for development of the Western European Union were made public in spring 1995.

  Iraq
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken in the United Nations to address the situation of Iraqi citizens held hostage by the Government of President Saddam Hussein. [9264]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain concerned about Iraqis detained in Iraq without trial. The UN Special Rapporteur, to whom Iraq denies access, has recorded the appalling human rights abuses of the Iraqi regime, including the absence of law. At the United Nations we regularly condemn Iraq's human rights record and will continue to do so.

  Cyprus (European Union Accession)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he plans to take to encourage Cyprus' accession to the EU. [9265]

  Mr. David Davis
  A comprehensive political settlement of the Cyprus problem in 1997 will help to ensure the success of negotiations on accession to the EU. We are working hard with our European partners, the United States and others in supporting UN-led efforts to that end.

  Embassies and Consulates
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new steps he is taking to improve the services and advice offered by United Kingdom embassies and consulates to United Kingdom businesses wishing to export. [9266]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry will jointly launch measures later this month to simplify access to, and raise awareness of, our services to exporters. We have already established a unit to monitor and help improve the quality standards of the chargeable services carried out for exporters by overseas posts. We have also launched an initiative to enhance the professionalism of officials engaged in trade promotion through a programme of secondments and externally accredited qualifications.

  United Nations
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with other member states regarding the future of the United Nations. [9267]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are in regular contact with other UN member states and in particular with our partners on the Security Council. We are working closely with the EU and other member states to revitalise the United Nations system and to ensure that we move towards a more modern and effective UN.

  Indonesia and East Timor
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Portuguese Government regarding the future of East Timor. [9268]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly discuss East Timor with the Portuguese Government. It was discussed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs during his meeting with the Portuguese Foreign Minister, Mr. Gama, in July last year. Her Majesty's Government continue to believe that dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia under the auspices of the UN Secretary General offers the best hope of finding a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria his Department uses to determine whether defence equipment is likely to be used for internal repression in Indonesia and East Timor before granting export licences. [10717]
  302
  Mr. Hanley
  In judging whether defence equipment is likely to be used for internal repression, we draw on all the information available to us, including as appropriate the nature of the equipment, the technical capability and legitimate requirements of the end user and the current situation in the recipient country. Ministers evaluate this information with the advice, where necessary, of technical experts in appropriate Government agencies and of our missions overseas.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence referred to in paragraph 40 of the National Audit Office report, "Aid to Indonesia", relating to aid proposals and defence sales. [10724]

  Mr. Hanley
  I shall write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Centre for Racism and Xenophobia
  Mr. Stephen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the compatibility of the establishment of the proposed centre for racism and xenophobia with Her Majesty's Government's policy on subsidiarity. [9269]

  Mr. David Davis
  We believe that the problems raised by racism are best dealt with by national Governments, but there is a role for Europe to play in the exchange and dissemination of information in this area.

  Zaire
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the current situation in Zaire. [9270]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We remain concerned by the uncertain situation in Zaire. Rebellion in eastern Zaire continues, with much of Kivu province under rebel control. We welcome President Mobutu's stated commitment to continuing the democratic process and will continue to support efforts to bring about a negotiated settlement to the conflict in Zaire.

  Anglo-Spanish Relations
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current state of Anglo-Spanish relations. [9239]

  Mr. David Davis
  When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met the Spanish Prime Minister, Mr. Aznar, in London on 27 November, they agreed that the overall relationship with Spain was extremely good. Spain is also an important partner in the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the United Nations.

  Consultants
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has made of the amount spent on external consultants by his Department's non-departmental public bodies in each of the last five years. [10162]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The information is in the table.
  303

  Expenditure on external consultants

  Diplomatic wing NDPBs

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  1995–96 £

  1996 to date £

  Great Britain—China Centre

  nil

  nil

  nil

  2,523

  8,004

  Britain—Russia Centre (approximate costs)

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Foreign Compensation Commission

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy spent approximately £50,000 on external consultants between 1993 and 1996. No year by year breakdown was available.

  None of ODA's non-departmental public bodies has employed external consultants in the last five years.

  Figures for the British Council could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Gulf Co-operation Council
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent Gulf Co-operation Council meeting in Qatar. [10300]

  Mr. Hanley
  We closely followed reporting of the discussions and decisions of the 17th Gulf Co-operation Council heads of state summit, which was held in Doha from 7 to 9 December 1996.

  Ministers welcome the GCC's call upon Iraq to fulfil all its international obligations, particularly those relating to weapons of mass destruction and the release of detainees.

  We share the GCC's concerns about continuing disputes in the region; the UK remains firmly committed to the peaceful resolution of them all.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make a statement on the recent election of the Hong Kong chief executive designate. [10301]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have all sent messages of congratulation to Mr. Tung, for whom we have great respect. British Ministers have every confidence that he will be a worthy first chief executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. He will of course be most welcome to visit Britain at a time of his choosing. Ministers and the Governor are full committed to offering every assistance to the chief executive designate and his team to help in their preparations for a successful handover, in line with the Joint Declaration.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects Her Majesty's high commission, Lagos, to supply the Immigration Appeal Tribunal with the statement of appeal for the case of Mr. C. A. Ekeh, Ref. GV100/29129, referred to in the high commission's letter dated 15 January 1996, Ref. LAG/12567/95. [10470]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  It is policy on grounds of confidentiality for Ministers not to comment publicly on individual applications for entry clearance. I will therefore write separately to my hon. Friend.
  304
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his Department's letter Ref. GV100 /32380 of 11 September 1996 when he proposes to take action on the case of Mrs. Gertrude Mannai, Ref. 301220, relating to her husband and the entry clearance officer at Tunis. [10325]

  Dr. Fox
  Our policy is not to reveal details of individual entry clearance applications. I will therefore write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Libya
  Sir Cyril Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he proposes to take to assist the issuing of visas in Libya. [10521]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  We have decided in principle to expand the visa service at the British interests section in Tripoli, to include additionally a limited number of applications from business visitors. However, certain practical difficulties, such as remodelling the office accommodation, will have to be resolved before this can take place.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to seek to improve relations with Libya. [9232]

  Mr. Hanley
  Any improvement in relations with Libya is dependent on that country complying with UN sanctions.

  Bahamas and Antigua (Chemical Weapons Tests)
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the Governments of the Bahamas and Antigua about the implications of the chemical tests carried out in the Caribbean 50 years ago; and if he will make a statement. [10822]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  No formal representations have between received from either the Government of the Bahamas or the Government of Antigua and Barbuda. However, Foreign Commonwealth Office officials received two letters from the Antiguan High Commissioner to London on the subject of biological weapons testing in the Caribbean in 1948–49. The FCO replied having sought advice from the Ministry of Defence.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

Veterinary Products Committee: Code of Conduct
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the change in Declaration of Interests: A Code of Conduct for Members of the Veterinary Products Committee and any subsequent Sub-Committee of 8th December 1995, which requires participation in court proceedings to be declared by members of the Scientific and Medical Panel of the Veterinary Products Committee, applies to the parent committee and to any other sub-committee.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there have been no changes in the code of practice governing the declaration of interests by the Veterinary Products Committee or its sub-committees. Some members of the Scientific and Medical Panel have asked for a separate code of practice applying specifically to that panel, setting out members' responsibilities if they become involved in court proceedings, including declaration of involvement where relevant to the business of the panel. This separate code will shortly be considered by the Veterinary Products Committee.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that there have been several drafts of the code, starting in February 1996, and that the initial codes were extremely heavy handed, in that they precluded members of the panel from attending meetings if they were to represent patients in court? Does he accept that when an expert witness is asked to attend court he is not there to help the patient but to help the court—in particular, the judge—to make its decision? Does there not appear to be a conflict between Section 118 of the Medicines Act and the code of practice that pertains to these committees?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Countess is quite right. There is potentially a difficulty, in that Section 118 of the Medicines Act is a wide-ranging provision and that those involved in court proceedings may feel that they are debarred by having signed up to that provision from being as helpful to the court as they might be. It is obviously very important that the Government have the best information that can be obtained on this subject. It is obviously equally important that the courts do too. As we understand it, the purpose of the separate code that is proposed is to help those members of the committee who find
182
themselves with such a possible conflict of interest to resolve that, to enable them to act as witnesses in court and not be held back by the fact that they are members of the committee.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that this problem led to the resignation from the relevant committee of Dr. Goran Jamal? Can he further confirm that most of the data used by the Veterinary Products Committee to test products are understandably provided by the manufacturers of that data? In the background, there is the concern expressed by Dr. Jamal that there is no system of completely independent verification of the products to evaluate their toxicity. That led to the problem when he was asked to appear as an expert witness in court.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord is right, in that Dr. Jamal found difficulty with the proposed new code, or perhaps one of the earlier drafts of it, and felt that it would restrict him in acting for the plaintiff. We find that unsatisfactory. We do not see any reason why any member of the committee should be debarred from acting, particularly for the plaintiff, though there may be occasions when a member of the committee is so involved with an industry or a company that he could not do that and appear as a witness in court. In such circumstances, we would probably expect him to resign from the committee, but we do not find it satisfactory that there should be an extension to the code that would prevent people acting for the plaintiff. It is important that the court and the plaintiff should have that advice.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it the contention of Her Majesty's Government that distinguished individuals who are experts in their fields and are acknowledged as such should be placed under any disability because they are likely to become expert witnesses in a trial or court proceedings in which Her Majesty's Government might be interested?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, I do not find it a comfortable or sensible position but it is a necessary corollary of the Medicines Act, which was passed in 1968 when the party opposite was in power and is a severe Act regarding confidentiality of information, that Ministers and members of committees who are subject to that Act are limited in the information they can disclose without an order of the court.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the integrity of the British legal system and of our constitutional system as such is not protected by reference to any political party, whether in government or in opposition? This is a question of principle.
Lord Lucas: Yes, indeed, my Lords, it is a question of principle. The code is aimed at trying to help members of the committee resolve a difficulty that they find themselves in as a result of the 1968 Act.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the Minister suggested that there might be a conflict of interest between being

183
a member of a government advisory committee and appearing as an expert witness in court. Surely the criteria would be exactly the same, in that the Government would want totally impartial advice, just as the court would. In that sense, how could there be a conflict of interest?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the conflict arises purely from the wording of the 1968 Act, which provides that any information gained as a result of being a member of the committee should not be disclosed to any other person. It cannot be volunteered in court. It can be produced only at the request of the court. Under many circumstances, people would find that restrictive. We are aiming to find a way in which that restriction can be lifted in as far as we have it in our power so to do.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Dr. Goran Jamal gave an undertaking to the chairman of the panel that he would not divulge in court any information which had come to him solely through the deliberations of the panel? Does the Minister agree that there is really no need for this change in the code of conduct? Does he further agree that the most important ingredient in this whole debacle is trust, in that the members of the panel should trust one another and that members of the public should be able to trust the verdicts of the panel as being totally independent? From what has been going on it would appear that this independence may be in question.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope very much that that is not so. I understand how the noble Countess arrives at the concerns which she has expressed. But the Veterinary Products Committee is independent of government and its sub-committee perhaps even more so. Therefore, I cannot enlarge on what has been taking place in that particular committee. But we are particularly concerned that when it comes to the public presentation of advice to Ministers and others that things should be seen to be done fairly and should not be hobbled in any unacceptable way. We understand that Dr. Jamal fully accepts his obligations under the Medicines Act. We are not aware of any reason why the additional code, which is intended, as we understand it, merely to be helpful, should have caused his resignation. As I say, perhaps we are unsighted on that.

Prisons and Religious Organisations
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether any religious sect has been given special permission to act in a British prison with the aim of changing the attitudes of prisoners towards committing further offences after their release.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I believe that my noble friend may be referring to a proposal for a six-months' pilot course
184
addressing offending behaviour at the Verne Prison. This is to be run by volunteers from a Christian interdenominational organisation under the control of prison managers.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her reply as it helps to explain disquieting press reports. While the aim of reforming offenders and reducing the prison population is to be commended, will there be periodical reviews to assess the progress and results of a scheme that apparently originates with a body based in the United States of America?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can give my noble friend an absolute assurance that it is to be one pilot scheme run for six months. It will be fully evaluated at the end of that period. The scheme grows out of Anglican-Roman Catholic support. It is operated in a wholly non-denominational way.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I do not doubt that it is a good idea to have offending behaviour courses in prisons, but why cannot it be done through a secular agency staffed by professionals instead of by a religious organisation staffed by amateurs? Since the professed aim of the Kairos prison ministry is to build up strong Christian communities within corrective institutions, are not its activities a way of getting round the prohibition on proselytising contained within the Prison Act 1952? Will the Minister ensure that all the documentation concerning this scheme, including any literature which is distributed to prisoners who are not already Christians, is placed in the Library of your Lordships' House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I find it quite extraordinary that the noble Lord gives no recognition to the wonderful work done in our prisons by non-professionals. They are people who work with prisoners in many different ways. Because they are not part of officialdom, very often they are more effective in addressing offending behaviour. This is a worthwhile experiment. Proselytising in prisons is not permitted and this is not a scheme to circumvent that. It is very important that the people who are involved in providing this course and those who partake of it, are doing so entirely voluntarily.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say—
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am sure the Minister is aware that she is absolutely right to give the House these reassurances. The organisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred is a respectable one. It is not simply American, but it also exists in this country and throughout Europe. It is strongly supported by diocesan bishops of impeccable orthodoxy and conservative tendency. As I am sure the Minister is

185
aware, misunderstandings have arisen because of highly inaccurate press reports. Does she agree that one should not necessarily believe all that the papers say about the Church, the Royal Family, the judiciary and the England cricket team?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I concur with the right reverend Prelate that we should not believe all that we read in the newspapers. I entirely agree with him that the articles about this particular scheme were very inaccurate indeed. Schemes such as this are run in Canada, America, Australia and South America. It is right to say that the Association for the Protection of the Convicted is widely spread in this country. It has done very effective work in prisons. It is also worth saying that the Verne Prison itself is happy about this course, so too are the chaplain and the Anglican and Roman Catholic ministers. The Buddhist and Methodist visiting ministers have not complained.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware of any non-religious organisations that care for families where the breadwinner is in prison and which need help? If such organisations exist, will the Minister give them all the help that they so richly deserve?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can think of many such organisations. I think in particular of the Society of Voluntary Associates, which I know well, which works with many prisoners on many different fronts. Some of its work is extremely impressive. Other family organisations also provide help to prisoners. The work carried out in our prisons by non-professionals is truly invaluable.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I wonder whether the Prison Reform Trust was among the many organisations to make representations on this matter. Does the Minister share the pleasure of many of us that Mr. Hurd has joined that body?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I very much welcome my right honourable friend to that post. We have not had many representations about the organisation in question other than the Question on the Order Paper and some correspondence with the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord McNair. I believe that the Prison Reform Trust will welcome such a programme of working to address and, where possible, to modify the offending behaviour of prisoners.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is there any cost to public funds from this venture? If so, how much?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if there is any cost, I believe that it is negligible. Accommodation has to be found within the prison for the course to take place, but my understanding is that the prison officer involved has volunteered for the work. It will be in the normal course of duties for some prison officers who manage the wing where the course is to take place. However, those involved with the course are volunteers, as are the
186
prisoners who will participate. The course will not cost the same as a course run by professionals, where the cost would be considerable.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, as a persistent and sometimes tiresome critic of the Home Office and the present regime there, may I say how much I welcome wholeheartedly the support which the Home Office is giving to this fine Christian initiative?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I give a heartfelt welcome to that comment from the noble Earl. I am sure that the whole House will wish the initiative well. We shall all benefit if it works: the prisoners themselves, those involved with the course, who will gain a great deal from it, and, ultimately, the community at large.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government received any comments from the Prison Service and, in particular, from representatives of the warders who will be involved?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the person who initiated the course in this particular prison is a member of the Prison Service. He is a Christian and he heard about the organisation through his church. He then spoke to the prison authorities and arranged for the course to take place at the prison. I can only repeat what I said earlier: no member of the Prison Service will be coerced into taking part in such courses. It will be voluntary on the part of the prison officers, as well as on the part of the participating prisoners.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I have a funny feeling that the desire of the House is to move on to the next Question. We have two further Questions left, so if the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, is moved to restrain himself a little, that might give us the opportunity to move on to the next Question.

West Bank and East Jerusalem: Illegal Settlements
2.53 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What actions they propose to prevent the creation and enlargement of illegal settlements in the occupied parts of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, together with other acts which pre-empt negotiation on the final status of the Palestinians and the future of Jerusalem.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we warmly welcome the draft agreement on redeployment of Israeli troops in Hebron. It is an essential step to unblocking the peace process.

187
Our position remains that Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal and an obstacle to peace. The Israeli Government know this. We continue to press both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities to avoid actions which could prejudice the success of final status negotiations. I shall be repeating this message in the region next week.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer and wish her well for that visit. I suspect that the whole House agrees with what the Minister has said about the Hebron agreement and other related points. Nevertheless, when a government are in breach of international agreements and obligations such as the fourth Geneva Convention, does it not follow that there must be penalties imposed on that government? Will Her Majesty's Government use their full diplomatic skill and power to make sure that that happens if such breaches continue?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will use—and, indeed, are already using—their full diplomatic powers and skills to prevent the continued breach of the fourth Geneva Convention. I repeat that all settlements in the Occupied Territories are illegal and an obstacle to peace. That position is shared by all our European partners and the rest of the international community. Steps forward need to be taken, but that is unlikely to come about by the imposition of measures. Whenever such measures have been imposed, those most frequently imperilled by them are ordinary people—and it is the economic livelihood of ordinary people that we must try to safeguard. There needs to be a balance between the diplomatic effort that can be made in order to achieve success and any measures which might be useful. In fact, most measures are not useful.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this subject was last raised as a result of a Starred Question tabled by the late Lord Mayhew? Does the noble Baroness agree that his consistent and courageous advocacy of the rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories will be sorely missed both in this House and in terms of world opinion?
I welcome the Minister's assurance about the illegality of settlement policies. In the light of press reports that the United States Government may be considering moving their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, can the Minister also assure the House that Her Majesty's Government have no such intention?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord's first comments. The late Lord Mayhew will, indeed, be sorely missed. He managed to get people who were perhaps not originally sympathetic to the Palestinian cause to focus on the real needs of those people and on the truth of what was actually happening in the region.
188
On the noble Lord's question about the United States' embassy, I have no evidence of what the noble Lord has implied, but we have no plans to move our embassy. We have an excellent Consulate General in Jerusalem looking after our affairs there. I believe that that is the way it should remain.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Oslo Agreements the question of the settlements is for the permanent status agreements which are yet to come? Would it not be best in the meanwhile to draw a huge sigh of relief that an accord was signed last night and might not a little generosity of spirit be in order today?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, like the whole of the Government, I am very prepared to be generous in spirit. We are absolutely delighted about the draft agreement reached last night. I have not heard the reports of the Cabinet meeting this morning, so I do not know whether the draft agreement has been finalised. It is important to move on swiftly on the Interim Agreement because matters are outstanding from it. Although we welcome what Prime Minister Netanyahu has obviously agreed to, there has to be more than this. It must include the early resumption of the final status talks and, above all, a free passage between the West Bank and Gaza. Noble Lords will remember my deep concern in the latter part of last year when we found that we could not get help to people in very dire need because of the impediments placed on the workers who were trying to help them.
Lord Jakobovits: My Lords, does the Minister agree that on a day such as this, when possibly the greatest and most significant breakthrough in peace in the past 48 years since the founding of the state of Israel has occurred, the rest of this House and the nation should join with her in welcoming last night's development, in the hope that the spirit that it engenders will enable goodwill and amicable relations to be established? The Question dealt with legality and illegality. Does the Minister agree that we must be most careful not to discriminate against one form of illegality and ignore others? Surely, the declaration of war with the avowed object of destroying an entire people cannot be legal. To this day, the charter of the Palestinians demands the destruction of a member state of the United Nations. Surely, that cannot be legal. Therefore, will we not aid the cause of peace and goodwill much more by being even-handed and encouraging progress towards the establishment of amicable relations, wherever we see them developing, rather than allowing partisanship and taking a one-sided view of illegality only in one camp but not in another? Will we not then reach an understanding more quickly?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my welcome was unlimited. All wars are destructive. We know how destructive some of the activity in the past

189
few years has been. It must stop. We must now move from the interim agreement to the final talks with all speed.

Teachers: Early Retirement
3.2 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect they consider the proposed new redundancy regulations will have on the supply of teachers in schools.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the proposed new regulations will reduce the number of teachers leaving the profession before their normal retirement date and will increase the number of experienced teachers available for employment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I disagree with the Minister's main point. Is he aware of the anger that has been caused to teachers by this proposal, particularly the lack of proper consultation and the Government's failure to phase it in, which seems to me to be the sensible thing to do? Can the Minister say how many applications for early retirement have been received since the announcement was made? Further, what proportion is represented by senior teachers? Finally, as the financial burden arising from this new regulation will fall on LEAs and governors, how does he expect those bodies to find the extra money to pay for it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, in answer to the latter point, the employers, whether they be schools or LEAs, will be making smaller contributions. Therefore, if they manage the early retirement policy properly they will probably make savings. We believe it is right that the schools themselves should have a proper incentive to look after the early retirement of teachers. Even the noble Lord will agree that there is something wrong with a system in which four-fifths of teachers are allegedly unable to work up to 60. I do not believe that the noble Lord accepts it is right that such a high proportion of teachers should take early retirement. There has never been any right to early retirement just for teachers. They can take early retirement if their health so requires. We expect schools and LEAs to act sensibly rather than allow a rush of early retirements at Easter. For that reason we have a rather long consultation period. It started in October and will continue until Friday of this week.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of just how blatant the abuse of the early retirement system has been on the part both of employers and of teachers and lecturers? Is he aware that, particularly among further education lecturers, the commonly used expression is "early
190
retirement with contract", on the basis of which a teacher takes early retirement and goes on to half-pay as a pension and then returns on a half-time contract, thereby earning exactly the same as before for half the work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for pointing out that possibly this scam exists. There is evidence of teachers who take early retirement on Friday and come back as supply teachers on Monday. The key principle underlying our proposals is that employers should be made accountable for the cost of decisions on premature retirement. They are now not so accountable and we believe that they should be.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the worrying aspect is that such a lunatic system was allowed to develop in the first instance? The whole purpose of early retirement is either to allow people who are ill to retire in a civilised fashion or to let people go whom one does not wish to stay? To have a situation where four-fifths of teachers decide to go—many of whom are the very people one least wishes to—calls into question the individual who was responsible for this idiot situation in the first instance.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I regret that I cannot make the political point that I might otherwise have made. I can tell the noble Lord that the teachers' superannuation scheme goes back to the 1920s. I am not quite clear who was in charge of it at that time. But I believe that the noble Lord is right to point out the defects in the system that have allowed such an excessive amount of early retirement. For that reason we believe it is right to make employers properly accountable for the scheme. They will then take proper care of it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the comment attributed in the press to his right honourable friend the Prime Minister that the Government do not believe that four out of five teachers are incapable of teaching until the age of 60? If he did say that, should he not be told that the 11,000 teachers now queuing up to beat the March deadline are only a fraction of those who are desperate to get out of a profession which his Government have made underpaid, under-resourced and undesirable?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply do not accept what the noble Lord has said. Teachers' pay has done better than most others in the public sector. It has risen by 57 per cent, in real terms since 1979. We have made it quite clear that we believe teaching to be an honourable profession. The Prime Minister was quite right to point out that there was something pretty odd about a scheme

191
which encouraged four-fifths of teachers allegedly to say that they were incapable of working up to the age of 60.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister—
Noble Lords: Order! Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He will have observed that the 30 minutes are up. We have all been beaten by the clock.

Housing Needs
3.8 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel rose to call attention to the housing needs of the nation, particularly in the light of the Budget Statement of 26th November; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 1 shall allow a suitable interval while noble Lords opposite, including the Leader of the House, who have no interest in the housing needs of the nation leave the Chamber.
Your Lordships will see that the Motion on the Order Paper is widely drafted. That is quite deliberate. It is designed to allow the widest possible scope for debate on all aspects of domestic housing throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. I see that the Chief Whip has left the Chamber so that I now have a free run. We have not had such a debate for a few years. I apologise to my noble friends from Scotland for the use of the word "nation" in the Motion since they may take the quite proper view that Scotland is a nation in its own right. I apologise as a fellow Celt. The agenda is wide, and I imagine that your Lordships will wish to take full advantage of this. I hope that some noble Lords will wish to speak generally on the present condition of our housing stock; others will wish to speak of the importance of adequate housing to health, family relationships and the disabled; others will, I hope, focus on the failure of leasehold enfranchisement and the dog that has significantly failed to bark in the night; namely, commonhold.
There is also the general housing situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in the great cities of England; the state of the construction industry which will have to build the houses which we need, and its importance to our economy; how we fare compared to our European partners; and, of course, the continuing problem of homelessness. All those matters are encompassed within the agenda of the Motion which I am moving. As icing on the cake—if I may put it like that—of this particularly rich agenda, I much look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lord Hanworth and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe.
Although the agenda is broad and rich, there is one unifying theme which I hope to demonstrate: that in almost every single area I have mentioned, the
192
Government have, by their own actions, succeeded in turning what started off as problems into crises. If I am right, and if the charge sticks, as I believe it will, the upshot is that whoever forms the next government will inherit, at best, severe problems and, at worst, crises, right across the range that I have described. It is only right that at least one House of Parliament should be aware of those realities before we get into the rough and tumble of a general election campaign.
Let me start with the owner-occupied sector. House prices, as we know, are starting to rise again after five years of decline, and yet repossessions seem still to be running at the rate of just above 40,000 a year—a level quite unknown in any period prior to 1990. We hope of course that the figure will go down; but we are now faced with a total of 370,000 repossessions since the present Prime Minister took office. That is hardly a proud record. But the problem, because it was a problem, has been turned into a crisis by the Government's consistent refusal even to look at the proposal we made years ago of a mortgage to rents scheme. They turned a problem into a crisis.
Of course there is a further problem. Although house prices may rise, for most owner-occupiers that is a paper rise. It cannot be easily converted into the cash necessary to carry out essential repairs and maintenance which certainly were not afforded during the dark years and which have therefore accumulated. The result is that much of the owner-occupied housing stock is in poor condition with consequential effects upon overcrowding, ill-health, and—I shall come to this later—family breakdowns leading to youth homelessness. We should not forget that owner-occupiers have been through the worst housing crisis since the war.
That brings me to the next sector, that of private renting. The second result of a rise in the money value of the housing asset base has been a rise in investment in the privately rented sector. For the first time in half a century, institutional investors are looking closely at the possible opportunities here. Now that in itself is all to the good, particularly if the consequence is a sensible partnership between private and public capital such as, for instance, in local housing companies. But of course private investors require a reasonable return related to the risk, and that may only be available away from such desirable public/private relationships. Now I am not suggesting for a moment that there are no honest, sympathetic and caring private sector landlords. Of course there are. But there are some who are not so honest, sympathetic and caring. Which ones do your Lordships think are going to hit the front pages of the Sun when the going gets rough? I certainly know which landlords in London hit the headlines when leasehold reform proved to be such a flop. The place for the private rented sector is as a useful and perhaps essential facility for those who can afford to buy their own house but for one reason or another do not wish to do it at that time. It should not be treated, and should never be treated, as a fall-back for inadequate social housing.
That bring me naturally to the sector which is known as social housing. I personally dislike the term. I am one of those old-fashioned people who regard a home as a

193
fundamental social right—who believes that nobody in a civilised community should be left without the opportunity for decent housing. But let that be. I shall use the expression "social housing", however much I dislike it.
Now one result of the general rise in house prices over the decades has been the rise in the cost of social housing. But this Government, apparently averse to local authorities spending their own money, have also succeeded in making life increasingly difficult to the providers of such housing. Let me give your Lordships, as briefly as I can, the nature of the problem. In 1995, just to take England alone, the Department of the Environment estimated that the desired annual increase in the net social housing lettings was between 60,000 and 100,000 a year. The spread between the two figures is said to be due to assumptions about the propensity of younger households to be owner-occupiers; and it is only fair to add that private studies put the median figure rather higher. But the department itself was estimating the output of social housing at 58,000 in 1996–97 and 55,000 in 1997–98. In other words, the Government themselves—before the Budget—were assuming a shortfall in social housing output on their own figures. Already there was a problem. The Government were envisaging not just a deterioration in the social housing stock but the inevitable consequence—which follows as the night the day—an increase in homelessness. The problem moves quickly into becoming a crisis.
Let me be quite clear about homelessness, since it seems to have occupied the attention of a number of people and one or two obviously dyspeptic journalists in the past 10 days or so. Let me rehearse the facts, and to illuminate the discussion I ought to say that all the figures I quote are from Centrepoint, which is an established organisation and well known for authoritative views on homelessness. Seventy-six per cent, of those registered as homeless in the Centrepoint study first left their parents' home at or below the age of 17; 17 per cent. were told to leave or were thrown out; 22 per cent. left after family rows; and the rest left to seek greater opportunity; 72 per cent. are unemployed and are seeking work; and 24 per cent. are seeking training; 48 per cent. have a GCE, CSE or GCSE; and 7 per cent. have A-levels or a degree. Only 35 per cent. have no qualification. That does not paint the picture of loutishness and ignorance that is so often painted in the press.
I am not shy of saying that I have "zero tolerance" not of the homeless but of homelessness itself. It is a scandal to a civilised society. If there are among the homeless petty criminals, then they, like all petty criminals or criminals of any description, should be stopped. But the solution is not to force people to sleep on the streets. The solution is to provide opportunities to get them off the streets—in particular, by ensuring that local authorities have again a proper obligation to house people who are homeless through no fault of their own and are in priority need. That is an obligation which, as the noble Earl well knows, the Government removed last year.
My Lords, let me move forward. On the day before the Budget last November, the Government published a Green Paper. It was entitled, rather plaintively I thought, Where shall we live? "Where indeed?" we might ask. Now, the Green Paper only dealt with England, presumably on the assumption that nobody would want to live in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—the case for devolution has been accepted. But even in England the projection was that by the year 2016 there would have to be 4.4 million new households. Not only does this mean arithmetically net additions to the overall housing stock of well above present levels but also, if current relationships between the different sectors hold up—and there is no reason to believe that they will not—it means an absolute minimum of net new social housing of the Government's own figure of 60,000 per annum.
On the next day, enter Mr. Kenneth Clarke. Total spending on social housing, it is announced, will be some £1 billion lower next year than in the current year. The Housing Corporation's budget for housing association new build will be £344 million lower in 1997/98 than this year. Credit approvals for local authorities in England will be some £290 million down. The housing budget in Scotland is estimated to be cut by some £200 million. And, to cap it all, there will be cuts of some £130 million in housing benefit to tenants in the private rented sector.
The result of all this is all too clear. New social housing starts are likely to fall below 20,000 in 1997/98. As Mr. James Coulter, Chief Executive of the National Housing Federation, said, reasonably enough:
"how on earth the Government expects the social housing sector to contribute properly to the 4.4 million new homos needed by 2016 beggars belief.
That, if I may say so, is the question that the noble Earl has to answer this afternoon. Do the Government stick by their view that an average net 60,000 new lettings a year over a long period in the social housing sector—their figure—is still required? If not, are they prepared to produce a revised figure like perhaps the 20,000 which will be started this year? If so, where is their justification? If they stick to 60,000, how can it be reconciled with the Chancellor's Budget? The problem has yet again become a crisis.
I shall be frank. The truth of the matter, whatever the noble Earl may say in answer to my question, is that we know that there is not much mileage, in terms of votes, in the complicated business of domestic housing. I shall tell your Lordships a story which will illustrate the point. At the time of the great poll tax row, which in the end unseated a Prime Minister, a Conservative Member of Parliament, after visiting his constituency at the weekend, came back to Westminster with a bleak message to his Whips. He said, "They are talking about it in the pubs. Its always bad when they talk about things in the pubs". He was right. But so far as I know nobody has come back to the Conservative Whips with that message about housing. It is not a subject which ranks high on the list of pub topics in the seats which the Conservatives desperately wish to hold. I believe that that is why they imagine they can cut support for it.
But that does not mean that in my eyes or those of Members of this House it is not of the highest importance to men, women, children and families and— dare I say it?—to our society up and down the breadth of the land. That is precisely why I am inviting your Lordships to address these matters today. I beg to move for Papers.
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the notion is not original, but if you were cast adrift on that classic desert island, what would you need before settling down to your eight discs, your books and your luxury? I suggest that you would need a nice warm cave and that you would look for that even before using your Bible and Shakespeare to educate yourself and before looking for local herbs to protect your health. If your nice warm cave were flooded, you would look for another pretty promptly. Housing is that important.
Secure, good quality housing is fundamental to so much else: to health, education and employment. It is a pity that the current attention being paid to family life and family values has not adequately addressed housing. Rotten housing, or having no home, is a major factor in the breakdown of relationships.
All of that is why today's debate is so important. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing it. He has reminded the House of the Budget announcement; the fifth consecutive year of significant cuts. They are cuts of the greatest frustration and perhaps the second greatest frustration today is the time limit on the debate. In December the comment was made that the week started with the Secretary of State for the Environment envisaging where an extra 4.4 million households might go during the next 20 years and the next day presiding over cuts which shifted the question from "where" to "whether".
I specifically ask the Minister today to tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the effect of the cuts and how they propose to address that effect. It cannot be that the Government have not carried out that exercise. To share the information might mean a more constructive debate both inside and outside this House. If the Government did not make that assessment I do not believe that I need to comment on the omission.
I hope that the assessment will include a comment on the supply of accommodation which the Government regard as appropriate for single people under 60. I refer, of course, to the housing benefit changes. Leaving aside whether such accommodation is right for someone of middle age, can the Minister tell the House whether the Government are satisfied that there is an adequate supply of such accommodation and of an adequate standard? Can he also comment on the effect of personal, rather than bricks and mortar, subsidy? How do the Government envisage that we can halt throwing money down the drain with no realisable asset to show for the expenditure?
The social sector needs to provide about 100,000 units a year at a minimum in order to prevent an increase in unmet housing needs—and that is before there is any
196
impact on the backlog of unmet needs, and I say "needs" deliberately. To take London as an example—in other words, quite a short distance from this place—the scale of need for additional and improved, affordable housing is quite staggering. I give only a selection of figures: an estimated 109,000 "non-priority" single homeless people; a poverty trap, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which means that for a household earning £160 a week to be £20 cash better off, it needs to increase its income by £55 if its rent is £30 or by £115 if its rent is £60; 229,000 dwellings are unfit and a further 158,000 or thereabouts need renovation; 140,000 homes are empty; but to end on a potentially more positive note, there are vacant office buildings and sites which could perhaps yield up to 50,000 plus additional dwellings.
I do not claim that making up the shortfall in affordable housing is easy. I suspect that this Government do not claim that it is easy otherwise the Green Paper of December would have been rather less coy on the subject. It was not exactly bursting with ideas. Nor do I argue that any one agency should have the monopoly of providing it. The "how" and the "what" matter far more than the "who". But income tax cuts balanced by council tax increases—another Budget twist—mean that the burden of part of the expenditure is not being borne by the better off and we see alongside that, drastic cuts in local authority housing investment programmes which mean that repair and improvement schemes by local authorities will be affected drastically and will no doubt cost more when the work can eventually be done.
What is the sense in not enabling local authorities to play their part? "Do as we say, not as we do", say central Government. "Treat your capital and your revenue spending separately". That is quite right. But if the Government distinguish between capital and revenue for the purposes of PSBR they may find it easier to distinguish between revenue expenditure and investment. It seems that it is acceptable for the Government to borrow huge sums to fund unsustainable tax cuts, but it is not acceptable for local authorities to borrow sensibly against rents for house repairs and building programmes.
The workings of the PSBR need considerable revision and on these Benches, we should like to see local authorities more free to invest—"invest" is a respectable term which some denigrate by using the word "subsidy"—to meet local housing needs. We would urge a change to the public accounting system so that the social benefits of a particular investment would be the crucial elements. I refer to social benefits because at present we are hooked on indicators which measure things only in financial terms, and in environmental terms almost not at all.
We want sensible housing investment to get unemployed people back to work. Your Lordships will all be familiar with the arguments both about employment in the housing industry and the benefits tax.
Perhaps one of the major challenges is how local authorities can work with their communities to provide the extra housing and to provide it in a fashion which is

197
sustainable both environmentally and socially. How are we to debate most productively as to whether there is a need for new settlements? Are they unavoidable? If some greenfield land must be used over the long term, it is better that that should be planned. It is better not to over-extend existing centres than to spoil and not improve our urban environment.
I do not wish to see the indiscriminate use of greenfield sites but my party, along with others, has proposed a new greenfield development tax in order to address that based on the increase in the value of land resulting from planning permission. I wish that I had time to develop the arguments of the benefit of that in terms of encouraging the development of derelict sites.
Unused stock and empty homes are emotive subjects, but I just do not believe that it is acceptable for fit, habitable homes to be left empty deliberately for long periods for reasons of speculation. We have proposals to develop a simplified grant application system to enable local authorities and housing associations to work with private landlords to bring back suitable homes into use and above all, to find ways of providing affordable housing. I do not believe that the recent circular will achieve that.
I can only allude quickly to the promotion of the private rented sector which, of course, is much intertwined with the wider economy. Some of your Lordships will have seen, with regard to the private rented sector, the private tenants' manifesto drawn up by the Campaign for Bedsit Rights. The problems which it identifies in that sector certainly left me feeling most uncomfortable. I do commend that.
Finally, I return to the Budget. The removal of nearly £1 billion from housing spending achieved barely a mention and certainly no analysis in the non-specialist media. But there is much to concern us all.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I begin by saying that it is a privilege to address your Lordships for the first time this afternoon. My father, who died recently, was active in this House in his latter years and, although we had different political allegiances, I believe that we shared some of the same social instincts. I am grateful also to my noble friend Lord Williams for introducing this debate on housing which provides me with an opportunity to make my maiden speech. I cannot think of a more appropriate and timely subject to be debated this afternoon.
Today we shall hear much about the inadequate and deteriorating state of our housing stock and about the social problems which that engenders. Those housing problems have arisen gradually over the past 20 years and are now of such a magnitude that any serious attempt at amelioration must necessarily envisage a policy which spans an equal length of time stretching way into the first quarter of the coming century.
Faced with such problems, an attitude of resignation is perhaps inevitable, and we are bound to have difficulties envisaging prospects which differ greatly from those which confront us at present. That is why it is important and instructive to look further afield to
198
witness other circumstances which may serve either as warnings of what is in store if we fail to act vigorously or as encouragement in the way of what is capable of achievement.
I should like to offer an example which arises from my own personal observation. Recently I walked along the banks of the Danube river on the northern side of the city of Vienna in the direction of Heilingenstadt for about 5 kilometres. Marching purposefully along that axis is a splendid and handsome line of buildings which are somewhat severe in outline and decorated in the yellow stucco which is peculiar to the city of Vienna. To each of those buildings is affixed in bold red lettering a legend which says that the building has been constructed in some year of this century by the city of Vienna in pursuit of its social housing policy. That particular line of buildings terminates in a splendid and symbolic edifice which is the Karl Marx Hof. That residential citadel is a grand expression in masonry of the political power of the social democratic party which acceded to power at the end of the First World War. In fact, the building served as a bastion and military stronghold for the Social Democrats during the civil war of 1934.
But today, the building remains the property of the municipality of Vienna. Those apartments are much sought after by rich, retired citizens whose families have matured and dispersed. Residence in Viennese public housing has never acquired the stigma which besets public housing in many other European countries. That may have something to do with the quality of the provision, both in terms of architecture and substance.
Originally, the tenancies were limited to larger families, young families, Social Democrat party workers, I must say, and a few others. But nowadays the city of Vienna is a major provider of housing for all classes of citizen.
The social housing policy in Vienna is an integral part of a concerted municipal enterprise which is at the same time municipal socialism and capitalism and on a grand scale. It commands the services not only of architects, city planners and construction workers but also bankers, professors of urban geography, transport workers, sanitation workers and many others besides.
I offer that example because it represents a vision which I feel we are in danger of losing. I offer it also because it runs contrary to almost every single presupposition which we are liable to entertain when we think of social housing policy in this country.
I shall itemise three of those suppositions and shall call each into question. The first supposition is that social housing policy should address the needs only of a disadvantaged, low income group. I believe, on the contrary, that it should be an integral part of a general housing policy. In this country large investments are urgently needed for the renewal of the entire housing stock, which is ageing uniformly. I believe that our larger municipal authorities should consider the experience of the city of Vienna and that they should be prepared to cater for all classes of citizen at all stages of life.

199
The second supposition is that social housing is bound to be of an inferior quality. On the contrary, I believe that, apart from the detested system-built tower blocks of the late 1960s and early 1970s, much of the council housing stock which has recently been sold off (and some which remains in the possession of local authorities) is of a standard which is markedly superior to anything which has been constructed in recent years either by private contractors or housing associations. One of the roles of a social housing policy should be to impose standards upon the quality of construction. That, in fact, was the purpose of the Parker Morris standard which was suspended by the present Government. I see no reason at all why that standard should not be reinstituted and applied across the board.
The third supposition is that local authorities are inappropriate providers of housing and that their role, if it is to be revived, should be taken by other agencies. I am sure that this is wrong. One should expect larger authorities at least to have the knowledge and the capacity to plan for residential construction on a large scale and to relate it to other needs, such as those of transport, recreation and the need for open spaces. Such authorities are the only agencies which can be relied upon to view the problems of society within a sufficiently broad perspective. They are in an ideal position to monitor the quality of construction and, because of the scale of their operations and the experience that they can derive from them, they can achieve efficiencies which are denied to other organisations. By all means let private capital participate, but there should be an overall plan within which it must operate.
At present, our housing industry is disorganised and de-skilled. Only a concerted national policy of residential construction can revive it. But so poor is its health and so diminished are its capacities that I fear that the early years of such a policy are bound to be attended by a succession of crises and shortfalls. I also fear that that is the price that we will have to pay for the derelictions of our Government over such a long period.
I would continue with my account but I fear that I have already encroached upon my allotted time. Further, I can see affixed to the parapet of the Gallery above some bold red lettering which indicates that I have already spoken for long enough. When the occasion arises, I feel sure that I shall make further contributions to your Lordships' debates. When I do, I believe that I shall be moved to make much more trenchant comments than the conventions of a maiden speech allowed me to make this afternoon.
3.42 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, it is a particular pleasure on behalf of the House to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on his excellent maiden speech. It was not only a speech of great quality; it was also an important speech to which I believe many of us will wish to refer in the future. When arranging the order of speakers for today's debate, I do not know whether the Whips Office had
200
inside information, but it is in fact a happy coincidence that the great-great uncle of the noble Viscount was one of my predecessors as Bishop of Norwich. Bishop Bertram Pollock sat on these Benches more than 50 years ago. I do not know a great deal about what goes on in Heaven—yet!—but I have no doubt that he will be looking down upon us this afternoon with pride at the performance of his great-great nephew and that, like us, he will be looking forward to hearing many such important contributions in the future.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I should also like very warmly to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing today's important debate.
On Monday afternoon a senior Peer on the Government Benches said to me, "Steer clear of political issues for the next few months, my boy, it's going to be a rough time". At the age of 63 it was rather gratifying to be addressed as "my boy". I suppose that this is one of the few places where such a thing could happen. I have no intention whatever of becoming involved in the rough and tumble of party political issues which for me, and the vast majority of my brethren, are a spectator sport.
However, moral issues—that is, matters affecting the well-being of individuals and of communities—and issues affecting the quality of human life and the integrity of the family are very definitely the business of Christian leaders. Housing is such an issue, which is why I believe that at least a brief contribution is necessary from these Benches. Time does not allow for detailed comments on particular issues, so I will confine myself to one or two general points.
Konrad Adenauer may or may not have been right when he said that it is impossible to keep the Ten Commandments when you are inadequately housed. What is beyond doubt is that homelessness and poor housing, from whatever cause they originate, negatively affect people's moral, spiritual and physical well-being and development. I take it as axiomatic that this House is united in agreement on that point, and that Members of all political parties believe that a determination to give these questions priority is fundamental to good government.
In recent years the Church of England has undertaken two major studies, the findings of which were published in the reports Faith in the City and Faith in the Countryside. I was personally involved in the latter as the vice-chairman of the Archbishop's Commission on Rural Areas which was chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Prior. Both reports contained extensive studies of housing conditions and needs. Faith in the City attracted a good deal of somewhat hysterical criticism, often from those who had not read the report. But, when the fuss died down, the evidence is that government departments were quietly grateful for the work that was done and that, in fact, it inspired some new government initiatives in the inner city, even though the source of that inspiration was rarely acknowledged. Having been forewarned, the subsequent report Faith in the

201
Countryside left fewer hostages to fortune in unwise phrasing and drew much praise, despite many criticisms of government policy, notably from the then Minister of Agriculture, Mr. John Gummer.
The research and findings of both those reports remain valid and authoritative, and much can be gained from re-reading them. They are authoritative for two reasons, the first of which is that in both studies the Church was able to draw together acknowledged expertise in a number of fields relevant to both urban and rural areas. Secondly, the Church speaks with authority on these issues because, uniquely, it is present in every area and aware, as few organisations are, of what is actually happening.
In the most deprived urban areas of this country the clergy are often the only professional people actually resident in the area. In many cases in the inner city you will not find a teacher living there, nor a doctor, nor even a social worker; but you will always find a member of the clergy: men and women who can speak with first-hand and intimate knowledge of the people among whom they live and of their conditions of life. Clergy tend only to hit the headlines when, in the case of a very small minority, something goes wrong. The overwhelming majority of our clergy are faithful, dedicated and hardworking. They are important resources of knowledge and experience and they possess an expertise of which local authorities in particular could, and should, make far greater use.
There is of course disagreement about how such issues should be resolved and governments are often dismayed when Church leaders speak critically on some of these matters. There is frequent misunderstanding— often wilful misunderstanding in the media—about the reasons for our pronouncements. That is perhaps inevitable, but I hope that noble Lords will understand that those criticisms arise from our proper concerns, concerns about which we speak with some knowledge and experience. They do not arise from a partisan political spirit. They arise from pastoral compassion, and from our Christian, biblical convictions about what constitutes a fully human life and harmonious life together as God intended for the world that He created.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this debate. It will not, of course, be the last word on the subject. If in the future he ever finds himself speaking on this side of the House he will, I trust, not be dismayed if over his left shoulder he hears the occasional voice of dissent.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I shall be brief. I should perhaps explain that although I succeeded to the title when my father died nearly three years ago I have not taken an active part in your Lordships' House while I was Lord Lieutenant for Buckinghamshire. I have now retired from that post. I must confess I feel I may resemble the conventional Buckinghamshire swan, calm and serene, I hope, above the surface but paddling furiously, and not a little nervously, below.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has told us, homelessness is a terrible thing. I entirely agree with him. However, I do not think in all honesty that either
202
of the main political parties can be completely absolved from blame. In my view the Labour Government after the war concentrated too much on tenants' rights and security, while the Thatcher administration perhaps over-emphasised home ownership. Both acted from the best possible motives, but they effectively decimated the rented sector. Here I must declare an interest; I am a private sector landlord, but not, I hope, a wicked one. I am, I hope, an honest, sympathetic and caring one. Indeed I like to think I am so regarded locally, but perhaps that is being immodest.
I possess a number of houses and cottages which I might well require at some future indeterminate date for an employee or a widow or a pensioner or a member of the family, or even for myself. Those houses and cottages would now be empty were it not for the assured shorthold tenancy provisions which provide the certainty that I could recover possession if and when required in the future. Therefore I hope there will be absolutely no question of repealing those provisions as an aid to solving the housing shortage. That would have the opposite effect.
Further, I feel that well-intentioned planning restrictions and their equally well-intentioned but over-rigid local interpretations can sometimes inhibit acceptable development, as can the bureaucracy in respect of low-cost rural housing. It is, of course, important to have safeguards, but it is also important to get the balance right.
The housing needs of the nation have been estimated as 4.4 million new homes over the next 20 years. It is almost impossible to envisage that. I describe that more graphically as 27 new Milton Keyneses over the next 20 years. This problem will only be solved by adopting a variety of diverse measures which are generally supported by all parties and both Houses. I am most grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate and to draw attention to the fact that the demand for housing is not in any way matched currently by the availability of sites.
3.53 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, it gives me enormous pleasure genuinely to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, on his maiden speech. I certainly saw the swan parading beautifully before us and could not pick out any paddling underneath. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, has had a successful naval career and then a distinguished career serving many institutions, particularly in Buckinghamshire. We look forward to his serving the country in this House and to hearing many contributions from him in the future. I must admit that I believe he would be entitled, unlike myself, to call the right reverend Prelate "my boy". We hope that over many years he will contribute to our debates.
I also wish to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on his maiden speech, which was also impressive and clearly showed his great experience. Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for introducing this debate. While I still have some time left in which to speak, I wish to ask my noble friend some questions on certain points relating to housing, and in particular to homelessness.

203
First, I wish to refer to direct access places. I understand there are some 18,000 hostel places in London. That figure is higher than it used to be, but there are only some 2,500 direct access hostel places. That figure has halved over the past 10 or 12 years. Even if we take into account those direct access bed spaces that are in the process of becoming available, we need some 500 more direct access places. I appreciate that there are many homeless who are not willing to go into hostels for one reason or another, and therefore hostels are not a complete answer. There is probably no complete answer to the problem of homelessness, but we need to do what we can. I ask my noble friend whether more work is needed in preparing people to move from hostel places, and in particular direct access places, to semi-independent and independent accommodation? However, we need to be able to provide that.
I have the privilege of being chairman of the board of an organisation called the Church Army. In Marylebone we recently opened a hostel for homeless women which has 100 beds. We hope that will make a contribution to solving the problem of homelessness. A small number of those 100 beds are direct access and are available each night for women who come in off the street. We provide a team of people to encourage women to move on from direct access places into more advanced bed spaces and into a bedroom with a shared kitchen and sitting room which we provide in the building. From there, the team encourages women to move into semi-independent flats and into independent accommodation. A great deal of work goes into that. More work needs to be done in London and elsewhere. I congratulate the Government on their rough sleepers initiative, but it is not an answer to the question of homelessness because those who are housed during times of cold weather have to go somewhere after the winter.
Reference has been made to the problem of empty accommodation. That is really a blight on our horizon. However, again this is not an easy matter. We have heard about the budget cuts—and I shall not repeat them—but will they not reduce in practice the boroughs' capacity to bring empty properties into use? We all hate seeing empty accommodation, but substantial expenditure is often required to bring it into use. There is no way around that. It may be cheaper to pull down some empty accommodation and to rebuild. But surely we need to have stronger policies in place regarding rebuilding or renovation. That matter needs to be tackled.
I do not believe my next point has been mentioned yet; namely, shared accommodation. A number of people who are homeless cannot face going into shared accommodation. I ask my noble friend what is the position on security when people go into shared accommodation? They fear both harassment and theft. They fear their few possessions will be "nicked" if they go into shared accommodation with someone they do not know. That is a real anxiety. What can be done to mitigate that fear? Those people often need to work through problems arising not just from their sleeping
204
rough but also from what caused them to sleep rough. They may be able to do that better in solitude than in shared accommodation. I am a quiet, retiring person, and if I had to live with a highly garrulous person for most of the time I should find life very difficult.
One of the problems is that parents often will not admit that they have thrown out their child. They are embarrassed to tell the social services that fact. There is difficulty in obtaining priority accommodation for many of those young people for that reason. We need greater support both for people who share accommodation and for those who are alone. The situation needs more attention from both charities and social services. I believe that we should see that coming in the future.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for initiating the debate which covers a wide range of housing issues and has given rise to two notable maiden speeches. I congratulate both noble Lords.
I should like to say a few words about the private sector, with particular reference to commonhold. It is generally agreed that our whole system of leasehold tenure is flawed and has given rise to problems, abuses and exploitation of tenants by some rogue landlords, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. Efforts to curb those abuses have resulted in various Acts of Parliament, but those have largely done little more than tinker with the problem. Landlords still have considerable power over leaseholders. There have been some disgraceful cases of exploitation by a minority of landlords who levy exorbitant service charges and insist sometimes on unnecessary building work which tenants often dare not challenge for fear of eviction or of having their lease terminated.
The Housing Act 1996 gives the tenant the right to challenge service charges before the leasehold valuation tribunal. However, that costs £500 per application and requires extensive documentation, adding to the costs of the exercise. There have been cases where some lenders have connived with unscrupulous landlords in leasehold blocks to add service charge bills to mortgages to protect their own interest.
The valuation appeal system also is not working well. Appeals against the leasehold valuation tribunal's decisions go to the Lands Tribunal, which seems to be a more landlord oriented body. If the tenant decides to be represented or to represent himself at the Lands Tribunal hearing and the decision goes against him he is often made liable for high landlord's costs as well as his own. Indeed, the Council on Tribunals has told the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, I understand, that although there is nothing in the primary legislation or in the rules of the Lands Tribunal to prevent tenants presenting their own cases, such an action is not considered helpful to the tribunal. Those attitudes do not reflect the present intentions of Parliament. The result is that when David takes on Goliath it is Goliath nowadays who usually wins.

205
All those problems arise from our antiquated, almost feudal, system of land tenure where large urban areas are still owned by the same great estates. We are the only country in the world, except, I believe, Hawaii, to continue this system.
All political parties now recognise that the solution is to move to a commonhold system like other countries. The advantages of commonhold are, first, that it gives genuine title; and, secondly, that it standardises the terms of tenure throughout the country. This is in contrast to existing legislation whereby if residents of a block of flats enfranchise they are still legally in a leasehold situation. Under commonhold each unit owner would have separate title to his or her unit and the common parts would be owned and managed collectively by the commonhold body of which each unit owner would be a part. It would be used largely for blocks of flats but would also involve non-residential and mixed use properties.
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for good reasons, cannot be in his place today. The noble and learned Lord is very keen on commonhold, and for some years his department has been working on it. A draft Bill was made available following a consultation period towards the end of last year. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord's department for letting me have a copy. I understand that the final Bill has had to be dropped because of pressure on the legislative timetable at this stage of this Parliament. I know what a disappointment that must be to the noble and learned Lord. The House would have had a lively Committee stage because, I am sorry to say, the Bill is badly flawed and it has not found favour with the tenants associations or even with the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service which is government funded. The service had the courage and temerity to say that it did not agree with many of the details. The scheme proposed was essentially a voluntary one depending on the agreement of all parties, including the landowner, who would have had a virtual right of veto— which I imagine most would have exercised.
There was also no mechanism for resolving disputes over service charges. The Bill would have given far too wide powers for individual mortgage lenders to intervene in the control of the management of the block. All in all, flat owners would have had fewer rights than those given to leaseholders under the present landlord and tenant legislation.
I hope that Labour will tackle those defects and introduce an acceptable commonhold Bill when the time comes.
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, many noble Lords have spoken about housing conditions. I have knowledge of the illnesses which bad housing conditions cause which should never arise, and the absenteeism from schools which should not occur. People are still living in conditions which cause problems. Many comments have been made on that aspect.
206
Those conditions were brought home to me when I was elected to Birmingham City Council. I represented the areas around the Saltley gas works containing large and small factories. It was an area ripe for development even before the war years. Enemy bombardment caused much demolition. So I know about housing conditions because I used to represent the people in those areas. I got to know them very well. Some people still keep in contact with me now.
Therefore I shall concentrate on Birmingham. I do so because I do not think that it is any "mean city". It is unfortunate that the Government make such derisory comments about it. Birmingham does its best to solve its problems. People forget that Birmingham has the largest ethnic minority population of any city in this country. It includes those from Bangladesh and Jamaica. However, there are problems. Birmingham has a large population with equal claim to the housing provided.
Seventy per cent. of the tenants housed by Birmingham City Council receive state benefits of some kind or other to help them pay their rent; that is 70 per cent, of the 98,000 properties that the council manages—flats, maisonettes, bungalows or whatever. The average weekly rent payable by those tenants is £40. Therefore, given the amount that they receive, they have a very small amount on which to live.
On examination of the budget proposals it was quite obvious that all local authorities had to make a submission. Birmingham's submission documented fully the massive housing problems that face the city— not only the difficulties faced by those who lack adequate accommodation but also massive problems relating to the condition of old housing stock in both the public and private sectors, and the inadequacy of housing supply.
The council put forward its bid, which was thoroughly worked out on the basis of an investment programme for the next 10 years. The need presented to the Government was for £220 million. The council was told that its bid could not be higher than £75 million, and was eventually informed that its allocation would be £28.4 million. It is therefore faced with grave difficulties for the future. We cannot solve them on our own. Nor do the housing associations do very much to help. I know about housing associations; I am a member of one of them. Repossessions presently remain high. One problem is that councils cannot evict people who owe a substantial amount of rent. They would merely become homeless and therefore part of another responsibility.
I wish all political parties would recognise that decent housing helps and influences our citizens to play a fuller part in the communities in which they live. Society cannot become better unless we recognise that certain of our fellow citizens need more help than others.
The Government place the problems of those who are badly housed and of the homeless on the shoulders of the local authority. They provide the local authority with inadequate finance to provide solutions to the problems. We tell the housing associations to build more. They say that they are faced with the same financial restrictions

207
as the local authority. Statistics show that over the past five years the output of social housing has fallen to its lowest level since the Second World War.
I close with a quotation which all Members of the House may remember. It came to my attention in a book given to me at Christmas by my grandson. He gives me a book on government matters every Christmas, but I found this particular quotation very apt. It is from Mr. Harold Macmillan, who, when he became Prime Minister, was MP for Stockton-on-Tees and was a housing Minister in the Conservative Government. He said:
"Housing is not a question of Conservatism or Socialism. It is a question of humanity".
I could not agree more.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, I wish to pursue further the theme of youth homelessness touched on by several speakers, notably the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford.
Homeless young people are, for the most part, invisible. When we do see them, we feel uncomfortable. At our worst we want to punish them for being homeless; at best, we feel guilty. We say that something ought to be done, and then forget about it. Society offers young homeless people nothing except an occasional hand-out. In turn, they give nothing to society. On the contrary, they impose significant extra costs on the NHS, the police and other hard-pressed services.
The recent inquiry into preventing youth homelessness commissioned by nine charities, including the YMCA, Barnardos and NCH Action for Children, defined young homeless people as 16 to 25 year-olds. For some purposes, however, it is better to focus on youngsters aged 17 or under, for most of whom even the meagre statutory benefits safety net has been withdrawn.
Homelessness among young people in modern times is relatively new. Forty years ago, homeless people whom one might meet in Whitechapel were older men (and very occasionally older women) of the traditional vagrant type. Twenty years ago it was much the same. Since then there has been first a gradual and then a rapid rise in the number of young homeless people. They are resentful, bitter and often violent, and they insulate themselves with alcohol and drugs. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, they often come from broken homes and from a background of family and personal unemployment. As he emphasised, and as we should constantly remind ourselves, a high proportion of them left home because of violence or because they were kicked out. They did not choose to be homeless. Exhortations to them to go back home or the withdrawal of benefits in an attempt to force them back are pointless or worse.
The most worrying group of all comprises those who have learnt how to survive on a bit of casual work, a small amount of benefit and some thieving and drug pushing. They have lost interest in permanent housing or work. They are, thank goodness, a tiny minority.
208
Whether they can be salvaged is, sadly, debatable. It is imperative to ensure that their still small numbers are not further swollen.
Any strategy for dealing with youth homelessness must be firmly based on prevention. A debate on housing is not the occasion to explore family support services, although reference has already been made to them. Any housing strategy must start from the fact that family breakdown is the biggest single cause of youth homelessness. It should include better provision to enable low-income families to accommodate and support their children, and should provide support and mediation services to families under stress.
The inquiry into preventing youth homelessness estimated that between 200,000 and 300,000 young people in Britain experienced homelessness in 1995. But that figure hides much more than it reveals in terms of length, which is usually, thank goodness, brief, and in terms of severity. Relatively few of the people about whom I am speaking regularly sleep out. I share the welcome given by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, to the rough sleepers initiative, which has been very helpful, at least in London, but nobody claims that that in itself will eliminate homelessness among young people.
I am mainly concerned with getting youngsters out of unsatisfactory hostels, bed and breakfasts and doss houses and off the floors of reluctant friends. What they need is a place of their own, however meagre, which offers them some chance to learn independent living and responsibility for themselves. In some cases—I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich—sharing is not the answer; but particularly for those who have come out of shared care in local authorities, living alone can be formidably difficult and for them sharing is probably the answer.
Next month NCH Action for Children, in which I declare an interest, will launch a sustained national initiative on youth homelessness. It is putting up £3.5 million out of its own reserves and is looking for partnership funding from statutory and voluntary sources because, while government must take the lead in confronting and solving this problem, a concerted effort is necessary. It involves much more than putting roofs over youngsters' heads. I pick out three components which are particularly relevant to housing strategy as such.
First, tackling youth homelessness must be identified as a distinct but integral part of a national policy, so well described by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. To that end, national projections of future housing needs must include a realistic assessment of the needs of young people who have no choice but to live independently; and the gradual release of local authority capital receipts should be conditional upon allocating a defined proportion to housing young single homeless people.
Second, we need a better local response to housing homeless young people. Local authorities should be under a statutory duty to make and publish estimates of numbers in their areas, to identify 17 and 18 year-olds as a priority group and to fulfil their duties under the Children Act on pain of being penalised for failure.

209
Third and last, when young people are settling in they need help both financially and to develop personal discipline. The best way to do that is through work, training and education to help them break out of the "no homes, no jobs" vicious circle. Foyers are increasingly recognised as one effective way out of the trap and the 40 or so which have been set up so far have shown that almost half their residents have been able to find jobs, most of them full time.
Homelessness among young people is a major scandal of our time and a major scandal of our society. We should be thoroughly ashamed and ashamed to the point of making up our mind to end it.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, introduced this debate, he said that he was offering your Lordships a wide agenda. I propose to take advantage of that and concentrate on the subject of heating standards in homes. I do so particularly because last November the Department of the Environment issued a major report on the subject, based on the findings of the 1991 housing condition survey in England. These things take a long time. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of information, some of it very worrying, contained in that report.
As your Lordships will be aware, homes are important energy users and account for something like 30 per cent. of the total energy consumed in this country. I may become a little confused when I refer to "country" and to England because, unfortunately, the housing survey refers only to England. Sometimes I shall refer to the UK and sometimes to England and I hope your Lordships will forgive any possible confusion.
On general environmental grounds, if no others— because houses emit considerable amounts of carbon into the atmosphere—there should be considerable efforts made to improve heating standards. But other major reasons emerge from the report to which I refer. On page 239, it states that in spite of the attention to the subject in recent years, there is still:
considerable scope for improvement in the energy efficiency and thermal performance of the housing stock".
The phenomenon of cold homes is particularly concentrated at the lower end of the social scale, especially among those who are most vulnerable, such as pensioners living on their own.
In that respect, I regret to say that standards of housing and particularly heating in British homes are worse than in other European countries. There are some 20,000 excess winter deaths in Britain each year. That is double the level elsewhere in the European Union. Indeed, in countries like Denmark, where building and heating standards are particularly high, there are virtually no excess winter deaths. Undoubtedly, therefore, a large proportion of the winter deaths are due to poor living conditions and particularly to lack of adequate heating and damp homes.
The report gives a telling illustration of the poor heating conditions in many British homes. Despite the relatively mild winter in 1991–92, a large proportion of
210
homes were cold and only 25 per cent. met standard temperature regimes. Some 30 per cent. fell below even the minimum regime. To live in conditions below that is a serious hazard to health, as the report emphasises. Goodness knows what conditions were like in those homes during the recent cold spell.
The Government have recommended a standard assessment procedure (SAP) for calculating the energy efficiency of a home. Under that system there is a rating of up to 100 with the highest figures representing the best heating standards. I believe that this is an excellent system for determining levels of heating in individual homes. Indeed, I have introduced a Private Member's Bill, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, is involved, in order to try to extend the application of the system.
Under current building regulations newly-built homes have to achieve a rating of at least 60. Indeed, most of them are now in the area of 70 or even 80. So we can be satisfied that new homes are being built to a high efficiency standard so far as concerns heating. However, the report stresses that the average rating of existing— not new—homes is of the order of 35; namely, about half that of newly-built homes. But within the average, there are variations down to 10 or less and up to 50 or more.
In my opinion, the most disturbing part of the report is the finding that there are 3 million homes with a rating of 20. That means a level of energy rating which, as the report says, is far below the standard for acceptable heating. In the most vulnerable sector of all—pensioners living on their own—the rating is often 10 or less. According to Oxford University's Environmental Change Unit, which is specifically studying this question:
"We are here talking about badly maintained older houses with thin solid walls, draughty doors and windows, open chimneys, no insulation and a tiny electric fire for heating. This simply does not provide adequate shelter from the elements".
What can be done about this extremely disturbing state of affairs? On page 8, in paragraph 156, the report contains a proposal. It states that almost all the work required on dwellings with SAP ratings below 20 can be financially justified in that they have a simple pay-back period of less than 10 years. It estimates that for a capital cost of just over £5 billion there could be a notional saving in annual heating expenditure of more than £1.2 billion. That is indeed a pay-back of less than 10 years. But it is not just a question of pay-back. We are talking about raising standards of comfort and improving people's health. Those are the main issues at stake.
It is a worrying thought that at a time when more needs to be spent on the 3 million homes in England with totally inadequate heating standards—presumably there are similar homes in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but the position in England is all we have information on—the funding of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) should have been cut by one-third. This is a matter I have referred to in previous debates. I declare an interest in that I am connected with an organisation—the NEA—which is involved in that scheme. The scheme exists for the very purpose

211
identified as needing attention in this important report. If we want to help the vulnerable people affected by poor heating conditions in their homes we need to increase the HEES expenditure, not reduce it.
4.31 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for initiating this important debate today. It is a little over a month since we in this House discussed the role of the family. On that occasion an enormous variety of views were expressed about the current state of family life but I believe that all sides of the House agreed about the importance of the family as a cornerstone of life in this country.
The needs of families vary enormously— economically, socially and culturally—but the one thing we can all agree on is that all families need a decent home. That is particularly true for families with children. A home is somewhere for the family to be secure, a place that provides the warmth, the safety and the basic shelter for the nurturing of children and young people and the care of the elderly. Indeed, the Central Statistical Office, in its 1996 edition of Social Trends, says:
"The need for housing is an essential part of everyone's life".
Of course, the forms of home vary enormously and the pattern of housing has changed over the past generation. We all know that for many families the housing position has improved. Owner occupation has increased and housing standards have improved. But there is a growing population of families who have little chance to break out of the cycle of desperation and deprivation in terms of their housing, their health and the welfare of their children.
In 1993–94, according to the Office for National Statistics, a third of new local authority tenants in the UK had been accepted as homeless compared with over one-fifth only six years before. In 1994, over 135,000 households who were found accommodation were in priority need as defined by Part III of the Housing Act 1985. Of those, over 70 per cent. were households comprising either dependent children under 12 or an expectant mother.
The Government's own projections indicate that in the 25 years between 1991 and 2016 there will be need for 4.4 million more homes in England. That is almost 1 million more than the 3.5 million additional households on which current government plans are based; and all that is in addition to the unmet need of nearly half a million homes that was identified in 1991. Moreover, the Department of the Environment acknowledges in Our Future Homes, published in 1995, that,
"government household projections have, for at least 10 years, consistently underestimated the number of new households actually formed".
The estimates of the country's housing needs vary. The Government themselves have a varying figure of between 60,000 and 100,000 social lettings each year up to the year 2001. Rowntree calculates that 90,000 social
212
lettings a year will be needed and Shelter calculates between 85,000 and 90,000. The Institute of Housing comes in with a higher figure of 120,000 social lettings. Of course there will be argument around the figures, but let us take the most modest predictions. The Government's own lower figure, published by the Department of the Environment last year, assumes that the number of additional social lettings will fall short of the Government's lower target and estimate of need of 60,000 by 17,000 a year from 1988–89 onwards. As the need grows, so the Government continue to cut, so that at a time when 120,000 families were accepted as homeless by local authorities in the most recent statistics, the 1996 Budget cut more than £500 million off budgets which had already been slashed in 1995.
My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has discussed the impact of the Budget housing cuts. I believe that the House's overwhelming concern will be with the impact of these cuts on low income families which children. The Prime Minister has spoken of his commitment to families, a commitment which I believe most of us share. But how is that commitment made real when we consider the attitudes of key Cabinet Ministers and how they have changed? In 1988 the late Nicholas Ridley announced reforms in the private rented sector but was adamant that,
"deregulation would not price people on low incomes out of the market".
By 1995, a mere seven years later, Peter Lilley's attitude was very different. He said:
Although a rent may be appropriate for a particular property, it is not necessarily reasonable for housing benefit to meet the rent in full".
If housing benefit does not pay the rent of the poorest and most vulnerable families, where does the money come from? Does it come from their food budget or from the money for warm winter clothing for children? Poverty is cruel enough when it is recognised, but it is crueller still when it is not. But perhaps the cruellest thing of all is homelessness.
Homelessness splits families. Shelter reports that its advice centres see at least 1,000 split families per year. It believes that that is only the tip of the iceberg. Low incomes mean that many families simply cannot afford to buy or rent good quality accommodation. Families with children in care get caught in an almost intractable spiral of difficulty. Without a home they cannot get their children out of care. Until their children return to the family, the family cannot secure housing.
We all need homes. I expect the overwhelming majority of us were brought up well sheltered, adequately nourished, mostly warm, but above all secure in our homes. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of us have been fortunate enough to house our own families in secure homes. Without secure homes, stress in families increases, health deteriorates and education suffers. There is marriage breakdown. Children lose the stability of their family lives. The temptation of truancy is replaced by the temptation of drug abuse, prostitution and petty crime.
When we discussed the family some five weeks ago, the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, suggested that families work best when they are

213
independent and self-sufficient. Many of us would agree with that. But to be independent and self-sufficient, families, particularly those on low incomes, need affordable housing. To achieve that I believe we must see an end to the embargo which the Government have placed on the ability of local authorities to act as housing providers. We need to deploy the skills and commitment of both local authorities and housing associations. We need to release the set aside capital receipts which local authorities are currently prevented from reinvesting and to explore new ways of raising private finance for investment in public and private housing partnerships.
Over 120,000 families have little hope of experiencing any so-called "feel good factor" if they remain caught in the vicious circle of homelessness. Without a change in government policies on housing they will remain largely forgotten, hidden away in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, insecure, unstable, stressed and distressed. Many believe that the Government have turned their face from them by cuts year on year, by their dogmatic and illogical constraints on local authorities, and by their increasingly uncompromising attitude to social housing.
There are those who argue that housing is not really a government or a social responsibility and provided that there is a nominal safety net of a roof over the heads of those in greatest difficulty the market will take care of the rest. But the roof of the bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not a home; it is not security, and it is not safety. Families need more. Government and society must shoulder and share those responsibilities and the responsibility to sustain young families and their future through the adequate provision of social housing. That would at least give reality to the commitment, which, I am sure, is sincerely meant, to support families and their future.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I must add my voice to those who have already expressed our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing this debate. Like so many of your Lordships' debates, I believe that it will be a landmark debate and one that will repay reading by anyone interested in housing in the coming weeks and months.
What are we faced with? We are faced with a situation where there is homelessness, disrepair of the housing stock, uncertainty and a lack of security. We are also asked to consider the housing situation vis-à-vis the recent Budget, which effectively reduced Government support for social housing. It is part of a pattern because Government support has also been reduced for housebuilding in other areas. Support has also been reduced for house maintenance and renovation. It is a pattern of free market dogma being implemented with total disregard for the real needs of the people of this country. Effectively, we are seeing the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. That process has got to stop.
When I thought about how I should contribute to this debate, it struck me that one of the significant things was to look at the housing situation and the way in
214
which it has been approached by politicians over the past half century. I am coming up to my 50th birthday and I thought that it would be quite relevant for me to make a review of that period.
We need to recognise that the subject falls into two distinct periods. There was the period of 30 years after the war when there was a consensus across the political spectrum that the object of political policy was to ensure decent homes for the people of this country. It is interesting to reflect that during that 30-year period of political consensus there were 17 years under Tory governments; only 13 years were under Labour governments. That consensus broke apart in the mid-1970s and for the past 20 years we have had a lack of consensus on the need for housing and improving the housing stock and provision for the people.
To rebuild that consensus, which we have to do, will involve two fundamental aspects. First, we must ensure that we have a well-built housing stock in good repair. Secondly, we should ensure that the housing stock is fairly distributed. In developing that essential consensus we should also recognise that it will help to tackle the other major problem of unemployment. Let us link those two elements and agree that as long as anyone living in this nation is without adequate housing and unemployed, it shall be the object of political endeavour by everyone involved in politics to ensure that we, the people, invest in housing, match needs with resources and ensure that the scourge of bad housing is eradicated from this land.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Currie of Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice to those of previous speakers who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel on initiating this debate on the housing needs of the nation. As he rightly argued, this is an area of policy that has been sorely neglected by this Government. There are many noble Lords who can speak more authoritatively than I on housing policy in detail and its social impact. Therefore, I thought it appropriate to place housing and housing policy in the context of the broader economy.
The last boom and bust of the British economy has made it plain to all, if they did not know already, that the housing market in the UK is particularly vulnerable to the overall state of the economy. With one of the highest levels of owner occupation in the OECD, financed by very high levels of floating rate mortgages, the UK housing market is unusually sensitive to the twists and turns of the economic cycle. Moreover, to make matters worse, the UK has been among the most volatile of the major OECD countries over the past two decades. Without making it a party political point, any impartial observer will conclude that this volatility has been especially manifest with Conservative governments.
At the same time, the housing market itself has had a major impact on the performance of the economy. For most people, their house is their major asset and its value affects fundamentally how wealthy they feel. That in turn affects how much they spend.

215
In many respects, therefore, the British housing market contributes to what amounts to a kind of long-sought-after perpetual motion machine. But it is one of rather diabolical design in that instead of driving us forward, it condemns us to a perpetual drunken motion round and round and without progress.
A recent report from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation analysed with great succinctness the problem of the British housing sector. The number of new homes produced each year has fallen by half since the late 1960s. The private sector is failing to substitute for the cutbacks in social housing. Public sector housebuilding used to play a stabilising role and now that has gone. New housing shortages in turn have intensified the owner-occupied market's boom-bust cycle. The UK has a more volatile housebuilding cycle than other countries and invests far less in housing. In turn, the uncertainty and volatility faced by builders reduces the number of homes that they can build and their ability to innovate and reduce cost. So the housing investment cycle damages the UK economic performance by exacerbating the overall macro-economic cycle. The bottom line of that is that it is a fair bet that growing housing shortages will spark off another bout of house price inflation over the next five years or so unless we do something about it.
It is important to make the point that there is nothing inevitable about this. We do not have to run our housing market in a way that makes it so vulnerable to interest rate fluctuation. It is inefficient, inequitable and absurd that we should do so. If we look to continental countries, and particularly to the German market, we see housing financed on a much more long-term basis with a much higher proportion of fixed-rate mortgages. I am surprised that the building societies and mortgage lenders do not do more to promote the take-up of fixed-rate mortgages. Most of the packages available to new buyers in the housing market that offer inducements, such as cash-backs, interest rate discounts and the like, are focused on the floating rate segment of the market.
Perhaps the problem lies in the overall conduct of our macro-economic policy over the past 20 years. At the longer end of the market, long-term interest rates incorporate a 1.5 per cent. premium to reflect the concerns in international financial markets that this Government's inflation performance will not endure. That represents one of the key barriers to moving to a more rational and long-term system of funding our housing.
As has already been said, we need a strong and vital rental market. Indeed, we have over-emphasised owner occupation to the detriment of the overall economy. The lack of a flourishing rental market makes it hard for people to move quickly and easily. That reduces the mobility of labour and imposes a wider cost on the efficiency of the economy as a whole.
However, a more vigorous private rental market will not diminish the need for substantial investment in social housing to provide adequate low-cost housing for the more disadvantaged parts of society. It is in that area that government policy has been so inadequate. The
216
slashing of expenditure on, and investment in, social housing has been savage, and the consequences will be very severe indeed.
We all know that in a tough expenditure round the Treasury looks to capital expenditure because that is much easier to cut than current expenditure, but this is social short-termism gone mad. The cuts will add to the social problems that we already have, such as homelessness, inadequate housing, poor health and education, and increased crime. Current policy is sadly condemning millions of people to live in a ghetto of inadequate and deteriorating homes and we shall reap the social consequences well into the future.
However, the effects of those cuts are also felt more widely. The construction industry is an important sector of our economy in its own right, accounting for some 5 per cent. of gross domestic product and a rather higher percentage of total employment. The construction industry is currently in the doldrums. It has ample capacity to expand without inflationary pressures and, if it did expand, that would provide a considerable increase in the number of much-needed manual jobs. Each £100 million invested in housing creates some 3,000 jobs in construction and another 1,700 in other sectors. The cut over the past four years in the capital budget of the Housing Corporation alone will cost some 50,000 jobs in construction and about half that number elsewhere.
I said at the outset that this Government have a record of mismanagement through instability of the overall housing market and of woeful neglect of social housing. It is regrettable that the consequences will be felt for decades. I therefore echo the sombre warning in the notable maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Hanworth that it will take 20 or 30 years or more to reverse the failures of the past two decades, but we must do that for the health of our nation.
4.54 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, at this stage of the debate the Government should be in no doubt about the suffering caused by their housing policies, exacerbated by the cuts in the Budget. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, in an outstanding speech, and a number of my noble friends have revealed in detail how very severely affected very large numbers of people are by the failures of the Government's housing policies.
I am glad that it is the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who is to reply to the debate. I regard the noble Earl as the Government's best Minister, so we are expecting a constructive reply when he comes to respond to the various speeches made from this side of the House. I am sure that the noble Earl has noted the imbalance of speakers on the two sides of the House on this crucial social question. I believe that there are one or two noble Lords sitting behind the noble Earl, but I need my binoculars to see them. That is certainly not the case on this side of the House. The subject is important because so many people are severely affected by the Government's housing policies, including the poor, the young, the old, and those with no jobs and no prospects.

217
I should like to concentrate on one group which has been particularly badly hit by the Government's housing policies. I refer to those who are disabled. Fewer than 30,000 new homes are to be built by the housing associations next year because of the £400 million cut in the programme. As my noble friend Lord Williams said—the point was also made by my noble friend Lady Symons in what was for me the most striking Back Bench speech of this debate—the Department of the Environment estimates that between 60,000 and 100,000 new homes for rent should be provided each year. Therefore, according to the Government's own definition, they are failing to provide the number of houses required.
However, the need for new housing that is accessible to disabled people is much higher than that. The National Wheelchair Housing Associations' Group estimates a staggering shortfall of over 300,000 in wheelchair-accessible units. That figure gives some measure of the need of disabled people for accessible housing. Because the housing associations are the major providers of new accessible homes for disabled people, the reduction in the number of new homes they are able to build has hit disabled people very severely. They have been left to grapple with horrendous problems in unsatisfactory accommodation, thus adding the insult of inability to the injury of disability.
Disabled people who are denied appropriate housing association accommodation will be forced to seek adaptions of the rooms in which they live but the pressure on local authorities to make such adaptions will be enormous, and we all know that their resources are far too tight. Many people will seek such adaptions in vain. Many disabled people really do face a housing crisis.
I turn for a moment to the Government's decision to limit the amount of housing benefit. The point has already been raised by my noble friends. The payment of housing benefit for single people under the age of 60 in private rented accommodation is to be limited to the average cost of shared accommodation. Again, that will severely damage disabled people. People who become disabled often lose their jobs or have a reduced income and are likely to need housing benefit. Under the new regulations, however, single people will either have to make up the shortfall themselves or move to shared accommodation. For disabled people in poverty, making up that shortfall will be the equivalent of walking up a mountain—in other words, it will be out of the question for them. They will be forced into shared accommodation. The consequences can be serious. I ask your Lordships to imagine a blind or partially sighted person having to walk around a place where furniture or possessions are moved without notice or the plight of a deaf person who relies upon sign language but who has to share with someone who does not have the foggiest idea about sign language. Visualise, too, someone in a wheelchair who has to adapt to difficult accommodation and share with another who may be indifferent or downright hostile. That is an intolerable imposition on disabled people.
218
The Government should withdraw the proposals. However, if they insist dogmatically in pushing them through the least they can do today—I look to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for a constructive response—is to exempt disabled people. That is the simple answer for them.
My final point concerns the proposals of the Department of the Environment to extend part M of the building regulations to new residential dwellings. These are reasonable provisions. I emphasise the word "reasonable". The proposals were put forward on 12th January 1995, two years and three days ago. They were constructive proposals that would have benefited disabled people. They have not yet been implemented. This is either bureaucracy or incompetence of mind-boggling proportions. There is a sting in the tail of the story. The situation is even worse than I have just outlined. The Minister in another place, Mr. James Clappison, said in a letter that the Government had put in train a short study on the costings to be carried out jointly with the House Builders Federation early in the New Year. Fancy that! A study with the one organisation opposed to these constructive proposals! That is bound to raise suspicions that the Government are looking for an excuse to drop the proposals. Thank goodness that instead of the Government dropping the proposals the electorate will be dropping the Government within the next four months.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, there appears to be no doubt about the need for a large amount of new housing, even though there may be an argument as to what that figure is within a few thousand. The debate takes place against the background of the White Paper Household Growth: Where Shall We Live? My noble friend referred to it as a Green Paper, but I believe that it is a White Paper, although we will not argue about its colour. The White Paper suggests that 4.4 million new units of housing must be provided by the year 2016. I believe that we must seriously consider not only what the houses should be like but where they go. The Council for the Protection of Rural England points out that new housing development is responsible for the loss of more countryside each year than any other form of built development. Because of population increases and changes in the way we live it appears that a vast increase in housing is unavoidable.
The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, in his interesting maiden speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the need to choose sites. Very little else has been said about it. I would like to focus my attention on where these units should go and how we can lessen the environmental impact of new developments. We can hope for changes in life patterns—less divorce, fewer one parent families and so on—but in a free society we cannot legislate for them. If we are to honour our commitment to sustainable development, to which I believe we all feel committed, and protect what remains of our countryside we have no alternative but to plan for this increase. I am aware that the Government dislike the concept of planning, but in the

219
White Paper there is an acceptance that in this situation only effective planning will provide a real solution to the problem.
The present Secretary of State for the Environment recognises that at least there must be a coherent approach to land use. How odd it is, therefore, to read Circular 3/96 dated 3rd April 1996, which is headed "Withdrawal of requirement upon local authorities to compile and publish information about unused and underused land". This circular removes the obligation on local authorities even to maintain registers of such land in their ownership, although they are required to obtain the best price when they sell it. It is difficult to understand how they are supposed to sell their unused land for the best price if they do not know what they have. The same deregulation is offered to Crown properties and government departments. To add to the absurdity of the situation, one learns in paragraph 4.9 of the White Paper that the Government acknowledge the importance of having the facts about land holdings. They state:
"An important step is to improve our knowledge of how much land is available or potentially available for recycling. To do this we have commissioned research on how to improve our land use information base."
In other words, more time and money is to be spent on collecting information which was previously available within existing budgets. Local authorities are no longer required to publish the details of their holdings even when they have them. Since all of the land covered by the circular is by definition in public ownership it is astonishing that the public is, by government decree, deprived of the right to know about it. Perhaps the Minister can explain the thinking behind this rather odd regulation.
The Secretary of State expresses the hope that 50 or 60 per cent, of the new housing need can be met by using brown field sites; that is, land that has been used previously for something else. Surely, this will require firm direction on commercial and industrial development as well as housing. For example, it may well be found expedient to direct industry to contaminated sites so that residential development can take place on land that has been used but is not quite so contaminated. Of course, the principle of the polluter pays should be applied where practicable to meet the cost of cleaning up the land. But here action would be made more difficult by the Government's inexplicable decision to stop the completion of the national survey of contaminated land which was proceeding a few years ago. I have been unable to discover the thinking behind this decision. Perhaps the Minister can provide an answer to that question. Will the newly commissioned research include contaminated land? Will it also include land holdings of the privatised utilities? Some of these holdings are considerable. There is anecdotal evidence, which comes from a fairly good source, that British Gas alone could release enough recycled land to make a sizeable impact on the overall need.
The White Paper provides a comprehensive survey of options for development. I welcome the invitation to members of the public to put forward their views. There
220
is no single solution to the problem, but there are numerous ways in which progress can be made, for example by encouraging smaller families to move to smaller premises. The best way to achieve this is to ensure that smaller houses cost less to occupy. That may require, among other things, a look at how council tax bands are applied.
I offer an illustration from my own experience. I know of a family that moved from a large house to one approximately one third of the size in the hope that on retirement the cost of living in that house would be reduced, only to find that because that house was also in a pleasant area the same council tax band applied. That seems to be entirely unreasonable, and certainly is not an incentive to retired couples to move when their families are smaller. If size were a determining factor in charges there would be a strong incentive for people in that situation to move as family size decreased.
I welcome the assurance that green belts will continue to be protected, although having heard about Manchester this morning I am a little worried about it. They have suffered too much incursion in recent years, and the nibbling away of open spaces must be discouraged. Once people are housed in suitable housing the very next thing that they look to is the care of their environment.
I thank my noble friend for introducing this debate. Housing the population is one of the great challenges of the next decade, and it will need to be tackled with vigour and imagination. Planning for that scale of new housing must begin with a revision of PPG.3, which is the housing planning guidance. The new guidance needs to be based upon an up-to-date assessment of needs, including the need for affordable housing, about which many of my noble friends have spoken. This is an important debate. I hope that the Government will take on board some of the points that have been made and will answer some of the questions.
5.10 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the debate brings together a variety of views and underlines the need for the Government to continue to ensure that we have a range of choice and quality of housing, whether rented or privately owned.
I should like to cover both aspects. I shall start with the private housing sector. The private housing market has been depressed, but is once again on a firm upward trend. The Halifax Building Society report stated that house prices in November 1996 were 7.2 per cent. higher than at the same time the previous year. What we need to see is a sustainable rate of increase, without a return to the 1980s boom period. Confidence in the housing market is returning. We often now see in the streets the "sold" signs which confirm that move.
First time buyers are being wooed by building societies and many special offers are being promoted. Low interest rates and a variety of housing from which to choose their first home are open to first time buyers. Their first purchases have added to a move in many housing chains. Private starts rose 18 per cent. between August and October 1996, compared to the three

221
previous months, and rose overall by 28 per cent. on the same period in 1995. That is a welcome move reflecting an increasing confidence in home ownership and an opportunity for more people to become home owners. Mortgage rates are now at their lowest level for 30 years. A monthly payment on a mortgage of £33,000 is now £170 lower than when interest rates peaked in 1990.
Not everyone wishes or is able to take on the prospect of owning their own homes. The Government must continue to encourage choice and quality in the rented sector. Housing associations have a valuable role to play; the £2.5 billion allocated to them over the next three years will help to secure an additional £1.8 billion in private sector finance. Those funds, together with the support of other programmes, will deliver about 600,000 new lettings.
Voluntary organisations, too, have an important part to play in the prevention and relief of homelessness. The £7.8 million which has been made available to them by the Government will enable them to develop practical projects to assist single homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless. That is a welcome move.
Earlier speakers referred to the position of families and the breakdown of families. While providing for people's housing needs is a priority, we must appreciate that some people choose to live in a different way. That is not something which many of us in this House can understand. This year, for the second time, my brother worked with Crisis in London over the Christmas period. Those noble Lords who know about Crisis will be aware that it has centres to which homeless people can go. They provide not merely food and warmth but a variety of care and advice. But some people who live rough chose not to go to those centres, and so food and help was taken to them. While we sympathise and would like to see all of our homeless people given homes, we must appreciate that some people choose to live in a slightly different fashion.
I welcome the Government's rough sleepers' initiative which offers advice and support to many, especially here in London. I understand that it is being taken to cities outside London. The result of that work has been a reduction in the number of people sleeping rough from 1,000 to about 300.
Local authorities too, have their part to play in ensuring that there is enough rented accommodation. I am disappointed that we still see a great many rent arrears and houses that are not fully used. My own area of Charnwood reflects that. It is not a satisfactory situation and it is one to which thought needs to be given. Whatever else happens, the Government must continue to work towards providing choice within the privately owned and rented sector. There are many people who a generation ago would always have considered that they would stay within the rented sector and who are now looking to become first time buyers. By providing choice and affordable housing we shall be able to make a start on that.
222
I congratulate the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches. It is just a month ago since I made mine. I well remember what a fearful experience it was. I welcome the comments that have been made this afternoon: home, the environment, the family, and housing are of the greatest importance to us all. As I said, it is our government's intention to continue to provide a variety of choice for people. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams, for making this debate possible.
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate about housing so ably introduced by my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel. I, too, should like to congratulate the two noble Lords who made their maiden speeches on their interesting and challenging remarks. For most people the most important things in life are a home and a job. For many, the increased insecurity which now seems to be a feature of life is putting both at risk. I should like to concentrate on a particular aspect of what I believe to be a housing crisis. My noble friend Lord Williams repeatedly referred to a "crisis", and I believe that there is a crisis in this area.
I should like to mention in particular the plight of the single homeless. Other noble Lords have dealt with the subject to some extent, but I should like to make a few more comments about the subject. Of course Christmas is a time when the issue receives some media attention, largely through the worthwhile efforts of a number of charities which endeavour to ensure that such unfortunate people at least have some shelter and a hot meal at a time when large numbers of us are eating and probably drinking far too much. But for the rest of the time it is almost as though we have come to accept as inevitable the presence on our streets of people who clearly have nowhere else to go and whose only means of living seems to be begging.
I can recall when I first took holidays abroad way back in the 1960s, feeling somewhat superior when I saw beggars on the streets in other countries. We did not then have numbers of beggars on our streets, and jobs of some kind were available to anyone who wanted work. The past 20 years have seen a widening of the gap between the very well off and the poor, with people falling into what has become an underclass.
I do not accept the view put about by certain sections of the media that people make a good living from begging and choose to do that as a way of life. I do give to beggars, although I respect the views of those who do not. I just do not believe that anyone would choose to live like that—sleeping rough, unprotected, in often mercilessly cold weather—if there were alternatives available. I have never yet been subjected to what is known as aggressive begging.
We have to ask how that has come about and what can be done about it. One of the problems in London, according to the excellent report by Single Homelessness in London, is the lack of affordable permanent housing, which has become increasingly evident since the 1980s. What goes for London applies also in a number of other large cities.

223
There has also been a growth in single person households, coupled with a sharp reduction in the development of new council housing. This has inevitably led to a severe shortage of accommodation for poorer people. The Government clearly believe that the private sector should be providing low cost accommodation, but in London private sector rents are extremely high.
There have been some useful initiatives. Reference has already been made to the rough sleepers' initiative and to others such as private sector leasing (PSL) which, according to the SHiL Report, has provided some temporary solutions, reducing local authorities' dependence upon bed-and-breakfast hotels and offering an alternative to hostel accommodation. Nevertheless, the report claims that shortage of affordable permanent housing has become more acute and the need for a major new building programme has become all the more pressing. Unfortunately, the Government's philosophy, which appears to be "public bad; private good" with a focus on private sector provision, cannot meet the need for affordable housing for very low income groups.
Other pieces of government legislation have also had a negative effect. The Social Fund, which was set up under the provisions of the Social Security Act, has replaced emergency grant payments for basic household items with a loans system and a restricted budget for grant awards. Agencies working to meet the resettlement needs of homeless single people are critical of these arrangements, saying that they delay the resettlement of hostel residents.
The community care Act has given to local authorities the responsibility for allocating limited resources on the basis of competing community care needs. This has caused particular problems for drug and alcohol projects and mental health schemes, particularly those catering for single homeless people who may not be considered a priority by cash-strapped local authorities. One of the most striking changes since 1986 has been the increase in the number of young single homeless people. Other noble Lords have dealt with that problem and many of the reasons for it.
Measures introduced by the Social Security Act, which removed entitlement to income support for 16 and 17 year-olds and reduced the level of benefits for claimants under the age of 25, have been widely blamed for precipitating this problem. As we know, family breakdown has also played a part in increasing the number of young homeless people.
The Government still seem to believe that most 16 to 18 year-olds should be living at home with their parents—and that despite the evidence of family breakdown to which a number of noble Lords have referred and the fact that, as we know, unfortunately, not all homes provide a safe environment for young children and adolescents.
We have seen attempts in recent years to provide better and safer hostel accommodation, but there have been stories about the abuse of young people in such places. Unfortunately, many prefer to take their chances
224
on the streets. Homes for Homeless People, an organisation of which I am a patron, believes that the provision of more short stay hostel places is very important. It states:
"There is a strong case for improving the current hostel provisions for certain categories of homeless people such as women, young people and the mentally ill".
It also believes that the Government's attitude to local authorities has seriously damaged their capacity to meet housing needs. Specifically, it believes that a duty should be placed on each local authority to secure accommodation for homeless 16 to 18 year-olds and to give them a right to hold a tenancy. Of course, it is absolutely necessary that empty property should be brought into use. But, even so, it has been estimated that there is a shortfall of some 100,000 homes. In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that local authorities should see as their first priority the need to house families with children. In such circumstances, the single homeless are liable to slip through the welfare net and land up on the streets.
It is hardly surprising that some of the more embittered among the younger people should seek to make a living by turning to street crime and that, sadly, many young women left alone and friendless in London turn to prostitution as a way of making some kind of living. It is clearly in all our interests that steps are urgently taken to deal with this situation. Some of the possible solutions have been raised by a number of noble Lords during the debate and I hope to hear from the Government what they intend to do about it.
5.25 p.m.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for his gracious and generous recognition of the need to have two plurals in the title of the debate. My comments will be focused largely on Scotland, although I am the first to recognise that many of the problems and issues are shared on a UK basis. Nevertheless, there is a recognition that there are significant differences in history and in the details of policy in housing between England and Scotland. Today, in particular in Scotland, we take inspiration from the work of that great housing reformer John Wheatley, who laid down the basis for strong public-sector housing provision in this country. Wheatley had a vision of people decently housed. Today that vision is at the mercy of myopic policies which have led to an increase in homelessness and a deterioration in the quality of our housing stock. The Wheatley legacy is at risk.
The scale of the Government's failure is powerfully conveyed by the stark statistics. We have heard many of them today. In 1986 the number of households applying as homeless in Scotland was just over 25,000. In the current year it is 41,000, which represents about 75,000 individuals. That is an increase of about 63 per cent. In 1981, 137,000 households were on local authority waiting lists. Today the figure is 195,000. Those figures demonstrate a failure of the Government's policy—or, rather, a lack of housing policy—in Scotland.

225
Mention has been made of the private sector, particularly the recovery in the private sector. Yes, my Lords, there are signs that a recovery is under way, but what a mess the Government created in the first place! The mess in the private sector was created by gross government incompetence of economic management. A little humility would be in order in the context of this debate.
Throughout the years we have seen a major change in the tenure structure of Scottish housing. I am in favour of tenure choice and tenure diversity. I recognise the contribution made by the housing association movement. The strength of the housing associations has traditionally been their responsiveness to specific local circumstances and their ability to focus on the needs of non-conventional applicants. But I have a concern that with the relatively sudden growth of the housing association sector some housing associations have become too big. They are in danger of becoming remote and of losing the closeness with their tenants which has so often been their strength.
We must recognise that some local authorities must learn a lesson from being too remote and not being responsive to their tenants. It would be a great tragedy if the housing associations had to go through that learning process, too. I look forward to a continuing contribution from the housing association movement but I believe that there are some causes for concern.
As the Minister will be aware, policy towards the use of capital receipts has been rather different in Scotland from that which applies in England. Until the current year, expected capital receipts have been taken into account when setting the capital allocation of individual authorities. For most authorities, capital receipts came to constitute their effective capital allocation.
This year the system was changed: 25 per cent. of capital receipts are now required to be allocated to debt repayment. That was bad enough but earlier this year the Minister, Mr. Raymond Robertson, announced that next year the proportion of capital receipts lost to debt repayment is to increase to 75 per cent. For local authorities in Scotland, that means that the amount available from capital receipts has been reduced from what would have been, on this year's basis, a potential £170 million to £57 million. The effect has been devastating. It has simply brought to an end for many local authorities even the minimal new build programmes which they have been able to preserve.
In my own city of Aberdeen, with 1,800 households seeking sheltered accommodation, the local authority had been able to maintain an albeit small new build sheltered housing programme. That has been brought to a halt. It has been ended by the decisions of the Government.
But that is not all. Window replacement, rewiring, central heating programmes—all essential for the proper modernisation and repair of the stock—have been severely curtailed. The effect of the policy will be a reduction of access for those vulnerable people in need of sheltered housing and a deterioration in the quality of the general housing stock.
226
Of course, that was not the way that Mr. Robertson, who represents South Aberdeen, explained the matter to CoSLA or to the press. He explained that it was a policy based on pure altruism, devised to reduce the debt burden falling on the poor tenant. The idea of the present Government riding to the rescue of the hard-pressed local authority tenant really takes the biscuit. The record in Scotland is that since 1979, average local authority rents have increased by 482.9 per cent. It is nice to know that the Government are now concerned about the rent levels in Scottish local authorities.
Of course, the Minister let the cat out of the bag a little later when he stated to the press that the problem would be solved overnight if local authorities simply disposed of their housing stock. There is a wonderful logicality to that: you solve your problems of maintaining and managing your housing stock by getting rid of it. That was a clear admission of a cynical policy designed to minimise the ability of local authorities to respond to the housing needs of their citizens.
Interestingly enough, no mention was made of tenant choice. There was no recognition of the mounting evidence that when consulted, tenants prefer to remain within the local authority sector. The Government are very strong on choice except when it comes to people wanting to be tenants of their own authorities. In Scotland, Scottish Homes is in the process of disposing of its houses but its tenants are not even given the choice of transferring to the local authority.
When it comes to democratic manipulation, we have something to learn from this Government. In the case of voluntary large-scale disposals, the Government take the view that all tenants who do not actually vote against the proposal are in favour of it. We are committed to a referendum in Scotland on devolution. I wonder what the party opposite would say if we took the view that those not opposing it were in favour of it.
Government policy is bankrupt. We need a comprehensive housing policy which covers consumption, production and exchange. But more than that, we need a housing policy which sets housing within a framework of other policies relating to employment, training, education and poverty. Only then shall we be able to build stronger, more cohesive communities and give hope and opportunity to all our people. At the moment, the Government's policy fails on all counts.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, we have heard of the need of housing for an additional 4.4 million households and on the next day a cut of £1 billion from social housing benefit. It is interesting also to recall that housing expenditure has been cut by more than 60 per cent, in real terms since 1980.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, talked about housing heating provision in various member states of the Community and reached conclusions which are frankly embarrassing even for this Government. I should like to widen the discussion to housing generally and make a few other comparisons with other OECD countries.

227
I was very surprised to learn that Britain is investing less in housing than almost any other advanced nation. We trail 19th out of the 21 OECD nations. We are currently spending around 3 per cent. of our GDP on housing investment compared with between 5 and 6.5 per cent. being spent by France, Germany and Italy.
My noble friend Lord Currie referred to the German situation and housing finance. No doubt some Europhobic noble Lords opposite may say that Britain knows best. But do we? Many noble Lords may have travelled in other OECD countries and seen the good and bad in housing. There are excellent housing schemes which provide full social facilities and there are also the worst slums in some of those countries.
But this Government take great pride in Britain knowing more than its European partners on every conceivable subject—BSE, fishing and competition policy for airlines. They have tried to hide their own changes or failures of policy by attacking Brussels or other member states. But the Government need first to look in the mirror. As we have heard, a little humility in that sense may be in order and nowhere more so than in the sphere of housing. We have something to offer our OECD partners but we also have something to learn. If France, Germany and Italy spend between 5 and 6.5 per cent. of their GDP on housing, is Britain really right to spend about half of that—3 per cent.?
What are the consequences of that policy? The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, painted a rosy picture of the growth in house sales, mortgages and so on. That is very nice for those who can afford it. But what about the others? It is a very different story in the social housing policy sector.
What are the consequences? I believe that almost without exception it has been concluded in this debate that there will be increased homelessness and unwished for homelessness, both because of the shortage of affordable homes and because of Peter Lilley's restriction on housing benefits in the private rented sector. That will lead to more homelessness and to more people being trapped in squalid, sub-standard accommodation. There will be fewer rented housing starts. It is hardly surprising that the Budget has been universally condemned throughout the housing world. I shall not quote extensively but, like the National Housing Federation, the Housing Corporation, the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Association of District Councils housing chair, I believe that local authorities have a major role to play. Their universal criticism is quite beyond belief.
What are the consequences of all this for the construction industry? The National Housing Federation estimates that the Budget cuts will lead to the loss of 5,000 jobs in the coming financial year and 11,000 jobs in the following year. My noble friend Lord Currie produced slightly different figures but they tell the same story. It is generally accepted that an unemployed person costs the state about £10,000 a year in benefits. So, if my calculations are right, those cuts in jobs will cost the Treasury about £160 million in additional
228
benefits with the additional loss of skills to the nation and the social problems which we all know come with unemployment.
The additional cost of benefit actually negates half the cuts in the grants to housing associations announced in the Budget of £356 million. It seems surprising that the Government cannot get their mind around the problem that a Treasury-imposed cut in one department will have, as certainly as night follows day, the consequent opposite effect of increasing the social security budget to the extent of half the housing cost. One wonders whether the Budget actually allowed for that increase in cost. The sad thing is that that not only exacerbates the housing crisis; it is also unproductive and an insult to those who suffer, with all the social problems that go with it.
Over many years we have seen that building oneself out of a crisis, creating new housing and reducing unemployment have all been opposed by government with the excuse that it is inflationary. But it does not have to be. Surely it is better to invest in housing than in benefits, at least until the next cuts in benefits. My conclusion is that the housing policy of the present Government is a disgrace and I am very confident that the electors will support that view in the forthcoming election.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, housing can be regarded either as social provision or as a market. But there can be no dispute that in both manifestations its mechanisms are seriously ineffective at present. We have a private rented sector which, despite deregulation (which was designed by this Government to attract more landlords into it) is in secular decline, sustained only by a massive social security bill and perhaps a little in recent years by landlords, who are unable to sell, letting their property out. We have an owner-occupied sector which is proportionately the highest in urbanised Europe but whose attractions have been distorted by the absurd fact that in many parts of the country it is cheaper to buy than to rent. Yet, for those people who have bought, the expected increase in value has until very recently failed to materialise, leaving many people stuck in houses which they cannot sell and in places from which they cannot move.
We have a social rented sector where, again, we have the absurdity of local authorities being prevented from using their capital receipts to improve the housing and to acquire more property, and where rents have soared in order to meet the imposed budgetary figures. That in itself has a detrimental effect on the housing benefit budget, which nevertheless is still inadequate to meet those rents. As many noble Lords have said, there is also the failure to provide the housing needs of low income families, of the disabled and of young single persons— the latter, contributing, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, graphically demonstrated, to the vicious cycle of homelessness, unemployment and, in some tragic cases, alcoholism, drug abuse and prostitution.
This must be a market which is seriously malfunctioning. In addition to the overall mismatch for which many speakers have quoted figures, there are

229
massive rigidities within that market. I need to make clear that this is no longer an argument about forms of tenure; it is about flexibility within and between the various forms of tenure. Indeed, even many years ago it was necessary not to make presumptions. I remember one of my very early political experiences while campaigning 25 years ago for the predecessor of my noble friend Lord Dubs as MP for Battersea. We were accosted in a market place by a dishevelled man with a very heavy brogue, complaining about the level of rents. It took that politician 30 seconds to realise that he was actually talking to a landlord. That level of political perception is something that I have not yet managed to attain.
These old rigidities were blamed by the Government and the free marketeers on the bureaucracy of the housing waiting-lists in local authorities and on regulated private rent markets. But there are new rigidities. In many respects the myth of choice does not exist for hundreds and thousands of people. I would follow my noble friend Lord Berkeley in that respect. There are many examples in western Europe where they do things better. We have a lower proportion of new build and new provision than many of the northern European countries, despite a slightly higher rate of household formation. We have the highest level of owner occupation and the lowest level in the allegedly flexible private rental sector, but owner occupation is no use if people are stuck in houses that they cannot sell and in places from which they cannot move.
Floor space per household in the UK is actually not only lower in absolute terms than in many western European countries but is also falling. That is a measure of the quality of housing in the same way as the figures referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, relating to heating provision are a test of the quality of housing. Although we all condemn vacancies, they do at least provide some elbow room in an otherwise rigid market. Our level of vacancies is one of the lowest in Europe in that respect. It leads to a situation like that in France, which has a slightly smaller population, where there are 3 million more houses than in Britain. Moreover, not all of them are tumbledown cottages in the Dordogne being offered to wide-eyed and naive Britons.
Many European housing markets also have rigidities. Anyone who has tried to buy or rent a flat in Brussels will know about the bureaucracy there. There are also massive social problems, as the French suburbs show. Nevertheless, they are very good examples of where rigidities in the market are overcome. We have had very few innovations in the housing market since the growth of the housing associations in the 1970s. I should just like to cite a few examples in addition to the Austrian case referred to by my noble friend Lord Hanworth.
In Sweden there are public/private partnerships in the provision of rented accommodation for different family sizes which change over the life cycle. In Germany, in addition to the role of the banks to which reference has already been made, local authorities and local mutuals— if not exactly lenders of last resort then at least estate agents of last resort—allow transfers both from and
230
between the rented and owner-occupied sectors in a much smoother way than does our rigid structure in this country.
In France, again, the role of the banks in providing for holding property where there is difficulty in selling is much more advanced compared to the passive failure to take a proactive role by our building societies and other lenders. In the Netherlands we have the good example of the provision of joint local authority/private sector housing and the provision of social housing, especially for single persons and young couples in the cities of that country. In many European countries there are much more sophisticated and flexible systems of rent into mortgages and, indeed, vice versa. In many of those countries, the professional classes actually prefer a rental system.
We are all in favour of the benefits of owner occupation but not if it leads to a severely differentiated form of housing between the private and public sectors and to deeper and darker divisions within our society. Such divisions—that kind of residualising and ghettoising of housing—apply only too manifestly in a number of cities in the United States. In this, as in many other contexts, I believe that the European social model is much in advance of that in America.
This is a market which requires government attention and, indeed, it receives such attention, but unfortunately often in the wrong direction. The last Budget showed the Government cutting investment in housing by £2 billion in a market which is seriously undersupplied but, at the same time, accepting the inevitable subsidy to the revenue side of the Budget in housing benefit by an increase of provision—probably an inadequate increase—of £2.5 billion on that side.
An inflexible housing market leads to an inflexible labour market; it leads to an inflexible access to training; and it leads to ineffective planning and environmental policy. It is my contention that we need to take a whole new radical look at government policy in this field. A range of measures is needed. I hope that the examples that I have given from the European experience will help, if not for this Government then for their successor.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, as other speakers have done, perhaps I may first express my appreciation to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, for initiating today's debate on housing. It is not before time. I believe it is true to say that it is nearly two years since this House last debated housing. Indeed, I think that I opened that particular debate. Moreover, I also have a very strong feeling of déjà vu on the subject, because, although the figures cited are slightly different, the same comments were being made two, three or even 10 years ago to this Government but they have not take one iota of notice. They have blundered on and have implemented policies. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, referred to the Government's housing policies. I cannot find any trace of a meaningful policy. There is no such policy.
In the 1980s there was concern for people at the bottom end of the social scale. Two distinguished non-political people formed commissions to look into

231
that matter. One of them was the former Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Runcie, who produced a report entitled Faith in the City. The other body was formed under the aegis of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. Both of those bodies were manned by people who were hand-picked because of their expertise in housing matters. No political appointments were made to those bodies. Those bodies, and other bodies who addressed that subject, came to the conclusion that there was a need to produce each year 100,000 properties to let for those at the lower end of the market until the year 2000.
I and other Members of your Lordships' House have pressed Minister after Minister to allow local government to resume their role as the major provider— I am not saying they should be the only provider—of local authority housing. On each occasion our requests were turned down. Political decisions were taken quite intentionally by the Government. They must have known what they were doing. On each occasion we addressed the matter, the Government said, "We have replaced that with housing associations under the care and control of the Housing Corporation". The last figure I was given by a Minister at the Dispatch Box in relation to this sector of the housing market was an eventual target of 63,000 units a year. The number of units has never reached anywhere near that level. Previous speakers today have referred to the massive cut last year—which is in addition to the cuts of previous years—in the money that the Housing Corporation is allowed to allocate to housing associations. Therefore there is no possibility of achieving any improvement in that situation.
I now wish to discuss how the Government have dealt with council house tenants. The Government have conducted one of the most spiteful vendettas that any government could inflict on a section of the community. They finally introduced a housing Bill which obliged a tenant paying his rent to accept rent increases to pay for another tenant's arrears. If that is the Government's idea of a fair policy towards council house tenants, it is a poor one indeed.
I have heard mention today of a White Paper and the 4.4 million new homes that are deemed to be required in the foreseeable future. On the basis of simple arithmetic, if one builds new homes at the rate of 100,000 a year, the building programme will last for 44 years. Does anyone really believe that if this Government are returned to office they will try to reduce that deficit and start to build those houses? I do not believe they will. The tragedy is that the two reports to which I have referred of the former Archbishop of Canterbury and the Duke of Edinburgh were rubbished by Ministers of the day before they had time to read them. The former Chancellor, who is now the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, said, minutes after Faith in the City was released, that its proposals were impractical and could not be implemented. That is the kind of government we have, and in my opinion their approach towards housing has grown infinitely worse.
232
Throughout its history the Conservative Party has been deemed to be the champion of the owner occupier. Let us consider what has happened to the owner occupier under the Government's present policies. In another place and in this House Minister after Minister has reminded us from the Dispatch Box of the failures of the past Labour Government. Ministers have always referred to the year 1979. As the Minister is a fair man, I do not believe he will object if I refer to 1979.
In 1979, under the Labour Government, 2,910 owner-occupied houses were repossessed due to mortgage debts. In 1995, under this so-called successful government, that figure had risen to almost 50,000. That is not a bad increase. In 1979 the figure for mortgages six to 12 months in arrears was 9,690. Last year, under the present Government, the figure was 126,000. Dare I refer to that as another success story? In 1982 the figure for mortgages more than 12 months in arrears was 5,500. I could not get the relevant figure for 1979. In 1995 that figure escalated to 85,000.
When the Government have talked about owner occupation in this House, I have repeatedly said that most of the people in the owner occupier sector who have lost their homes will never get back into the housing market. In most cases it is the one investment they make in their lives and when it is gone it is gone for ever with all the tragedy that entails. I have nearly reached the end of my allotted time to speak but I close by saying that the Government's record on housing since they took office is absolutely appalling and outrageous. When I was involved in housing in Manchester, most of the major cities had seen the end of the slum problem. I am not saying that we did everything right but units were being built. In my opinion, this Government in an act of governmental vandalism have ruined that achievement to their eternal shame. I hope that at the next election some other government will have the opportunity to accept the challenge to do something about housing in this country.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, perhaps I can offer the Minister a momentary interlude in the sustained assault the Government have encountered from the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in a thoughtful and important speech, raised the question of where the many new houses we need are to go. I should like to add a few words on this question as the impact of new housing on the vanishing countryside in our crowded island is something that should, I think, concern us all. It steadily converts country into town. It is a process that has been going on continuously since the war. The Council for the Protection of Rural England has catalogued the loss of rural land since 1945, pointing out, for example, that in East Anglia an amount of farmland eight times the size of Norwich has been lost. The story is the same in all the other regions. By 2016 the Government estimate that 11.9 per cent. of England will be urbanised compared with 10.6 per cent. in 1991.
The pressure looks set to continue, and even to increase. Large numbers of people are moving out of towns and cities into the country. Inner London's

233
population decreased by 850,000 between 1951 and 1976. People commute in to work from ever greater distances.
The Government set out the nature of the problem last November when they published Household Growth: Where shall we live? Their projections, as a number of speakers have pointed out, indicated that there could be up to 4.4 million new households in England by 2016, an increase of 23 per cent. Just under half of this will be due to the 3.6 million projected increase in England's population—half a million by immigrants. A third will be due to social changes, notably more divorces and separations, a fifth to changing age distribution. People are living longer, often on their own, and the young leave home earlier. The government paper points out that in 1900 the average household size was just under five people; by 1991 it was down to two and a half people. That enormous increase in new households has worrying implications. To put all the new houses in the country would create 35 new towns the size of Bracknell. One can easily imagine the rows of identical, tightly-packed box-like houses put up by speculative builders. If they built better quality houses, some anxieties might be assuaged. As the Daily Telegraph commented recently,
The sheer ugliness and insensitivity of so much post-war development have left us with a national phobia about new building".
In launching their projections, the Government said that they hoped that 60 per cent. of the new homes could be accommodated on previously used land—the so-called brownfield sites. A recent survey has shown that over half a million acres of derelict vacant land in towns and cities, enough to provide for all the new homes, are available. But a good deal of that is in the north-west whereas the main demand is in the south. As the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, pointed out, some of the land, too, is contaminated and would need an expensive clean-up before it can be built on.
But there appears to be plenty of capacity for building in towns without what is called town cramming. I understand that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's research shows that the capacity of urban areas can be doubled in ways that benefit the urban environment. Clearly we must not build on playing fields and town parks. There can, moreover, be little prospect of the 60 per cent. target being met unless living in towns and cities and establishing businesses there can be made more agreeable. But it is essential to make more and better use of urban land for our housing needs.
Even if the 60 per cent. target can be met, that would still leave 40 per cent. of the new homes, 1.76 million of them, to be built on greenfield sites in open country— the equivalent of 10 cities the size of Bristol. That is a daunting prospect. The Government say optimistically in their paper that the countryside,
"must not become one vast building site".
But in parts of the south that is indeed the likely prospect. Ancient cities and villages are frequently wrecked by expansion outwards into the fields. Builders generally prefer to build on greenfield sites because it is cheaper. However, the Government are reported to be considering a tax on housing built on those sites to
234
encourage builders to build in cities and towns. That sounds to me a very good idea. I should like to ask the Minister whether the Government are indeed planning such a move. Can I also ask him what the Government think can be done to make use of some of the 800,000 empty properties in England?
I understand that the Government are already using regional planning guidelines to require the building by often reluctant local authorities of hundreds of thousands of new houses in different parts of the country over the next 10 or 15 years. Small towns will be particularly hard hit. Gloucestershire County Council has proposed to site a new town of 6,000 or more houses in the unspoilt landscape of Berkeley Vale. The CPRE has drawn attention to plans which it says would,
"bury Berkshire under new development".
The Weald near Lewes in East Sussex may after 2006 have to accommodate one or even two new towns. All this suggests that talk of burying the whole of our island under concrete is not entirely fanciful.
One important and neglected question is the need for quality and better design in the houses that are built in the country. All too often what is built is of indifferent design and out of sympathy with its surroundings. The problem is to discover how to induce councils and private individuals to go for good design and materials rather than bad ones. If it were possible to persuade builders that they could build better houses without incurring greatly increased costs, that would be a great gain. It can be done. The West Dorset District Council architect, David Oliver, is reported to have persuaded developers and builders to construct new village homes at Broad Windsor and Abbotsbury in traditional styles and materials with results that please architects, builders and the owners of new houses. Some time ago I came across a small booklet called Patterns for Suffolk Buildings: A Simple Design Guide produced by the Suffolk Building Preservation Trust and the Suffolk Preservation Society. It struck me as quite admirable and to contain a lot of sound advice.
The Government need to encourage businesses to build new factories and offices on vacant land in or near cities and towns rather than on greenfield sites which may be attractive to them but which urbanise another tract of country. As the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution said, the emphasis needs to be on,
recycling previously developed land and severely restricting development on greenfield sites".
I believe that we must build most of the new houses we need in our existing cities and towns—far more than 60 per cent.; and the idea of a tax on housing built on greenfield sites is a good one. I commend it to the next government, of whatever complexion.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, perhaps I may join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Williams for having initiated the debate and for giving us the chance to draw attention to the housing difficulties facing many people in this country. It should go without saying that everyone should have the right to a decent home

235
whether owned or rented, preferably with some choices. It is my belief that 18 years of Conservative government have resulted in denying a significant proportion of our population that right to a decent home. I intend to say a little about housing difficulties, unmet needs, with particular reference to London, and then to deal with a recent district auditor's report into the housing policies of the London Borough of Wandsworth.
It is fairly clear that the Government's own targets for housing will not be met and that there will be a large and increasing deficit between housing needs and the number of new homes coming on the market. That is largely the result of the depressing cuts that the Government have made in housing in recent years. We have seen a virtual end to council house building. To those people who said, "That's alright because housing associations will cover the gap left by the cut in council house building", perhaps I may say that that is no longer the case. The Housing Corporation has indicated that its new starts will be cut by 60 per cent., from 44,000 down to 20,000. We have seen vast numbers of people statutorily homeless. Last year that figure reached 117,000 nationally. Last year London had over 26,000 households accepted as homeless, representing over 26,000 homeless individuals. The situation is worse than that, because more than twice that number had applied to be considered homeless. We all know that the temporary accommodation into which homeless people are placed is inefficient. It is expensive compared with proper accommodation and represents lower housing standards. Indeed, London has 230,000 unfit homes; and another 400,000 homes in the socially rented sector are in need of renovation.
Those cold statistics represent human tragedies. The problem is not about statistics but about tragedies. People who are badly housed and those who are homeless cannot do anything with their lives except look for accommodation. They cannot function in any other way, and we should recognise that.
I wish to turn to two local authorities in London, Westminster and Wandsworth. They used to be called the two Conservative flagship councils. So far as concerns Westminster, we still have the ongoing homes for votes scandal. I do not need to remind your Lordships of the fact that the matter is now proceeding through the courts.
Let me turn to Wandsworth. I have the district auditor's report on the review of objections regarding the council's voluntary sale policy. It was published on Thursday 19th December. It received little publicity at the time; it should have received more. It is produced by Binder Hamlyn, a firm with a reputation second to none. What does the report deal with?
Wandsworth Council had a paper before it in 1992 and decided in the light of that paper to declare blocks/estates comprising over 3,000 dwellings as sales areas. That followed an aggressive sales policy that had been pursued since 1978, when the Conservatives took control of the council. Since then, large numbers of houses and flats have been sold. I am not talking of the right to buy, the purchase by sitting tenants of their own
236
homes, which I fully support. I refer to Wandsworth Council's policy of selling empty homes to people who were mostly not on the waiting list, may not have been in housing need, had no medical priority and probably did not even live in the borough. Let me give one or two examples from before 1992. I speak from experience, since I represented a part of Wandsworth; namely, the Battersea constituency, over those years.
When the Conservatives took over the council, the East Hill estate was just coming on stream having been built by the Labour council. It was low-rise housing and was intended to get families with young children out of tower blocks if they lived above the fourth floor. As soon as those houses and flats were built, they were sold—not to those on the waiting list but to people from all over London. There were numerous other examples of the council selling off whole estates, thereby denying to people on the waiting list the right to those homes.
What did the district auditor say? I refer to events after 1992. Let me set the record straight in case I am accused of deviating. He said that there was no evidence of improper purpose, no set pattern or bias towards marginal wards. That was, after all, the allegation proved as regards Westminster. But let me quote again from the report:
We have concluded that the Council misdirected itself in law, did not take into account all relevant considerations which it was bound to take into account and that the decision taken … to declare further sales areas was unlawful and accordingly gives rise to items of account which are 'contrary to law'".
There was unlawful activity. The council misdirected itself and reached a decision that was inconsistent with its statutory duties to the homeless. Its decision-making process was flawed. It did not give proper consideration in its sales reports to its duties to the homeless. It failed to take into account the consequences for essential medical cases. It did not draw attention to the significant increase in the use of temporary accommodation over the same period, the near record number of homeless households in temporary accommodation at the time, or the cost of dealing with homelessness, which exceeded £6 million in the previous year. That is a pretty damaging indictment. It is disgraceful. For a large part of that time a senior position in the council—and for much of the time the position as leader—was held by Sir Paul Beresford, who is now a Conservative Minister.
It is my contention that both Wandsworth and Westminster showed a lack of concern for the housing needs of people in their areas, people for whom those councils surely had some responsibility. In the most recent report, Wandsworth Council is said to have showed a disregard for the needs of the badly housed, those with medical priorities or other urgent needs, or the homeless. That characterised the policies of both Conservative councils—councils which were lauded by the Conservative Party as exemplary models of local government. The Government have shown in their national housing policies a similar lack of responsibility for the housing needs of the most vulnerable people in our country.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I wish briefly to mention three matters: first, the crucial impact of the Budget on essential housing needs in Northern Ireland; secondly, housing as the major factor in the maintenance of purposeful home and family life and in the promotion of community well-being; and, thirdly, the vital role of planners in preserving the fabric of neighbourhoods, especially in urban areas, and for the best needs of environmental conservation.
The 1996 reduction of £21 million does not reflect the total reduction in public and private capital expenditure on housing in Northern Ireland. Inflation, increased prices and other capital cost factors have reduced and will seriously further reduce house-building in the Province. Sadly, in addition to the public funding factors, there are the tragic increased financial burdens of the renewed upsurge of political malevolence, mayhem and destructive terrorism. It is a situation in relation to which both Houses of this Parliament have sought, with favourably bipartisan approaches, to remedy the causes and the results.
In Northern Ireland, as elsewhere in these islands, we must get up off our knees and actively call upon our communities, at all levels, to effect the required measures for change and a better life for all.
Northern Ireland has the fastest growing population in Western Europe, together with high levels of unemployment and social dependency. For many years successive governments have recognised the important constructive force that good housing can be in eliminating the inevitable sense of social exclusion.
Some 10 years ago we had the report of the Church Commission on urban living conditions, Faith in the City. It was quite an exhaustive study and was well received. The commission found that:
Housing is a major issue. Living conditions are such a basic necessity that they affect well-being in every aspect of life".
The Duke of Edinburgh's study on housing, published at about the same time, reached similar conclusions.
There is strong evidence that a sense of social exclusion promotes divisions in society and exacerbates feelings of social inequality. It reinforces the disadvantage that is generated elsewhere: in education, in the labour market and in general community life.
The aggravated growth of social exclusion can create virulent conditions in which petty misdemeanours, malevolence, organised crime and sectarian/political paramilitary organisations can flourish. Sad as that fact may be, as I believe most noble Lords will agree, there is more good in this world than there is evil. There have been community leaders and benefactors, even poets, who started life in slum conditions.
Central to the development of future housing policy is the role of the planners. The noble Lord, Lord Moran, dealt with the matter in detail. How can the demand for new houses, generated by demographic trends, be accommodated if the countryside is to be conserved against unlimited greenfield developments? How can better use be made of existing urban buildings and sites if the schools, transport, environment, shopping and law
238
and order provisions are all marginalised and reckoned to be inferior? Downtown sites are open to speculators, to the disadvantage of speculation in greenfield sites.
I ask the noble Earl who will reply: is it not time that, throughout the United Kingdom, we had some agreed cross-party consensus in housing such as 1 mentioned earlier as being the substance of the Duke of Edinburgh's inquiry and the Church's report, Faith in the City? The noble Lord, Lord Dean, also dealt with that aspect and the need to look back at reports compiled some 10 years ago to see what has been missed and how we have left things undone in many respects in connection with important views expressed by non-partisan people.
Notwithstanding the very helpful and imaginative developments in housing since 1970, during the past years it has been perceived by many directly concerned with housing in Northern Ireland that the situation is now beginning to get out of control. There is accelerated building of private sector housing. Waiting lists are hopelessly increasing. From March 1990 until March 1996, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive priority list increased from 3,395 to 6,206. There is also immense overcrowding in areas considered of less priority. There is something like a 21 per cent, increase. Given that there are some 12,000 on the housing list, that is a huge increase.
In the Northern Ireland context it is indisputable that there is an urgent need to institute and develop a regional planning strategy along the lines reported by the House of Commons Select Committee on Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Minister may care to express a view on this particular aspect—a parliamentary review that has been pigeon-holed. He may also perhaps express to those interested in Northern Ireland who may hear or read this report the need for public expenditure on housing to be restored to more acceptable and reasoned levels.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, it is almost certain that the 25th speaker on the List will find that almost all that needs to be said has already been said. As speakers have spoken before me, I have scrapped page after page of my contribution. But I shall do my best.
I do not have difficulty finding a reason for the Government's policy and for the lack of attendance on the Government Benches opposite. Government Members are probably ashamed of the policy and do not feel that they can defend it. Nor do they have anything to say about the future policy. I can understand.
Last year's housing Bill was the seventh major housing Bill to be discussed and debated since 1979. It was mainly about restrictions, further restrictions and more restrictions on local authorities about who should be housed and who should not, for how long they should be housed, and whether in temporary accommodation and so on. Sadly, homelessness is excluded from the restrictions placed on local authorities as a priority need for assessment. I have no difficulty in assuming that the Government are hell-bent on the total privatisation of all property. One needs only to have

239
looked in estate agents' windows for the past few years to be aware of the increase in houses for rent—not in sales, which were down. There are hundreds of photographs and pages of description of houses for rent. But they are not at affordable rents. I have not yet met anybody who can afford the rents in the area in which I live. A one-bedroomed "kip" starts at £150 a week, and rents go up and up. There are many houses for rent but who can afford them? Certainly not the people who live where I used to live. So I do not have the difficulty that some people have with the Government's stance.
I have a lot to say and not much time to say it, but I want to say something about the homelessness situation. Just a few weeks ago, as has already been said, many people up and down the country opened their hearts and pockets so that the homeless—the rough sleepers—could be as comfortable as possible for a few days. All of us are grateful, as the noble Baroness on the opposite Benches said. We are grateful to all those people, many of them youngsters, who were prepared to give their time and energy to organise, arrange and distribute aid and assistance to those people in need and in such terrible circumstances. I am also grateful to the professional people who I know gave their services: dental, medical, podiatric, cookery and technical—there were many technicians—who helped to arrange everything. All those people give their time to make that annual event a kind of conscience-salver for the rest of the nation—because we do have a conscience about the extent of homelessness. But, sadly, Crisis is not just for Christmas. For too many of our fellow human beings, there is an on-going crisis, week in, week out, year in and year out.
I too welcome the attempts that have been made to improve the situation. That has also been mentioned by previous speakers. I remember well the discussions that took place before the rough sleepers' initiative. It was led mainly by Sir Robert Young, a Member in the other place, who pushed it through. That certainly helped but it could not be expected to deal with the entire underlying problem of homelessness. It would have had to go much further.
There is the matter of begging, which has appeared in many press reports of recent days. That question has to be addressed. A few years ago I introduced a Bill on the Vagrancy Act and there were long discussions about begging and aggressive begging. Most of those who were present during those discussions understood the situation. There are already laws to deal with aggressive beggars. There are many who do not like the way in which beggars approach them and there are rules and laws in that respect. There are bound to be people who do not meet the standards that some of us expect when asking for money.
But also, not all the people who live on the streets do so from choice. Many newspapers have hinted that it is a matter of choice, but that is not so. There are people who suffer from long-term unemployment, broken marriages, broken homes; there are youngsters leaving care with nowhere to go and some who have run away from difficult homes; there are people with drink, drug, physical and mental health problems. Until we face up
240
to those problems, we shall make little improvement in this issue. Begging is a symptom of a whole heap of serious problems that we have not even begun to tackle. We have in fact dodged them.
The benefit changes of the 1988 Social Security Act have been mentioned: 16 to 17 year-olds were left with nothing; 18 to 25 year-olds had their benefits reduced; and some benefits are now paid two weeks in arrears whereas supplementary benefit used to be paid in advance. All that has added to an already terrible situation for people who find themselves at the bottom end of the estate.
There has also been the disappearance of what were referred to as "access beds" in Rowton houses and lodgings ("digs"). They have all gone. There is nowhere to send people any more, certainly not in the area of London in which I operate, where literally thousands of access beds have been lost through the closure of two huge Rowton houses. Access beds would take many people off the streets, but they have disappeared and not been replaced by anything at all. It is little wonder that there are now more people living and sleeping rough on the streets. It is estimated that in Tory Britain since 1979 the number of people who live on the streets has doubled from 55,000 to 122,660.
All those aspects put together have had a devastating effect on people who live not only on the streets but in poor housing conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issue of uninhabitable houses— houses which are falling down around people's heads and which they cannot afford to repair. What such people do not need is more punitive legislation. There has been enough of that. We do not want any copies of an American-type "rope-them-in" or whatever it is called, to get people off the streets. We do not need that kind of legislation. We need the political will for the creation of a more just and loving society, so that we understand those people.
I suggest for a start that politicians should not just walk by on the other side of the road. They should bend down and talk to the fellow on the street, find out what he is doing there and whether they can in some way send for assistance or get some ideas on how to help in the wider problems. That will be dealing competently with the problem.
I am reminded of a whole number of other issues which I do not have time to deal with at the moment. However, many of the great saints of history were beggars. St. Francis of Assisi was the subject of a speech outside Downing Street not so many years ago and he was a mendicant friar who went about begging. Would we have crossed the road? Or would we have said that we did not want to talk to him? Would we have said that we could not afford to give him anything? I doubt it.
I want to get back to the right kind of attitude. We must try to understand why we have allowed those people to be there and why we feel guilty about it. We must do something about it. It does not matter which government is in office, so long as they start to tackle that problem they will have my support.
6.29 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, courteously informed me before Christmas that in his introductory speech today he would be, "regretting the failure of leasehold reform and the abandonment of commonhold". I would have liked to have spoken on both these subjects, but as the days have gone by and I have seen the list of speakers grow, and the time allotted to my contribution shrink from about 15 minutes to an eight minute soundbite, I have decided that I must jettison comment on the so-called abandonment of commonhold. It is a very large subject and it comes, in any event, under the aegis of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
As the House may recall, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I share broadly similar views as to the desirability of leasehold reform. During the passage of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, the noble Lord and I frequently spoke or voted with the same intention, whether it was to sustain the Government and the Prime Minister's brave initiative, or to urge the Government to go a little further, if not the whole then at least a much greater part of the hog towards leasehold reform than some others on these and the Cross Benches would have wished. I have no doubt that if I have not been put out to grass by then, the noble Lord and I may be in danger of seeing things the same way if legislation is put before the next Parliament.
I draw attention to this unsanctified liaison in order to emphasise my surprise that the noble Lord should castigate leasehold reform as a failure. That is a view I do not share. I never have. I have never taken the negative view that the Act would fail in its long-term purpose of enabling those flat owners who wished to be the complete masters of their homes to acquire their freeholds or extended leases. Tonight, the noble Lord has said that leasehold reform has been a flop, but he has not said any more than that. He was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who had one or two points to make, which I shall come back to myself, where leasehold reform can be improved. But nothing has been said so far to substantiate the claim that leasehold reform has been a flop.
My own view of the 1993 Act in relation to leasehold reform, particularly as affecting flats, is well put in a recent article by Gerald Cadogan in the Financial Times. I quote from the article. It is headed, "Leasehold on its Last Legs: Gerald Cadogan on why it is now easier for tenants to obtain freeholds". Mr. Cadogan writes:
"Leasehold is fading as it gradually becomes easier to 'enfranchise'. Several factors are easing the process of enfranchisement, not least of which is the acceptance by those in the property business of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.
Three years after it came into force, it has become a normal part of the central London property scene, as increasing numbers of owners enfranchise their leasehold or obtain a 90-year extension on the lease of their flat in cases where enfranchisement is not allowed or difficult".
We now also have, as Mr. Cadogan points out, the improvements to leasehold reform made during the passage of the Housing Act 1996. Nevertheless, now that applications to the leasehold valuation tribunals and
242
appeals to the Lands Tribunal are increasingly coming on stream, there is growing evidence that the procedures for settling the marriage value of properties are not working well, and should be improved.
Under the 1993 Act, marriage value is to be shared between freeholder and lessee as it would be shared in willing buyer and willing seller negotiations, subject to the proviso that the freeholder's share will not be less than half. I can say that the fears expressed that this proviso might result in the fixing of the freeholder's share of marriage value at, say, 75 per cent. are proving unfounded. The rule is proving to be 50 per cent. But freeholders, who in some important cases are extremely wealthy, with extensive property portfolios, can and do take cases to appeal in order to establish valuation precedents.
Lessees in many cases cannot afford to be involved in appeals to the Lands Tribunal where costs can be awarded. They will often be advised to settle and pay substantially over the odds for their share of marriage value rather than go before an LVT, with the possibility that this may then result in an appeal by the freeholder to the Lands Tribunal. These settlements then become evidence of settlements outside the Act, used by freeholders in later negotiations and/or hearings before the tribunals in order to ratchet up the freeholder's share of marriage value.
Another problem now being met is that when a freeholder appeals to the Lands Tribunal the lessee may well be advised not to respond to the appeal. This leaves the presiding member of the tribunal, who is usually a surveyor, to assess values on the basis of the unchallenged evidence of the freeholder's surveyor. The presiding member will inspect the property, and this may result in his accepting or not accepting the evidence of the freeholder's witness. He may substitute his own figures. But the lessee will not have had the opportunity of giving evidence, or of cross-examining the freeholder's witness, or of commenting on his evidence. Failure to respond to freeholders' appeals to the Lands Tribunal may be seen as a prudent way of avoiding the making of an order for costs which could well make the lessees' total costs of appeal quite disproportionate to any cash sum in issue. But not responding to an appeal, though it may be prudent, is not likely to lead to the fair assessment of marriage value itself or of the share of marriage value to be paid to the freeholder. Values which are unsatisfactorily set in this way will be used against lessees, as precedents or comparables, on other occasions.
The trouble is that for the lessee the costs of the appeal will so often be disproportionate to any possible benefit, whereas for a freeholder, who may own many reversions, or wish to establish precedents, or merely wish to show his might and frighten other lessees, disproportionality is not a relevant consideration in the same way. The point about the need for proportionality in relation to costs is forcefully made in the final report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, Access to Justice.

243
The suggestion is made by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, and I would endorse it, that the power of Lands Tribunals to award costs against lessees should be reconsidered.
I hope that the Government will consider most carefully these aspects of the operation of the 1993 Act. The lessees affected by the problems I have outlined will often be young couples with families in inner suburbs, and possibly little equity in their homes. I am continually advised that, although the money sums involved may not seem large, the experience of trying and failing, or of being advised not even to try, to realise something approximating the share of marriage value for which the law provides leaves many working people with a dreadful feeling—a feeling of despair and humiliation. That is not something which we should tolerate.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I expect that it will be of no great surprise to your Lordships that I shall be spending my eight-minute allocation talking about the effect of poor housing on health. In a recent article in a publication called Better Housing, Better Health, Professor Peter Townsend gave his view of what constitutes health. He said:
"Ask anyone about their state of health today. They will not only reproduce statements passed on to them by their doctors … They will speak of levels of energy, satisfactory sleep, vitality, comfort, enjoyment of activity, peace of mind, states of happiness and fulfilment and the way they are getting on with others and doing a useful job in their family or community relations".
That is what health means in a comprehensive sense. Every one of those aspects of health can be helped or hindered by the environment in which people live, whether considered from a micro or macro point of view.
First, I should like briefly to consider the effect of housing on physical health and mortality. Standardised mortality ratios, normally abbreviated to SMRs—that is, the chance of dying among a certain section of the population in relation to the population average, adjusted for age and sex—rises from a low level among owner occupiers to a higher level among those who rent accommodation. Council rented housing is associated with a higher rate than most privately rented accommodation. The highest mortality rate of all is found among the homeless, especially rough sleepers. It is quite difficult to get an accurate measure of their mortality rate but their expectation of life seems to be near to that of some of the most impoverished developing countries.
But it would be wrong to blame the high mortality rate on housing alone. Those who live in council accommodation, quite apart from those sleeping rough, are more likely to have lower status jobs or no jobs, less good education and a more deprived childhood—and they smoke more. All of those factors have an effect on sickness and mortality rates.
Disentangling all the factors which lead to the worse health of council tenants is complex, but there has been an increasing amount of high quality research recently
244
which shows clearly that damp or cold housing leads not only to an increase in mould spores and house dust mites, which can cause asthma and other allergies, but also to a higher prevalence of respiratory and other infections. The importance of adequate heating for health was very well described by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. But it is probably the effect of poor housing on mental health which contributes most to family breakdown, poor educational attainment and increased use of the National Health Service. That is very difficult to separate from the effects of poverty and the other adverse socio-economic factors which affect the populations concerned. Recent studies have shown that emotional problems are directly related to the number of housing problems people face and the standard of housing in which they live.
Ever since the pioneer work of my noble friend Lord Young of Dartington and Peter Wilmott in Family amp; Kinship in East London, which is a famous study made about 40 years ago, the disturbing effect of uprooting and rehousing communities has been well known and documented. However, despite that, in too many cases new housing developments have not taken the lessons of this classic study seriously enough. The basic facilities needed by new communities have not been in place when communities have been settled in them.
As a general practitioner working in a socially mixed inner city area—the same area about which my noble friend Lord Stallard spoke—I visited many patients in very poor housing conditions. Often, families, with great ingenuity, had managed to make very comfortable homes in the face of adversity. But frequently the atmosphere in local authority housing developments was not good. As noted by my noble friend Lord Sewel, the housing department was remote and the tenants did not have a sense of being stakeholders in their homes. It was worse in some instances because of the council's undeclared policy of "ghettoisation" under which the least co-operative and noisiest tenants, often with major or minor legal problems, were housed on the same estate or in the same block. Other estates or developments were filled with quieter and more law-abiding tenants. Many had taken up their right to buy option, leaving the council with not only a smaller stock of housing, but usually the least desirable part of it.
To return to the question of health, there is little doubt that poor quality and inadequate housing imposes a high cost on society through the impaired health and increased social malaise of its citizens. I quote from the report, The Real Cost of Poor Homes, which is a critical review of research literature by the University of Sussex and the University of Westminster, commissioned by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors:
"Additional funds invested in refurbishment and/or better housing management may well be highly cost effective in terms of money saved on other budgets".
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to whom I have already referred, has shown how that is true for heating bills. It is almost certainly true also for the costs of healthcare, social security and law enforcement.

245
It is now widely accepted—it has been documented over and over again—that the past 20 years have seen a growing gap between the health and life expectation of the rich and the poor in this country. Part of the explanation can be laid at the door of the Government's housing policy or, as my noble friend Lord Sewel said, their lack of a housing policy.
6.44 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I fancy that this is one of the few occasions when the House will be pleased to see me rise to my feet to address it. The reason is that I am the last speaker in the list before the Front Bench speakers reply to this very lengthy and extremely interesting debate. I thought that I would hear applause at that point.
I am pleased that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel has given us the occasion to debate this important subject, but I am extremely dismayed that he has been obliged to set it down today. I say that because rather more than 30 years ago I was involved in a by-election for another place, which turned out quite happily for some of us. At that by-election 30 years ago almost the most important item of discussion was the housing shortage and the need to solve it. Yet here we are, 30 years or more later, facing the same question with more people needing houses than was the case then and fewer houses being built than was the case at that time. Something seems to have gone wrong. I do not intend to blame anybody, but I merely put it like that. It appears to me that something has gone wrong and I hope that somehow it will be put right before we all shuffle off.
The housing shortage, which I and others have mentioned in the course of this lengthy debate, is not only a social evil, but it has very substantial economic impact, as my noble friend Lord Currie of Marylebone pointed out in his interesting and intellectual contribution. The building and construction industry with which I have been concerned very closely for many years, is a key and integral part of the British economy. It employs more than 1 million people. If it were being properly utilised it would probably employ about 2 million people, which it has done in the past and which I hope it will do sometime in the future.
The building and construction industry is obviously in two parts. Housing is in the building part and heavy civil engineering, with which I am more concerned, falls in the other part. But the bigger half, if I may put it in that Irish way, is the building industry and the smaller half is the construction industry. Building, in the sense of houses, offices and other things of that kind, is crucial to the building and construction industry. As a consequence, as has been said already, it is crucial to the health of the economy as a whole. In that respect the comments of my noble friend Lord Monkswell are totally apposite.
There will be no surprise to noble Lords that I am interested in the health of the construction industry and wish to see it encouraged. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, reminded us earlier on, this debate has a wide agenda
246
going far beyond the mere provision of housing and its social effects. Like him, I wish to take advantage of that wider agenda.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will recall the lengthy, detailed and occasionally entertaining debates, which we had last year on the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill, which is now an Act. We discussed then the limited proposals which the Government had put forward in that Bill, now an Act, to implement a small number of the elements of the Latham Report on the construction industry. As noble Lords will recall, the Bill came before the House a poor, almost a miserable thing, but, largely due to the efforts of my noble friends Lord Williams of Elvel and Lord Berkeley, whom I see sitting there, and others who shall be nameless, the Bill left the House somewhat improved. It was not improved enough, but it was improved quite a bit.
What I really want to do is to put down a marker for further improvements which could be made in the next Session of Parliament or perhaps even in the Session after that—or at least fairly soon when the impact, such as it is, of that Act has been seen, measured and probably criticised somewhat heavily. I do not have the time today to go into such criticism in any great detail, but I hope to have the opportunity to do so before the summer.
I note that time is moving on, so I conclude by saying that many of Sir Michael Latham's proposals are still not part of our legislation but should be included in it fairly rapidly. Perhaps I may enumerate two or three of them; namely, measures relating to insolvency protection; changes in liability law and the introduction of mandatory latent defects insurance. I know that some of those matters are still tied up with the Law Commission, but they are of crucial importance to the health of our construction industry. Indeed, as Latham said, they are of crucial importance to producing a less costly product from the construction industry.
I shall leave it at that although I could say a great deal more—and will doubtless do so when the opportunity arises. I do not ask the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to reply to those points tonight. He knows me well enough to know that I would not press him in that way in a debate such as this. However, I hope that the noble Earl will convey to his colleagues elsewhere in Whitehall that the rest of Latham's proposals are important—not only those which were included in legislation last year—and should be included in new legislation as soon as possible.
6.51 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is my pleasure to congratulate our two maiden speakers on notable performances. I hope to hear from them both on many occasions in the future.
It is my pleasure also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing a very necessary debate. In general I am not a great fan of guidebooks, but I remember one occasion when I was a boy when we were temporarily in a part of England that we did not know and used a guidebook to try to find a suitable walk. The guidebook explained that at the end

247
of a walk down a river valley you would meet the car that had meanwhile gone round. That seems a little like the Government's attitude to housing. They are very much concerned about getting people into employment, but they seem to think that when the successor of the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, gets on his bike and finds a job, at the end of the journey he will meet the house which has "meanwhile gone round". The Government are not nearly as concerned as I should like about the anxiety of the CBI with regard to the difficulty of getting people into employment because of the inability to relocate.
The noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, put that into context in an extremely interesting speech. Investment in housing has been declining steadily since 1979. The noble Lord pointed out that it started from a low base in the first place. In that context, somebody must mention the cut in the grant to the Housing Corporation in this Budget which I regret deeply.
As noble Lords know, I regret also the extension of the new system of shared residence for housing benefit for single people. The Government do not know how much shared housing is available. In a Written Answer of yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, tried to help us a little further when he stated:
"It is estimated that… a large proportion of some 700,000 lodgers and flat and house sharers … are likely to have such accommodation".—(Official Report, 14/1/97; col. WA27.]
Even by the notable standards of Whitehall that is a cautious answer.
My noble kinsman Lord Henley also tried to help me a little further on this point. He wrote:
"The Government is of the view that the private rental market is sufficiently flexible to cope with changes in demand. This is evidenced by the growth in private accommodation available to students".
That is perhaps the most surprising answer that I have heard from a government Minister since our mutual kinsman, my uncle Frank, speaking from the Government Dispatch Box in 1929 assured the House that no sensible person could possibly suppose that the introduction of a driving test would do anything to reduce road accidents. In the first place, I do not know that that view of student accommodation is shared anywhere in any university. In the second place, I do not see why my noble kinsman Lord Henley assumes that those people would not have been in shared accommodation if they had not been at a university. Many of them would have been.
I was also disconcerted to find that the Government intend by that change to discourage the formation of single person households. That doctrine is by Aristotle out of the Treasury. That really is letting barren metal breed. In any case, who do they think they are to decide in what sort of households we should live? That is not an appropriate power for a government in a free country.
I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forrest. The report to which he referred does, indeed, have my name to it, but since the work was done when we were considering the Asylum Bill I was much involved otherwise which means that
248
I think that I may, without immodesty, praise it. That report shows an extent of single homelessness among the young far greater than we had previously supposed, and especially among 16 and 17 year-olds. Your Lordships may guess what I suspect that the answer to that is. It shows the considerable barriers in the way of such people getting into accommodation.
The Government pride themselves on having got more people into employment. They pride themselves on having done so on very low wages, but among people under the age of 18, men are earning 31 per cent. of the average wage and women are earning 44 per cent. of the average wage, which is a difference which might interest the Equal Opportunities Commission. On that sort of wage you simply do not get into housing, especially if a deposit is needed. One case that was recounted in the report concerned an employee of the Department of Social Security's Benefits Agency who was relocated from Leeds to London and could afford the rent but not the deposit. She slept on a succession of friends' floors and finally took a sublet. The owner of the place then discovered that she was gay, put graffiti on the door and finally threw in a tear-gas canister. That refinement was not needed. That sort of thing makes it far harder to get people out of homelessness than one would wish.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said what he did about the effect of homelessness on health and about its cost. Shelter has produced an excellent report, Go Home and Rest, which costs the effect of homeless people not having GPs and making inappropriate use of accident and emergency departments, something to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, has drawn our attention for a long time. The cost of that inappropriate use—not taking into account the increased ill health caused by homelessness—is reckoned at £66,000 for the catchment area of University College Hospital alone. It is an expensive waste of public money.
There have been many speeches today with which I agreed and which I was ready to cheer warmly. If I mention the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Currie of Marylebone and Lord Murray of Epping Forest, of the noble Baronesses, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, Lady Fisher of Rednal, and Lady Turner of Camden, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I do not intend any disrespect to the others. Some of those speeches sat a little uneasily with an interview with the Leader of the Labour Party recorded in The Big Issue. I cannot say that the Labour Party is unfortunate in the timing of this debate because it has chosen the timing itself, but it has not worked out very well for it. I wondered whether or not I should mention this subject. I was emboldened to do so by the matter having been referred to obliquely by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, in his opening speech. He said that we should be intolerant not of the homeless but of homelessness. I have no quarrel with those words, but here are the words of his Leader:
"yes it is right to be intolerant of people homeless on the streets".

249
That shows either a carelessness in the use of words, which is dangerous in a person of that prominence, or a proposal to use compulsion. Those of us who took part in the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill know how difficult that is likely to be.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will perhaps remember a case about which I have already had some discussion with him. I refer to an individual personally known to me who slept on the streets for six years because, being gay, whenever he went into a hostel he was assaulted and was not safe. Compulsion is perhaps a good deal less easy than those words suggest. It is something for which the Leader of the Opposition appears to have a weakness. In that context, I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said what she did about choice, provided—I am sure that the noble Baroness will not dispute the proviso—that in recognising that people do that we are interested in how they came to be in the position to make those choices. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness does not disagree with that. I am not surprised.
I turn to what the Leader of the Labour Party said about beggars. The question was:
"I also wouldn't say it's satisfactory to have people arrested for begging. That's a 19th century approach".
The reply of the Leader was:
"Of course, unless they're doing something that is problematic for other people".
I find very distasteful the weighing in the scale of the problem experienced by the beggar against the momentary distaste of the person who sees him.
Some of your Lordships may have read the feature in the Observer last Sunday about one aggressive beggar at King's Cross. I have no time for aggressive beggars, but it is interesting to learn how that particular one got there. His father was an alcoholic. He broke his son's knee by throwing him down stairs when he was nine. Subsequently, he broke his nose. His mother put him into care. He said that she was the only person in his world and she put him into care. He said that he would never forgive her. He came out of care at 16 and, of course, had no benefit. He took to begging. That is something about which I hear nothing in the piece by the Leader of the Opposition in The Big Issue. Now that he is 18 he is wanted by the police for criminal damage, so he cannot claim benefit or go into employment. If we offer that man zero tolerance we offer him only what he is used to.
The Leader of the Opposition says that he will offer work. He says that these are good options. It is the voice of the man who offers his daughter an arranged marriage, locks her up because she does not accept it and then says that it is a good match. I know that he wants to do something about homelessness and that some of the charges made against him are unfair. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, as to that. I believe that the appropriate words are those of Edward Gibbon. He said that the graver charges against the supreme Pontiff were dropped and they persisted only with the charges of murder, robbery, heresy, rape, piracy and incest.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I remind your Lordships of the Government's housing statistics published four weeks ago. This evening several thousand people will sleep rough in doorways, on benches and under archways. This week 500 families in private rented accommodation and 750 families in owner occupation will find themselves homeless. This week nearly 5,000 families will be in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. Ten thousand will be in hostels and 43,000 will be in temporary accommodation—all because local authorities have no permanent homes to offer them.
This year some 120,000 families have been accepted as homeless by local authorities in England alone. It is the numbers that numb. Of those who have a roof over their heads, 150,000 live in properties which are classed as unfit for a human being to live in. A further two million homes are in need of very substantial repair because they are damp, insanitary and impossible to heat. Our housing stock is crumbling around us. This is the proud result of 17 years of Tory housing programmes. This afternoon and this evening my noble friends have shown what this has meant. There has been a wide-ranging, thoughtful and provocative debate introduced so effectively by my noble friend Lord Williams. It has been graced by two fine maiden speeches from my noble friend Lord Hanworth and the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe.
In this afternoon's debate my noble friend Lady Symons told us movingly what the DoE statistics meant for families. My noble friend Lord Rea has described what they mean for health. My noble friends Lord Murray and Lady Turner have reminded us of the desperate plight of young single homeless people. My noble friend Lord Stallard has talked with great compassion about their life on the streets. Others of my noble friends have provided hard evidence about the implications for our economy of failing to invest, especially in comparison with Europe. Other noble Lords have referred to the fine speeches by my noble friends Lord Currie, Lord Berkeley, Lord Whitty and Lord Dean. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi has reminded us of the failure, despite our best efforts, to deliver effective leasehold enfranchisement.
Homelessness is not an act of God, nor is it a lack of moral fibre. It happens to those who cannot buy their way out of the housing crisis. Homeless people simply need a home. That is precisely what the Government opposite have refused them. It was also precisely what my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition called for in a long and thoughtful speech that he gave to Shelter in December—I have it here—which the noble Earl might in all balance have quoted but did not see fit to do so. Each year under the Tories the Government have cut capital moneys for new social housing. This year they have cut it by almost £1 billion. My noble friend Lady Fisher told us about the effect in Birmingham; my noble friend Lord Sewel spoke about Scotland; my noble friend Lady Nicol spoke about the effect on rural economies; my noble friend Lord Blease spoke about the effect in Northern Ireland; and my noble friend Lord Dubs spoke about the effect in London,

251
despite the best efforts of Wandsworth council to pervert fair housing policies in so many areas, according to the district auditor.
Housing associations, which were investing £2.4 billion a year at the last general election, will go into this election with their budget under this Government cut by three quarters. Their budget is down to just £662 million. As for local authorities, last year the total number of new local authority starts across the whole country was 600 houses—less than my city of Norwich built each and every year for a decade. Yet, as my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, and the Government's own research has told us, we need to double, not reduce, the number of new socially rented houses we build every year if we are to meet this country's growing housing need. In a splendid maiden speech my noble friend Lord Hanworth reminded us of the values and virtues of local authority housing at its best, which broke, for a generation, the link between poverty, poor housing and ill-health.
So bad has the situation become, and in such short supply now is social housing, that last summer the Government passed the Housing Act 1996 which had just one purpose behind it: to remove the right of homeless families to permanent social housing. Why? Just because there was not enough of it to go around. The Government, having deliberately dried up the supply of socially rented housing, then cynically fingered the homeless for taking too large a proportion of the social housing that remained. That 1996 Act was hypocrisy personified.
The homeless need a home, and the Government refuse to allow housing associations and local authorities to build the homes that they need, though my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that under Labour we will phase in those receipts to permit that rebuilding to start. Homeless families need a home that they can afford.
That brings me to my second point which is the effect of November's Budget on housing benefit and affordability. The Government, over many years now have deliberately removed the subsidy from bricks and mortar and let rents soar, saying that they preferred to subsidise the individual. In Sir George Young's phrase:
"Housing benefit would take the strain".
That has had two consequences. The first is that, as rents rise, low earning as well as unemployed families become trapped on housing benefit, unable ever to earn enough to spring themselves off benefit. Having constructed a benefit trap, the Government then had the gall to blame the poor for being caught in it.
It has had a second effect also, because it has meant, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, that as the DoE subsidy of bricks and mortar fell—that was investment subsidy—so social security revenue spending on housing benefit rose. Every pound removed from building investment subsidy has cost an extra 75p in housing benefit. DoE savings have become DSS costs. The DSS then of course predictably engineered a moral panic about the rising cost of the welfare state as a backlog to the DSS in turn seeking to cut its costs by cutting housing benefit which had risen as a result of
252
DoE policy. How has it done that? First, the Government have cut housing benefit for people under 25 to the rent of a bedsit. Then they cut housing benefit for families to the average, and not the real rent that they are paying in their locality. Finally, in November's Budget—perhaps worst of all—the Government proposed to cut from next October housing benefit for single people under 60 to the rent of a bedsit.
Few single people live in bedsits; 93 per cent, of single people have self-contained housing, and nearly half of them receive housing benefit. In future, as each year they renew their claim for housing benefit, they will find that it does not cover the home in which they live, and they will have to move. There will be turmoil in the housing market as bedsits go up in rent and one-bedroom flats become virtually unlettable. Who will be affected? My noble friend Lord Ashley talked movingly of the effect on disabled people.
Let me give some other examples: a divorced man in a one-bedroomed flat who loses his job as a van driver will, under these proposals, lose his home as well because housing benefit will not cover the rent. As in a bedsit his children cannot now decently stay with him, he may lose contact with them as well. A carer in her 'forties whose elderly mother dies will be forced to leave their small flat in which she has lived all her life and move into a bedsit. A widow in her 'fifties— perhaps still in mourning—will be forced to leave the modest one-bedroom flat they shared because housing benefit will cover only a bedsit.
Let me attempt to describe that future home of a widow: a single room in a shared house—perhaps 12 feet by 13 feet, and too small for all her furniture. So the spare bed for a friend and the dining table and chairs will have to go because they cannot be fitted into a room 13 by 12. The house may be squalid— overflowing dustbins, dangerous wiring, soiled bathroom. In the next room may be an addict, an alcoholic, a former offender or someone with a history of mental illness as a result of breakdown of care in the community. She will share kitchen and bathroom with strangers who may be drunk, diseased or "shooting up". They may threaten her, as the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said. They may break into her room, for the locks and bolts on these rooms are never secure. She will never feel safe for she has nowhere else to go, and has no money to afford anywhere better. She has lost her mother, or a husband. She has lost her home. She has lost her furniture and possessions. She has lost her privacy and safety, and she will lose her dignity and self respect. We shall have humiliated her. Under a Tory Government this woman will be condemned by us to that room until she is 60.
I hope that the Minister will not complacently say that I am exaggerating. I am not. I used to inspect such properties. When just a few months ago in the 1996 Housing Bill we moved amendments to require local authorities to license such houses, the Government rejected our amendments. Equally, I hope that the Minister will not tell us that such people should shop around and negotiate rents down. They cannot. It is a landlord's market, and landlords do not want to know DSS tenants. Nor can such people turn to the local

253
authority, because as single people they have no priority. Nor can the local authority help them financially because their ability to do so—in case the Minister should want to argue this—under Monday's circular has been limited financially to some 20 or 30 people in an average local authority area.
I hope, too, that the Minister will not say that such people have a choice about where they live; that they can pay the difference between the rent charged and the housing benefit that they will receive. They cannot. If they could pay that difference, they would not be eligible for housing benefit in the first place. If, as my noble friend Lady Symons said, they top up their rent from their income support, they will not have enough to eat.
Can there be a greater indictment of housing policy from this Government than that? I repeat, as I wind up, the Government have cut social housing, and they have deregulated private rented housing. Rents soared, predictably, so housing benefit soared. Therefore the Government now propose to cut housing benefit and people will lose their homes. Every link of that chain of misery has been hammered into place by the Government. The human cost: forcing the widow, the carer, the disabled person, the divorced man to leave their homes of a lifetime and move into a squalid bedsit. Seventeen years of Tory housing policy has come to that. We should be ashamed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Now answer that!
7.20 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip says, "Now answer that". He merely has to sit on his seat and listen to me do so. First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for having introduced the debate. Housing is always an important subject and it is right that from time to time your Lordships should take the opportunity to express their views and say where the shoe pinches and what they believe ought to be done. We did not hear too much about that. We heard a lot of criticism, but I shall turn to that later.
One of the features of the debate has been the two notable maiden speeches. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, made a delightful maiden speech. I remember his father well; he started on the Cross-Benches and then moved to the Liberal Democrat Benches. Now his son is sitting on the Labour Benches. Perhaps his son, in turn, like so many hereditary Peers in the Labour Party, will join the Conservative Party. We shall look forward to that. I hope that his intervention today, distinguished as it was, will persuade some of his noble friends on the Front Bench that the hereditary peerage is quite a good thing, even when it is part of the Labour Party.
I was fascinated to hear his observations about the Viennese housing problem. My experience, which is only small, leads me to believe that we have much to learn from the Viennese about housing. I had not expected them to be associated with social housing
254
problems; one normally thinks of them as being more esoteric. His speech was fluent and articulate and he made some very trenchant comments.
The noble Viscount was obviously slightly unnerved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who said that the noble Viscount's great, great uncle was a Bishop of Norwich. That is a great responsibility to bear, whether you are a nephew or a great, great nephew. The right reverend Prelate told us that someone once said to him, "Watch out my boy! Steer clear of politics or you will be in for a rough ride". Using the same phraseology, but not with such impertinence, I would say to the right reverend Prelate, "Watch out my boy! If you are not careful you might conduct yourself in such a way that your great, great nephew will become a member of the Labour Party". That would be an almost bigger responsibility than being a right reverend Prelate.
I wish also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. His father was a notable attender in this House and a much loved person. It is good to see the noble Lord take his place today and make his maiden speech. The noble Lord had the capacity of making a succinct speech in three minutes, which is an example to emulate. I hope that we shall hear him and the noble Viscount frequently for many years.
It is not easy to answer a debate consisting of 30 participants. I apologise if I do not answer all that has been said by all noble Lords. I believe that noble Lords opposite have enjoyed describing the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that it was a disgrace and many other adjectives were used by noble Lords. They appeared to be going through the vocabulary to find better ones. The noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, referred to vandalism, which I thought was a little over the top. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke, Lord Berkeley, Lord Whitty and Lord Stallard and many others said that the Government have misbehaved terribly over their housing policy. I thought that they were like an owner who gets hold of his dog, puts him over his knee and slaps him hard for making a mess upon the drawing room floor. That is all very fine, but it is unfair if the dog has not made a mess.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, spent a great deal of time making a speech which relied more on emotion and drama than on policy. I do not propose to answer all her questions about housing benefit for the under 60s because I believe that she knows the Government's view about it. It was explained to her succinctly by my noble friend Lord Mackay when he said that we believe that single people on benefit ought to be in the same position as single working people; namely, they must take account of their income when deciding on the kind of accommodation that they can afford. That applies to everyone in this country and it should apply also to those on benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, asked whether we can reach cross-party agreement on housing. I believe that that is a jolly good idea. If he can persuade some of his friends to come round more to our point of view we might be able to do so. However, there appears to be a minor chasm between us.

255
It is interesting that in all the criticisms that have been made today—and they have come thick and fast from noble Lords opposite—we have not heard one word of what the Labour Party would do if it were in government. Noble Lords have not said, "If we were in government we would spend this extra money. We would put up so many new houses and would go into social renting". There has been nothing of that, other than a little whisper which was slipped in by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. I believe that she was quoting from the Labour Party manifesto when she said:
"We need to allow local councils to invest capital receipts".
That is a lovely phrase, but what does it mean? It means spending more money which means putting up the public sector borrowing requirement. If that is what the Labour Party intend, they should say so. We want to know what they intend to do. But, despite having had 20 people castigating the Government, not one said what he or she would do if the party came into office.
Perhaps I may tackle the thorny subject of this year's housing settlement, which has come under a good deal of hammer. Of course, I understand the disappointment that has been expressed by your Lordships and by those outside Parliament. This year's settlement was a hard one and it was necessary in order to control the growth of Government expenditure. Every facet of national expenditure had to be subject to intense scrutiny and housing was no exception. All governments must have regard to priorities. The Government were concerned to see that the needs of education, health and law and order should have the benefit of additional expenditure. Those were the priorities on which Ministers judged people wished to see money spent. That being so, there were two alternatives; either one could increase the totality of government expenditure, with all that that implies, or one could curtail expenditure in other directions. The Government considered that, in the national interest, the overall priority was to curtail government expenditure. That was also what people in the country felt should be done.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, that without proper housing, health, families and happiness suffer. Reasonable housing is essential. The noble Baroness mentioned the uncompromising attitude of the Government to social housing. I found that a little unhelpful, but she was right in her general premise that good housing is essential.
Of course, housing is important and we must make the best use of the money that is available. We want to encourage people to own their own homes. We want to encourage the private-rented sector to play a bigger part. We want to ensure that affordable social housing is available which will act as a safety net for the most vulnerable.
The noble Lord, Lord Currie of Marylebone, was concerned that the impact of the cuts on the construction industry might be considerable. We need to have a balanced sector. We do not need to rely on any one sector. Home ownership must be sustainable. Unlike the noble Lord, I believe that we are taking a balanced view. It is a long-term view and it supports the construction
256
industry. We achieved that by keeping interest rates low, having stable economic growth and increasing consumers' and taxpayers' confidence. Housing starts have increased during the past year with increased confidence in the housing market. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is involved in the construction industry, he seems to me to be alive and well, which is perhaps a reflection on the construction industry itself.
We are making considerable progress, despite what has been said today. Since 1979 the percentage of houses which are lived in by those who own them has risen from 56 per cent. to 68 per cent. The housing market is now reviving and, thank heavens, negative equity is on the way to becoming a facet of history.
Since 1991 the private rented sector has grown by 200,000. Since 1991 public investment has provided around a quarter of a million social homes, and 60,000 more have been created through the better use of the existing housing stock. That is encouraging but we have to recognise that, with the competing demands of health, education and other public services, there will always be a constraint on resources. That means that the Government have to place their resources where they can be of best use. And that means we want to help those who are in greatest need.
I was glad when my noble friend Lady Byford referred to the fact that house prices are rising and that the housing industry is coming out of the doldrums. That is true. When recession takes over, as it did, the whole economy is grabbed by the throat and housing has been no exception. Now, at last, it is getting better.
There are few who can be in greater need than those who have no home or who, for one reason or another, decide to leave home and sleep on the streets or elsewhere—a sight which distresses everyone. The Government provided the rough sleepers initiative which has done much to help these people. It has been running in central London since 1990 when the number of people sleeping rough on any one night was estimated at more than 1,000.
Under the rough sleepers initiative, the Government have spent over £180 million in the last six years— building new homes and hostels and providing help and resettlement services actually on the street—to help people to get off the streets.
In the last count by voluntary sector organisations in November of last year, the number found to be sleeping rough had fallen from 1,000 to 286. That is substantial progress, but the figure is still too high.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Epping Forest, said that those who left home did so because, in some cases, they had been kicked out or had become the subject of violence. He said that they were mostly youths who had not wished to leave home. My noble friend Lady Byford was right to say that many of those sleeping rough have very complex social problems. These may result from mental instability, insecurity, family breakdown, loneliness or alcohol or drug abuse. There may be a whole kaleidoscope of different reasons, one of which is not knowing exactly where to go for help. In that regard, the rough sleepers initiative has been of assistance.

257
The solutions are seldom easy or straightforward. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, when he refers to the effect of housing on health and says that they are connected. It is perfectly true that there is an association between poor housing and health; in particular there are links between mould and growth, damp and poor housing conditions and physical health. But housing is one factor among many which may affect people's health. Poverty, unemployment and unhealthy life styles may have at least as great an effect.
The main emphasis of the rough sleepers initiative has been to provide permanent accommodation: nearly 3,500 new homes have been provided with government funding. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, wants help for those on the streets. That is exactly what the rough sleepers initiative has done. It has also enabled funding to be provided for a variety of services to help those people and it has helped to bring together statutory and voluntary agencies such as social services, local authority housing departments and housing associations.
The noble Lord, Lord Murray, expressed concern about growing numbers of younger homeless. It is a regrettable consequence of increased family breakdown that young people become homeless. But the numbers of young people sleeping rough is very small and far from increasing, as the noble Lord suggested, the numbers are falling. In central London, where the rough sleepers initiative has been operating, the number of under-25s who are sleeping rough has fallen from 172 in March 1992 to 38 in November 1996. That is also a considerable improvement.
The initiative is now in its third phase, which runs between 1996 and 1999, and it has been extended to a number of other cities and London boroughs. The Government are making £73 million available to fund the third phase.
Of course, a very important role indeed in all this is played by charities and voluntary agencies. Governments cannot and should not do it all. The charities and voluntary agencies have a great part to play. In addition to the funding which is provided to them through the rough sleepers initiative, the Government offer grants to many of these agencies—it is close to £8 million this year—to support projects which prevent, or which relieve, single homelessness.
The rough sleepers initiative is aimed at the extreme examples of need. But the Government remain equally determined to provide social housing in order to help the poorest and the most vulnerable people in our society. That is the direction in which government resources should be spent.
My noble friend Lord Brentford emphasised the need for permanent rather than just hostel accommodation. The initiative emphasises the provision of permanent accommodation. It is not merely a programme of winter relief. The initiative has helped thousands of people back into permanent accommodation. Nearly 3,500 homes have been provided since 1990.
It is important that housing should be allocated fairly to those in greatest long-term need. The Housing Act, which received Royal Assent in July last year and which the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, thought fit to castigate,
258
has enabled that to happen. As from 1st April this year, there will be a single route into long-term social housing; namely, the local authority housing register. That means that all those who require social housing will be assessed on the same basis; that is, the evidence of their need for long-term low-cost housing. That replaces the present system where those declared statutory homeless were automatically given priority over everyone else, even those already on the waiting list whose needs may have been as great or even greater.
The approach will be much fairer and the criteria used by local authorities for assessing the needs of the applicant will continue to ensure that proper priority is given to families and to vulnerable people who become homeless through no fault of their own.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was concerned that we had last year removed our duty to the homeless. That is not so. We did not do that. Those in priority need will continue to have a two-year minimum safety net under the new legislation.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, raised the question of who should have the benefit of social housing. We believe that social housing—subsidised housing—should go to those people who most need that form of long-term subsidy. We do not believe, perhaps because we are not Austrian or socialists, that we should make ordinary taxpayers pay to subsidise the home styles of those who are better off.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, referred to the fact that she generously gave to beggars. I thought that I must have a chat with her afterwards but it may not be very helpful. I was in fact approached by a gentleman requesting a little assistance after I left a restaurant. One of my party had already given a donation to his needs. However, I declined and he called me an XYZ judge. I am bound to say that I thought he was wrong both as to the noun and to the adjective.
Begging is a difficult problem to deal with. The person whom I met I do not believe would have slotted in to what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, called a second day St. Francis of Assisi. However, I repeat that it is a difficult problem. The leader of the party opposite says that he takes a view of zero tolerance. I wonder what that means. I suppose he means that the Labour Party will not tolerate any begging or anything of that nature. That seems to me to be running back to the days of the 18th century vigilantes. I believe that the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition may have cause to regret using that expression of zero tolerance. It may need to be explained rather more to others.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that compulsion in these matters is very difficult. We must try to remove the reasons for begging and, on the whole, there are few reasons for it because the social security system and all that goes with it is designed to prevent it happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to Wandsworth sales policy and particularly attacked my honourable friend Sir Paul Beresford. I believe that, in due course, he may regret that. I think, on reflection, that the noble Lord will realise that that was both undesirable and

259
unwise. I can only say that the District Auditor has issued a draft report. The next stage is for those named in the report to have the opportunity to comment. At this stage it would be wrong for me, or for anyone else in government, to comment upon the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to 60,000 lettings a year as did the noble Baroness, Lady Symons. She said that we were falling down on our own estimates. Indeed, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also made that comment. We intend to provide an average of 58,000 to 60,000 new social lettings a year over the decade 1991–2001. That is in line with what is a long-term estimate of need. In some years provision will be higher while, in others, it will be lower. But, overall, we are on course to meet our target.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was concerned about the supply of shared accommodation, given the Government's proposal on housing benefit. I need only say that the availability of shared accommodation depends on the demand for it. It is difficult to predict in advance how the market will act. But, so far, the market has responded and there are currently about three-quarters of a million single people living in the deregulated private rented sector, mainly in house and flat shares.
It is sometimes claimed—and we heard it said this evening—that we have allowed a backlog of demand for social housing to build up. But there will always be people who are going through the process of forming households, dissolving households or, indeed, of moving house. There will also always be people who are sharing houses but who wish to live independently. That is part of the moving scene of life. Nevertheless, aspiration for housing is not the same as need. Circumstances change. What we have to do is to ensure that Government resources go to where the needs are. Therefore, we must be careful before we jump to conclusions about who really needs social housing. We are monitoring the trends and we shall continue so to do. At present, the trends are moving in the right direction. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, referred to a deteriorating state of housing stock. That disregards the clear evidence. There is a 10 per cent. fall in the number of unfit homes under this Government and two-thirds of those homes require less than £2,000 to repair.
Meeting the housing needs of the nation does not simply mean building new homes; it is also important that the existing stock should be properly improved and maintained. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that making use of empty stock is important in helping to meet a 4.4 million growth. To achieve that aim, we are encouraging people to rent out property, encouraging housing associations to buy up and repair rundown property and we are also making use of the empty stock. In 1995–96 the number of empty homes in the Government's estate fell by nearly 40 per cent. As a result of the estate renewal challenge fund, 29 of the most needy estates will now receive £174 million of Government support over the next three years. That, in turn, will bring in a further £250 million of private investment and the process is well under way.
260
Under the large-scale voluntary transfer programme local authorities can transfer stock to new landlords with the tenants' consent. Since 1988, £3,700 million of private money has, as a result, been brought in to improve those estates. The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, said that Birmingham council had asked for £200 million and received far less. I advise the noble Baroness that Birmingham should seek to take advantage of these opportunities which combine public and private finance to improve the housing of its residents.
There are a number of other points which various speakers raised. Perhaps I could just tell my noble friend Lord Coleraine, who mentioned leasehold reform, that we are aware of such problems. The Lands Tribunal has a discretion towards costs and the issues are similar to those which can be raised in the courts generally. The Government fund the Leasehold Advisory Service which gives free advice on enfranchisement. Anyone who is faced with defending an appeal on a local valuations tribunal decision can discuss his options with that expert service before consulting his professional advisers.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said that the latest restrictions on housing benefit for single people will hit the disabled. I should just point out to the noble Lord that we recognise his concerns. The proposals are currently open for consultation and we shall take final decisions after carefully considering all the points that have been made.
In conclusion, I should like to point out that if I have not been able to answer all the questions raised—and I do not believe that I have—perhaps I may take advantage of the Hansard report and undertake to write to those noble Lords whose speeches I have not covered. However, the picture is really not as negative as some have suggested. Governments cannot deal with housing alone; they have to deal with it through the whole spectrum of housing, voluntary sectors and charities. It is up to the Government as well as those organisations to take into account the difficulties of the housing sector. That is being achieved at present and not without success. The evidence is of a housing market which is in fact improving and getting better. Despite the criticisms that noble Lords opposite have made—and they have enjoyed doing so—I hope that your Lordships will agree that the position about housing is better than it was. I hope that it will continue to improve.
7.46 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for responding to the debate in the manner that he has. It has been a difficult day for him because we have heard many speeches and the noble Earl has had to listen to all of them. All those speeches have been critical in one way or another of government housing policy—and quite rightly in my view.
I am very grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I am especially grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the noble Baroness,

261
Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. They were the three Conservative Peers who took part in our debate—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: How many?
Lord Williams of Elvel: Three, my Lords. All the other speakers in the debate either came from my own party or from the Benches to my right. What conclusion can we draw from that fact? Well, perhaps that noble Lords sitting behind the noble Earl do not seem to be as enthusiastic about the Government's housing policy as he seemed to be in his concluding speech. It is not for me to make a long speech at this stage but, in so far as the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, complained about our failure to put forward Labour Party policy on these matters, perhaps I may refer them to the speech made by my right honourable friend Mr. Tony Blair at Shelter's 30th anniversary event. If the Minister and the noble Earl would care to cast their eyes over the report of that speech, they would understand exactly what we are talking about.
It is normal on such occasions to say that we have had a good debate. But I am bound to say—and I say this in all frankness as a Member of this House—that I am not sure that this has been a very good debate. We have heard some very excellent speeches, but we have not had any feedback from the other side on them. I regret that because, when moving a Motion, I genuinely hope and believe that there will be speakers from the other side, and indeed from the Cross-Benches. Of course the noble Lord, Lord Moran, made a contribution tonight but I would like to see a debate take place rather than simply an onslaught on the Government, which is what happened today.
That onslaught is justified because the Government's housing policy is rubbish. Nevertheless, in this House we have to have proper debates. Therefore, in future, when we table such Motions, I hope that the party opposite will respond in a proper fashion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sundays (Dancing and Licensing) Bill [H.L.]
7.50 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill is a modest but long overdue measure which will legalise the sale of tickets for public dancing on Sunday nights and allow night clubs to open and trade on Sundays. My interest in this measure derives from my long association with the tourist and leisure industry, first in business and secondly as a government Minister. I have long been convinced of the need for a change and I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce this Bill this evening.
The leisure industry has worked for several years to create the right environment for the reform of the 1780 Sunday Observance Act. That is what we are now doing.
262
These efforts have been led by the British Entertainment and Discothèque Association with the support of consumer bodies, the British Tourist Authority and the British Resorts Association, and, most importantly, the Association of Chief Police Officers, who fully support this Bill.
Night clubs have become increasingly sophisticated establishments which are often part of multi-million pound, out-of-town complexes, and play host to a range of social activity. The late night entertainment sector currently employs over 130,000 people and has an annual turnover of £2 billion. Every weekend more than 1 million people visit night clubs. Opening on Sundays will create up to 3,000 new jobs and generate a net increase in sales to the industry of £130 million.
Relaxation of this law was first introduced in Scotland in the late 'seventies and it has proven to be a great success. It is now the third most popular night of the week and has added an average 13 per cent to clubs' gross revenues. It has opened a new market for Scottish clubs and the night has proved extremely popular with the more mature crowd, and particularly with women. Legislation continues in the same vein as the recent changes to the Sunday trading law which now permits a whole host of social entertainment, including gambling and drinking, on a Sunday. We must also remember that it is not merely a case of allowing night clubs to open. Should this Bill become an Act, it would allow a variety of other activities such as charity functions to operate dances and events legally on a Sunday.
I understand that the original reason for the ban in 1780 was to prevent dubious characters from subverting contemporary laws on religious matters by holding events which were part entertainment and part prayer meetings. Apparently money was extracted from people who attended and the nature of the proceedings seem to have varied between charlatanism and sedition.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I know the feeling!
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is so well versed in his history.
Accordingly, the authorities of the day held those gatherings to be sufficiently undesirable to warrant proscription. The purpose of this Bill is to remove that absolute proscription on the grounds that the reasons which held sway in the 18th century perhaps no longer have that force today. The Bill would therefore make possible the commercial running of music and dancing events of any kind on a Sunday. It would also make possible the selling of alcohol at those events.
If the Bill becomes law, it will do no more than allow access to the licensing regimes where this is barred. The licensing regimes both for liquor and public entertainment are strict. I am certain that licensing authorities will exercise the same rigour for events on Sundays as they do for events on weekdays, and as they do for pubs and other premises which are open seven days a week.
I make two points. First, the Bill does no more than allow business operators to cross the threshold and enter the licensing system from which they are presently

263
barred. Secondly, projections, which are an important part of the existing licensing system, will apply with no less vigour. The Bill contains essentially three sets of provisions. Two are of an essential nature and one is more incidental. Clause 1 disapplies the 1780 Sunday Observance Act from entertainment, music and dancing. The effect of the clause will therefore be to make possible—subject, as I made clear, to the usual licensing processes—the holding of commercially run dances on a Sunday.
Under Clause 2 premises holding dances on Sundays will be allowed to make application for a special hours certificate. These certificates, granted by licensing justices when they consider it suitable, allow premises which have a public entertainment licence from the local authority to sell alcohol after normal closing time.
Those are the main provisions of the Bill. There is one additional provision which is by way of a consequential matter. At present a restaurant with an alcohol licence may continue to sell alcohol with meals up to 1 a.m., if it provides some form of entertainment for its customers. The entertainment usually takes the form of one or two musicians, for example, a piano player. This activity is distinguished from that with which the Bill is primarily concerned because no public entertainment licence is required. An extended hours order is grantable by the licensing authority. No doubt for reasons of consistency, these extended hours orders are not available on Sundays. The Bill will enable restaurants to apply for an extended hours order on Sundays if they wish to do so. As on other days of the week, the licensing justices will be able to impose limitations on the application of the order if they see fit.
This Bill is the result of a long drawn out consultation process. The industry has spent a great deal of time liaising with local authorities and the police. I believe this Bill has much support in the country. A change is long overdue. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Viscount Astor.)
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Astor for his detailed explanation of this short Bill. In my capacity as chairman of the Keep Sunday Special campaign he probably would not expect me to agree to it without asking some supplementary questions that arise from it. It is important that we should bear in mind the fact that when your Lordships previously considered Sunday shopping, it was finally agreed by Parliament that large shops should be limited to any six continuous hours between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. That meant that no shop with a floorspace exceeding 3,000 square feet could be open after 6 p.m. on a Sunday. Parliament in its wisdom made that decision in order to keep Sunday evenings as a quieter and less active time when families could meet together and there would be less demand for employees to work.
That restriction on shops sought to prevent noise, excessive traffic and other nuisance on a Sunday evening for the benefit, largely, of local residents.
264
I question why this same restriction should not apply in the situation we are discussing as these different forms of nuisance will surely increase as a result of this measure. It surely would create significant disturbance for local residents in the areas in which these different enterprises were open.
I was interested to hear my noble friend say that 3,000 new jobs would be created as a result of this Bill. That seems to imply a couple of things. First, a large number of premises will open as a result of this Bill becoming law. Secondly, I should be grateful if my noble friend would confirm that new jobs will be created and that employees who are already working a full week will not be stretched a little further. Who will do the 3,000 new jobs, and where will they come from?
Finally, will the Minister elaborate further on the number of places which would be likely to qualify for opening? How large are they? What kind of locations will they be in? I am concerned about the effects on local residents. I shall be interested to know to what extent people in the area will be affected. Will the premises be in residential areas or in out of town shopping areas where local residents will not be affected? That clearly would be more satisfactory. Will there be any employment protection to stop people losing their jobs during the week if they are unhappy to work on Sundays? We have debated that issue a great deal across the Floor of the House over the past 15 years.
I should be grateful for more help and information in order to evaluate the seriousness of the problem that will be created by the Bill before I and others will be happy with the change.
8.1 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I believe that voting generally should be free, and a subject such as this is certainly one for a free vote as that term is normally understood. I make the point because I do not wish my noble friends who perhaps take a different view of activities on Sunday from that which I take to be regarded as committed by what I say today.
I believe that it is generally appropriate that people should be able to do on Sundays what they can do on other days of the week. I welcome the extending of the choice of leisure activities inherent in the Bill. I understand that there is some confusion in some quarters about the effect of the present laws. That in itself has led to anomalies.
However, I have two major areas of concern. While my starting point may be different from that of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, I raise the same issues. First, I refer to protection for residents and neighbours of the premises concerned. There will be more activity. It is true to say that residents look forward to a day off if they live near premises which are troublesome in a general sense. The problems are not necessarily, for instance, a result of loud music from premises but a result of the behaviour of people as they leave. Those people may not be aware that they are disruptive. When one is in a fairly happy state of mind late at night, in one's own terms one may be behaving reasonably. But

265
those trying to get to sleep nearby would not agree. It is very difficult to control loud conversations in the street, the banging of car doors, and so on.
That matter was raised in evidence to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. In evidence its representatives said:
"For noise on the streets, the local authority has great difficulty indeed … we cannot deal with the sort of problems on the streets from these sorts of premises, that is, people shouting on the streets; people congregating on pavements; people slamming doors; revving cars; taxis arriving to pick people up. We have no power and the police powers are fairly limited because they only deal with it if there is a breach of peace … we would have to monitor it and it is very expensive monitoring all these things like nuisances at night".
Licensing and restrictions that may be imposed through that procedure are not the answer. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the licensing authorities exercising, I think the term used was rigour. But in evidence to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee the Justices' Clerks' Society put a substantial question mark over what might be done through the licensing procedure. Its representative was asked whether he was satisfied that the system of music and dancing licenses issued by local authorities and subject to appeals to the courts provides sufficient protection for residents potentially affected. He said:
"Our general answer is 'not very satisfied'".
He was asked:
"Do you consider there should be a wider potential for objection for an affected resident?".
He said,
"Yes I do, not only at the time of grant but also a proper review machinery so that an individual who feels aggrieved by disturbance can petition the court for revocation of that certificate".
It is an important point. I understand that the police have the powers to apply for revocation.
It is a question as to whether the Government will give local authorities—I believe that they would be the right recipient—reserve powers to tackle the matter when noise nuisance legislation does not work—for instance, when it would be sensible simply to prohibit certain times for opening. There should be a discretion for each local authority because in different areas the circumstances are different. I believe that there is an area of concern to be tackled.
What experience has been gleaned from the deregulation of shopping hours? What have we learnt? I believe that there are some problems. It would be sad not to take advantage of that experience.
The second area concerns employees' rights. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, referred to the Sunday Trading Act and said that the Bill was in the same vein. It is, but not with regard to the protection of employees. I see no reason not to include a replication of the protections contained in the Sunday Trading Act. I refer to the right to refuse to work on Sunday; the concomitant right not to be dismissed for refusing to work on Sunday; and the right not to suffer detriment for refusing to work on Sunday. If the Bill goes forward, I hope that those protections could be written into the
266
legislation. Subject to that, and having spent my time raising criticisms, I say again that I support the general thrust of deregulation.
8.8 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I am constrained to start by saying that anything that I say on this as on any other Private Member's Bill is my own opinion. My party does not take an opinion collectively on Private Member's Bills. However, those who remember the progress of the Sunday trading legislation will know that my personal predilection has always been for greater freedom for activities on Sunday. The Bill clearly is in line with that. It seems rather anomalous that we have licensed almost every other kind of entertainment except dancing and the ability to serve alcoholic drinks with dancing. I am rather surprised by the calculations which the noble Viscount makes of the extra number of jobs. I should have thought that that was an anomaly that would have been of great importance on only a few occasions in the year. Although I do not question his figures, I am surprised to learn that the impact has been so great in Scotland.
The legislation does not represent a glorious history for the Government. They sought to put the measure through under the deregulation legislation and were comprehensively shot down by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, and quite rightly so, although I approve the objective of the legislation.
I shall not be very original. I share both concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I share the concern of the local authorities that there should be a reserve power to enable them to take action when there is clearly a breach of the licensed conditions and there is the eventuality of disturbance to neighbours of the premises in which the dancing and drinking will take place. I also share her concern that there should be the same protection of employment as that provided by other Sunday trading legislation.
The noble Viscount referred in his opening speech to the amount of consultation that had taken place on the part of—I will not say the promoters of the Bill, since it is not a private Bill—those who are concerned about the measure with local authorities and other organisations. I am a little surprised, if that consultation was so thorough, that there should not have been agreement about the reserve powers of local authorities and protection of the rights of those who will be needed to work on Sunday nights. I hope that the noble Viscount will support any action that is taken at later stages of the Bill to secure that those defects are remedied. However, with those provisos, I support the Bill.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Astor on his very fine exposition of this proposed measure. I should like to say at the start that Her Majesty's Government support the Bill.
The Bill's provision would give effect to the same proposals as were contained in the draft regulation, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh, which was put before the House in 1995.

267
I do not propose to detain your Lordships with a detailed account of the history of that deregulation measure, with which the House is I think familiar. Suffice it to say that there were concerns on a number of fronts, and I should like to mention briefly those which seem to me to have some significance.
Perhaps the point of greatest concern in this House was the view expressed by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee that legislation on this particular subject, touching as it does on aspects of Sunday observance, was not appropriate for the deregulation order process. I have to say that that was not a view which Her Majesty's Government shared, but nevertheless it was a view of which we were required to take note. However that might be, that particular issue has been resolved by the very welcome initiative which my noble friend has taken in introducing primary legislation.
There were also concerns about the effectiveness of the consultation process—something which the Government are required to carry out prior to introducing a proposed deregulation measure. It may be fairly said that enthusiasm led the day. Be that as it may, that matter too, relating as it does to the deregulation order process, is no longer an issue. Indeed, it may be said that there has been an enhanced level of consultation about Sunday dancing, because the normal processes of debate and consideration which attach to a piece of primary legislation have actually been augmented by the process of direct consultation which took place on the proposed deregulation measure.
So if anyone thinks there was originally insufficient time properly to consider these proposed changes to the law, that perceived defect has now been handsomely corrected.
I know that there were concerns in some quarters, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey and my noble friend Lord Brentford, about the position of workers who now might be expected to work on Sundays if Sunday dancing becomes lawful. It is clear that the industry has made strenuous efforts to tackle this question. The voluntary code of practice which has been proposed by the British Entertainment and Discothèque Association will watch over many of the problems that are envisaged by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh.
I should like to mention briefly one other matter about which some people have expressed concern; that is, the important issue of protection for residents from nuisance. It is inevitable, and perfectly understandable, that when new activities are proposed—or, more accurately in the present case, when the existing boundaries of activities are to be extended—people who think themselves likely to be affected by the new arrangements may feel some anxiety. What I should like to make quite clear is that the existing arrangements for protection of the public as they apply to the other days of the week will be applied in full to Sundays. That is true both of the local authority licensing arrangements
268
for public entertainments and for the liquor licensing regime, which is the responsibility of the licensing justices.
Both regimes contain provision for objections to be heard and for the licence or certificate to be revoked or not renewed when there is due cause. I hope that will be sufficient reassurance in relation to any of the concerns mentioned by noble Lords. As a matter of comparison, the current liquor licensing regime applies the same safeguards to Sundays as to weekdays. The permitted hours on Sunday are slightly shorter—noon to 10.30 p.m., as opposed to 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. on weekdays, but that is the only distinction.
I should like to go a little further concerning the areas of protection for the public mentioned by my noble friend and the noble Baroness. Local authorities have a wide discretion in relation to public entertainment licences and take account of objections from the police, fire authorities and the public. The local authority may revoke a licence if the holder breaks its conditions, or may refuse to renew the licence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a particular reference to the police. The police may move for revocation, but the public may instigate that move on the part of the police. The same consideration also applies to local licences. The licensing justices also have the same wide discretion on whether to grant a special hours certificate, and may revoke a certificate where there has been disorderly or indecent conduct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lord Brentford and the noble Lord, Lord Mclntosh of Haringey, were concerned over the rights of employees in this area. Those employees who do not wish to work on Sundays will normally be given the opportunity to opt out of Sunday working. The British Entertainment and Discothèque Association, as I mentioned, has prepared a voluntary code of conduct which will enable employees to opt out, with the offer of independent arbitration in the event of disputes between employer and employee, and proposals for re-employment or compensation where arbitration upholds complaints.
My noble friend was also concerned about the venues for such activities on Sundays. It is envisaged that there will be no new premises expected. One must remember that there is also a very flexible labour market. We have found that such activities are increasingly being located further from residential areas.
Dancing is now virtually the only activity which continues to be caught by the Sunday Observance Act 1780. Other forms of commercial entertainment— cinemas, theatres, concerts, sporting events—are now lawful, and there is a strong case in equity for removing the isolation in which public dancing finds itself. It seems particularly difficult to defend, for example, the criminalising of tea dances for charity, which is the effect of the present law.
I do not assume that the outcome of this Bill, if it becomes law, would be that most people in the country would suddenly change their habits and go dancing on Sundays. I am quite sure that most would not. But the point is that those who would choose to do so—and there are not insignificant numbers who would—should

269
be given the opportunity if they want it. Always provided of course that they should do so in a way which does not offend or disturb others.
I welcome this Bill, and I commend it to the House.
8.19 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister. He answered most of the questions put forward this evening. Perhaps I may briefly make a couple of points. We are only bringing the law into line with that in Scotland, as it has been for nearly 20 years. I know that those arguments have never convinced my noble friend Lord Brentford. They did not convince him when we debated the Sunday trading laws and I am sure that they will not convince him now. However, it is right to say that we are only doing what happens in a large part of this country already.
There are important points about the effect on local residents: excess traffic, noise, and matters of that sort. However, I remind the House, as did my noble friend the Minister, that there are, as it were, two discretionary checks: the public entertainment licence, which is given by the local authority, and the special hours certificates. Licensing justices would retain the discretion to refuse the special hours certificate. Licensing authorities may revoke a licence and the police may move a revocation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talked about Kensington and Chelsea. That was an issue when this matter came up in relation to deregulation. The debate has moved on since then. One of the criticisms was lack of consultation. There has been much more consultation
270
since then and as a result I feel that there is a fair agreement between local authorities and the Government now on this issue and there are no longer areas of disagreement as there were.
Of course employment rights are important. The industry has shown itself willing to produce a code of conduct guaranteeing nightclub workers the right to opt out of Sunday working without fear of redundancy or detriment to their chances of promotion. The code will also allow for an independent BEDA funded tribunal to be set up to arbitrate on any disputes.
It is a late night industry and by such definition the staff of clubs and discothèques—
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, could I ask my noble friend whether he could arrange for copies of that voluntary code of practice to be circulated to all those who have participated in this debate?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly see whether I can arrange that.
The staff work flexible, non-conventional hours. It is the nature of the business. I hope that I have answered any points that noble Lords have raised. I feel that my noble friend the Minister fairly well answered all of them. I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.

  Right of Individual Petition: Official Records
  Right of Individual Petition: Official Records
  Atrush Camp, Northern Iraq
  Atrush Camp, Northern Iraq
  High Security Prisons
  High Security Prisons