Sitting of 16 January 1997

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

    The Euro
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost to the United Kingdom economy of converting to the euro. [9515]
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the costs to the United Kingdom Government of transition from the pound to the euro. [9526]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government have not yet made any full assessments of the transitional costs to the Government or to the economy of introducing the euro. We will make an assessment of such costs at the appropriate time as part of the assessment of whether the United Kingdom should participate in the single currency.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As we must decide this year whether to join the euro, and as the cost of doing so would run to many billions of pounds because all business systems, computers and shop tills would have to be changed, does my right hon. and learned Friend think that a welcome contribution to the debate, which I know that he wants, would be to make and publish such estimates? Have estimates been made of the direct cost to Government Departments such as the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and so on? If so, will he undertake to publish them at an early date?
    Mr. Clarke: If the euro were to go ahead on the timetable contemplated, and we were to join, Government Departments of the sort that my right hon. Friend cited would not have to change their accounting systems until 2002, when notes and coins are intended to be introduced. We are in close contact with the banking and retailing world and a great deal of consultation has taken place. When the sensible time comes for making a full assessment of the choice facing the United Kingdom, things such as compliance costs will obviously be relevant. By then, we should be able to produce some reliable figures and estimates.
    Mr. Prentice: Would not the costs be very considerable? In the 1960s, the Government decided to decimalise five years before D-day and the relevant
    438
    legislation was on the statute book four years before. Why does the Chancellor think that the country can make this momentous and irreversible decision, with euros coming to the United Kingdom in January 2002 and the pound disappearing in June of that year, in less time than it took the country to decimalise in 1971?
    Mr. Clarke: Member states are considering the precise transitional arrangements. The British Government are contributing to the necessary rules and regulations that would govern the transition to make it less expensive and to reduce the costs to an acceptable level. As I said, on the strictest interpretation of the timetable, we are talking about a changeover of notes and coins by 2002. At the moment, the sensible thing is to wait and see precisely what the transitional arrangements will be and to continue discussions with banks and retailers. Banks and many financial houses will have to change their systems anyway if the euro is formed by other countries, because I expect much trading in the euro to take place in the foreign exchange markets in the City of London.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the cost of introducing the euro, which everyone accepts will run into billions of pounds, will have to be paid for by increases in taxes and prices? If we have the same experience as we had with decimalisation, conversion prices will be rounded up. Will not the introduction of the euro therefore result in a significant increase in inflation, pushing up prices and feeding into higher wages and costs?
    Mr. Clarke: I think that it is an argument; I am not sure that it is a fact. I agree that it is perfectly legitimate to claim that there will be substantial transitional costs; the Government must be in a position to estimate them and will do so at the sensible time when we face the choice. I well remember taking part in the controversy about decimalisation. The debates were still going on when I first arrived in the House. My only recollection of decimalisation is that, after much agitated debate running up to it, the changeover was almost a non-event.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Following the discussions in Dublin on the euro, its costs and other matters, the Health Secretary said that he favoured renegotiating our position in Europe and was supported by the Prime Minister, who said that he favoured renegotiation. This morning, the Chancellor said that he does not think that that means renegotiating. Who speaks for the Government? Does the Chancellor support the Prime Minister's position on renegotiation?
    Mr. Clarke: We have a clear position on negotiating in the context of the intergovernmental conference. We have produced a White Paper, and have set out a clear negotiating position. I have not the first idea what the Opposition's view of any of that is; they have not produced any such document, and this is one of the many areas where it is not possible to get any straight answers out of them.

    Small Businesses
    Sir Wyn Roberts: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what economic measures he is taking to encourage small businesses. [9516]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): The main contribution that the Government can make to a successful small business sector is to provide a stable macro-economic environment, with low taxation, limited regulation, and support and guidance where necessary: this we are doing.
    Sir Wyn Roberts: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. Does she agree, however, that the economic stability and excellent prospects that small businesses now enjoy, and the help given to them in the Budget with business rates and corporation tax, will be put at risk if the electorate are foolish enough to take a leap in the dark and vote the Labour party into government?
    Mrs. Knight: My right hon. Friend is right: he has made an important point. The major criterion that all small businesses want us to achieve is a stable economic environment, and they now have that. It is also important to note that we now have uniform business rates because, before they were introduced, too many Labour-controlled local authorities continued to put up rates, thus milking dry companies in their areas and inhibiting their ability to employ and foster. It is not surprising that small businesses are so worried about the Labour party's policies.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is not one of the additional burdens borne by small business men the extra cost of value added tax on fuel? Will they not have been rather upset, if they voted Conservative at the last election having been assured that there would be no VAT on fuel, to find that it was immediately imposed?
    Mrs. Knight: That just shows how little the hon. Gentleman knows about small businesses. They claim the VAT back. What they are very worried about is the question of the minimum wage and the social chapter, with which they know the Labour party is threatening them.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Is my hon. Friend aware of any proposals to give control of business rates to local authorities? Does she think that, were that to happen, business rates would go up or down in councils controlled by Opposition parties, such as Hinckley and Bosworth borough council in my constituency?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend raises the issue that worries so many businesses. When their local authorities were controlled by Labour, they felt that they were having to pay far too much for far too few services—and, what is more, statistics prove that they were absolutely right. The Labour party's promise that it would return small companies to local authorities for business rating purposes shows just how little the party knows about companies, and shows why companies justly fear its policies.

    Inheritance Tax
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people he estimates will pay inheritance tax in the current financial year. [9518]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): It is provisionally estimated that inheritance tax will be paid on around 18,000 transfers on death and in lifetime in the current financial year.
    Mr. Pike: As a Lancashire Member, I congratulate the Minister—another Lancashire Member—on his elevation to the Privy Council.
    Does not the Government's obsession with the abolition of inheritance tax underline, in many people's minds, their obsession with helping a minority of wealthy people rather than giving a fair deal to the majority? That has been the trend ever since the Government were elected in 1979.
    Mr. Jack: In a spirit of camaraderie, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind good wishes on my appointment to the Privy Council. I listened to what he had to say, but it contrasts starkly with what the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said last year in the Standing Committee considering the Finance Bill. At that time, he confirmed your party's wish for more millionaires to be created, and seemed to confirm some interest in the creation of wealth; but you show your usual nasty attitude to that wealth passing down—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Privy Councillors do not behave in that way.
    Mr. Jack: I apologise, Madam Speaker—the heat of battle must have got to me.
    The hon. Gentleman suggested that his party takes a rather unfortunate attitude to wealth being passed on. Inheritance tax statistics show that only 2 per cent. of estates now pay it. Through raising the threshold and our long-term desire to remove the tax, we want to end the worry caused to those with modest estates as they pass their wealth down the generations. We want more wealth to be passed on for productive use by future generations.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that 2 per cent. of estates being subject to inheritance tax is 2 per cent. too many? The trouble with inheritance tax is not that it was designed to raise revenue for items that must be financed by the state, but that it was devised as a way of punishing people for having money in the first place. It is a thoroughly un-Conservative tax and it should go at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important point. It is worth considering the history of estate taxes, or estate duty as it was once called. Such taxes were relevant when the tax base was not as it is today. Today, we have taxes on income, earning and consumption; the time has come for us to make progress on our long-term objective of removing inheritance tax, as and when we can afford it.

    Economy (North-West England)
    Mr. Elletson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the economy in the north-west of England. [9519]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: The north-west is sharing fully in the success of the British economy, which is enjoying a combination of low inflation, falling unemployment, low mortgage rates and rising living standards not seen for a generation.
    Mr. Elletson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does it not show that, thanks to the Government's economic policy, north-west England is now one of the most competitive and successful economies in the most competitive and successful country in western Europe? Would it not be crazy to throw all that away on new Labour, new failure?
    Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is correct. Unemployment in the north-west has fallen to its lowest level for more than six years and average weekly pay is the second highest in the country. May I turn my hon. Friend's attention to some of the figures relating to Blackpool? It is, as he knows, the country's premier tourist resort, with more visitors per year than Portugal and more hotel beds than the whole of Greece. The Labour party's recipe of a minimum wage, the social chapter and more red tape would damage jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency and would damage the United Kingdom's tourist industry.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the hon. Lady aware that chambers of commerce in the north-west have stated that they are more concerned about the level of interest rates and a competitive pound than about anything else? Although I welcome the decision by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to overcome the fears of the Governor of the Bank of England, will the hon. Lady ensure that my points about the competitive pound are fully taken into account, bearing in mind the need for manufacturing industry in the north-west of England?
    Mrs. Knight: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is one of the factors that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor takes into account when setting interest rates. The right hon. Gentleman will also be aware that we receive many representations from business, commerce and individuals about all aspects of the British economy. I can assure him that they are delighted by our inflation performance. They are also delighted that our interest rates are low, mortgage rates are at their lowest level for almost 30 years, more people are in work and we have a lower unemployment rate than any other major European country. That is the sort of economy that we have created in this country—one in which companies can prosper and thrive and individuals can expect jobs and achieve improved living standards.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I welcome the influence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his resistance to the blandishments of the Governor of the Bank of England when urging him to increase interest rates. Such resistance has made a direct contribution to the healthy economic situation in
    442
    north-west England. In my constituency of Macclesfield, unemployment is down to 3.2 per cent. and we have recently had the fine announcement of the second runway at Manchester airport. Only last October, Vauxhall announced investment of more than £300 million in Merseyside, which I hope will go some way to offset today's unfortunate announcement by Ford at Halewood—a decision that I deeply regret.
    Mrs. Knight: I agree with my hon. Friend that any job losses are regrettable. In its statement today, Ford says that it is improving the plant's competitiveness to secure its long-term future, but the future for everyone in this country is a stable economy—an economy and economic policies that ensure the job creation that we are currently witnessing. Recently published figures show that we are creating about 10,000 jobs a week; we are prepared to continue to do so. It is vital for everyone in the country.
    Mr. Milburn: Will the hon. Lady confirm that earlier today the Chancellor described the loss of jobs in the north-west at Ford's Halewood plant as a case of
    "You can't win them all"?
    How can she defend such complacency when the loss of quality manufacturing employment is such a devastating blow, not only to the north-west but to the whole British economy?
    Instead of sitting back and doing nothing, will the Minister agree to make a statement to the House on the impact of those job losses on the people of the north-west and the economy of that region?
    Mrs. Knight: That question was uniquely silly, especially the quotation that the hon. Gentleman attributed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As I said, all job losses are regrettable. I find them regrettable, as do my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government.
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support Ford's measures to improve the plant's competitiveness to ensure its future, and that he will be pleased by the enormous investment that Ford has made in this country. I look forward to his supporting the economic policies that have created and continue to create jobs in this country; unemployment is falling here, but is rising in every other major European country. That ability to create jobs results in this country's success and provides big opportunities for everyone, including people on Merseyside.

    Taxation
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the level of taxation in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) the rest of the European Union. [9520]
    Mr. Jack: The overall burden of taxation on the economy in the United Kingdom was 35.75 per cent of GDP in 1995–96. This represents one of the very lowest levels in Europe and is below that of France, Germany and Italy.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my hon. Friend—whose honour Conservative Members very much welcome—agree that taxation must be a matter for member states,

    443
    that our policy has enabled us to achieve lower personal and business taxation, details of which I invite him to give us, and that it is not in Britain's interests to give up that control?
    Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his kind personal comments. On his last point, I hope that I can satisfy him by reminding him of what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor said to the House of Lords in the EMU inquiry on 28 March 1996:
    "I personally strongly take the view that taxation policies are decisions for the member states of the European Union and should remain so."
    I believe that to be a clear statement of our policy.
    My hon. and learned Friend invited me to give the House information on tax on business as a percentage of GDP. In the United Kingdom it is 8 per cent., in Germany 9.4 per cent. and in France 16.8 per cent. At a personal level, in the United Kingdom it is 17 per cent., in Germany 27 per cent., in France 26 per cent. and in Italy 24 per cent., which clearly shows what an attractive place the United Kingdom is to do business and earn money, with tax at such a low percentage of GDP.
    Mr. Spearing: Do not considerable disparities persist between VAT in different nations of the Community? For instance, do not France and Germany impose a minimum of 15 per cent. VAT on children's clothing, fuel and water?
    Is the Minister aware that, under article 99 of the Maastricht treaty on European Union, such disparities must change? Has he not seen the document that has been sent to the presidency, and to Her Majesty's Government by the Commission, requiring or suggesting a further tranche of harmonisation, including decision by qualified majority voting and central collection and dispersion? Why did the Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite the conversation on Radio 4 this morning, make no reference to that?
    The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who is sitting next to the Chancellor, wrote a memorandum, which is publicly available in the Vote Office, describing that outrageous suggestion and signed it. Would it not have been better if the Chancellor had seen and signed it?
    Mr. Jack: I do not know what to make of the hon. Gentleman's question. He accuses the Chancellor of not dealing with the central issue, but for once Radio 4's "Today" programme concentrated on asking the Chancellor about the excellent performance of the British economy. My right hon. and learned Friend offered good information about inflation, low interest rates and falling unemployment—the things that really matter in this country to those who are working and exporting to the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Redwood: Will the Minister confirm that the British Government would veto any Franco-German proposal to make taxation a matter of common concern within the Community institutions? Will we stand against any compulsory increase in income tax to bring this
    444
    country into line with France and Germany, and will he confirm that higher income tax would not be a price worth paying for a single currency?
    Mr. Jack: That, I think, is a hypothetical question—[Interruption.]—for the very simple and straightforward reason that no such proposal as my right hon. Friend describes exists.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the Minister confirm that the Chancellor has told the House:
    "one of my options must be to extend the VAT base. The main candidates are food, children's clothes, transport, sewerage and newspapers."?
    Furthermore, he said:
    "A powerful case for each of them can be made".—[Official Report, November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 940]
    In 1979 and in 1992 the Tories promised not to extend VAT: whereupon they doubled it and put it on fuel. How can anyone trust the Tories on VAT?
    Mr. Jack: We started the day looking into the gutter and we have just had another example of the kind of gutter, negative politics that the Opposition told us they were not going to indulge in.
    Let us look at the record. My right hon. and learned Friend has never made a secret of the fact that he favours a broad-based taxation system with low marginal rates—possibly an idea that the Opposition do not understand. Today they have completely fabricated a claim that we have some intention of levying VAT on food. Let us nail that right now, and remind the House that my right hon. and learned Friend has said:
    "It has never crossed my mind to put VAT on food and it hasn't crossed my mind now."
    His policy and position are thus quite clear.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister remind the Opposition that the sixth directive, which called for harmonisation of VAT, was agreed in 1977 when there happened to be a Labour Government? Does he agree that the real threat of VAT on food could arise only from a European Court challenge to a legal procedure that the Government have been using since 1 January—and that that could happen whether a Conservative or a Labour Government were in office?
    Will the Minister finally agree that the late and much respected John Smith would never have indulged in the untruths and deviousness that we witnessed this morning?
    Mr. Jack: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's last point. The House will have taken careful note of his other points; but the greatest threat to our position in respect of Europe comes from the Opposition.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the amount of VAT collected in the last year for which figures are available. [9521]
    The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Phillip Oppenheim): The net amount of VAT collected in the financial year 1995–96 was £43,069 million.
    Mr. McAvoy: On the radio this morning the Chancellor, when asked about the Tory record on VAT

    445
    on fuel, said that the Labour party was using a quotation about VAT on fuel from somebody at the time of the 1992 general election. Clearly, the Chancellor has nothing but contempt for that somebody and regards that somebody as being of no importance or influence and easy to disregard. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister is that somebody?
    Mr. Oppenheim: With regard to that and to the campaign launch this morning—[Interruption.] If hon. Members give me a chance, I shall be delighted to answer the question. I remember that when the Leader of the Opposition got his job, he cast his eyes to heaven and said that he would not indulge in infantile yah-boo politics, yet this morning he signed off his VAT on food campaign, which is so catty and silly that it makes demon eyes look cerebral and spiritual by comparison.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have one of the least burdensome VAT regimes of all European Union countries? Will he confirm that 40 per cent. of consumer expenditure in this country is free of VAT, that we want to keep it that way and that the worst prospect for that would come about if we ever agreed to the harmonisation of VAT rates in Europe?
    Mr. Oppenheim: Yes.
    Mr. Beggs: Is the Minister aware that jobs in my constituency and throughout the United Kingdom could be put at risk by the proposed two-tier insurance rate of 17.5 per cent. and 4 per cent., granting special concession and privilege to the retail sector as against the rental sector, which services about 3 million in the less well-off sections of our community? Will he undertake to meet representatives of rental companies and hear from them how he can continue to achieve the same VAT revenue to the Exchequer while maintaining level competition between the two sectors?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. I am meeting representatives of the travel industry and the insurance industry next week. There has been widespread VAT avoidance by those sectors. In the interests of taxpayers in general and of services such as health, education and law and order, which are significantly funded by VAT and on which almost all hon. Members understandably want more to be spent, we must not allow industries to create large VAT loopholes that will put at risk the revenue for those important services. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I will meet the various interests and industries involved to see whether anything can be done to ensure that the system works fairly and to avoid the tax loopholes that have undoubtedly been created.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the vibrant UK economy that we are enjoying results in people having more money to spend, and that the advantage of VAT, rather than direct taxation, as a principal means of raising revenue is that people pay tax
    446
    as they spend? They make the choice, whereas with direct taxes they do not have a choice. That is a great advantage and it makes our economy what it is today.
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is right. It is important to remember that VAT is not levied on items that form a significant part of the budget of the less well-off.
    Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister tell the House why we should trust his undertaking that VAT will not be imposed on food? The Chancellor said this morning that that had never crossed his mind—those were his words. Will he explain, therefore, why on 30 November 1993 in the Budget statement, at column 940 in Hansard, the right hon. and learned Gentleman described the serious options and the "powerful case" for extending VAT to "food, children's clothes, transport, sewerage and newspapers."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233 c. 940.]
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady should probably have continued the quotation to put it in context. I think that her question is marvellous. I never thought that I would stand at the Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go, then."]—and listen to a Labour Front Bencher make such a heartfelt plea against tax rises. It shows that 17 years of Tory rule have not been in vain. The deputy leader of new Labour's throwing a temper tantrum at the suggestion that he should give a fiver to a tramp proves that, while new Labour may demonstrate admirable enthusiasm for Tory policies, it might be extrapolating a little too far.

    National Debt
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the ratio of national debt to gross domestic product, relative to those of other EU member states. [9522]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The United Kingdom's ratio of gross debt to gross domestic product at 53.75 per cent at the end of March 1996 is one of the lowest ratios of general Government gross debt to GDP in the European Union.
    Mr. Spring: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer simply serves to underline the British economy's stunningly good performance relative to that of the rest of Europe? Will he confirm that our ratio also compares well with those of Japan and the United States?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The country's debt figures represent a main source of pride for the Government. We must consider what has happened during the past 20 years. In 1970, we had the worst debt to GDP ratio of the big countries in Europe. In 1975, we were still the worst performer. We began to catch up in the 1980s and in 1996 we were the best performer. I confirm the accuracy of my hon. Friend's comments about Japan and the United States: we have a lower debt to GDP ratio than both of those countries.
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that national debt has doubled under the present

    447
    Prime Minister and now costs every taxpayer about £1,000 a year? Does he agree that that represents a disgraceful mismanagement of the country's finances?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a silly point. The base year of 1990 saw the lowest level of national debt since 1915, when the Liberals joined the national coalition and began to finance the war by borrowing. It was not until 1990 that we had debt under control again. Another way of putting it is that, in 1990, we had by far the lowest debt level of any western country. That enabled us to look after public services during the recession and, at the end of it, still have the lowest debt of any big European country.
    Mr. Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the European countries that are hoping to form the first wave of a single currency were able to meet the debt to income ratio required by the convergence criteria only through a gross fudging of their financial accounts, that would be an unsustainable basis for a single currency and it would be highly desirable for this country to have no part of it?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If countries were to think it wise to try to join a single currency by using accounting devices that counted for one year only, they would join an ultimately unstable single currency. I am sure that that will form part of the judgment that Ministers take in the Council of Ministers at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chief Secretary acknowledge that, under the present Prime Minister, British national debt has risen faster than that of any other member state in the European Union except Germany, which is coping with reunification? Against that background, and as the Conservative and Labour parties have pledged to reduce or abolish taxation, there is a natural question in the minds of the electorate about how they will keep debt down without introducing other measures of taxation. We want an exchange, not of insults, but of information regarding exactly which taxes Labour and the Conservatives will put up.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right to contrast the approaches of the Government and the Opposition. The Government will maintain low tax and debt burdens by controlling expenditure. There is not the slightest chance of the Labour party's doing that.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is not it remarkable that this country probably nearly meets the convergence criteria for joining the single currency but, according to polling data in The Daily Telegraph, is the country most vehemently opposed in principle ever to joining the single currency? Is not it a fact that good management of the economy, as evidenced by the statistics on national debt, is a good in its own right to be pursued in the interests of the British people, not the interests of creating a single currency in which they have no confidence?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The policies that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has been following are right for the economy and are pursued because they are right for the economy. One of the things of which the Government can be proud
    448
    is the fact that we will have an entirely free choice, thanks to the Prime Minister's opt-out, about whether to go into a single currency. The economic strength of the country will mean that we shall be able to choose on the basis of wider considerations.

    Value Added Tax
    Mrs. Mahon: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional sums have been paid as a result of changes in VAT since 1992. [9524]
    Mr. Oppenheim: The net revenue effect of various changes to VAT coverage since 1992 is estimated to be £870 million in the current financial year.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister confirm that, because of the Government's imposition of VAT on domestic fuel, many pensioners are forced to pay the highest premium to heat their homes? Has he calculated the cost of that in human terms and to the national health service, as many pensioners, especially in my constituency, are forced to cut back on heating in cold weather?
    Mr. Oppenheim: The hon. Lady makes a point, but this could be a good moment gently to remind her and Opposition Members that, for many years, Labour's energy policy was to burn expensive and relatively dirty coal. Labour denigrated our policy of allowing cleaner, cheaper gas, which has resulted in falling energy costs and cleaner air. I am surprised that Labour Members are so shameless that they can come to the House, after pursuing that policy, and declare that they are worried about the cost of energy for the less well-off.
    Mr. Lidington: Surely the impact of extending VAT to domestic fuel has been outweighed by the price cuts arising from the Government's policy of privatisation. Is it not also the case that the parties in the House that voted against privatisation were therefore voting in favour of dearer energy prices for pensioners and others, and that those who support a windfall tax would also bring about dearer fuel prices for pensioners and others?
    Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Even including VAT, power prices are lower than they were. Gas prices alone have fallen by 19 per cent. in real terms. The less well-off have also been protected by compensating rises in benefits.
    Mr. Darling: The House will have noted that the Chancellor has not answered any questions on VAT today. How can we believe a Chancellor who says that he never contemplated extending VAT to food when he specifically mentioned it in his 1993 Budget? How can we trust a Chancellor who says that somebody promised not to extend VAT in the 1992 election when not only was that somebody the Prime Minister, but we have film of the Chancellor of the Exchequer sitting next to the Prime Minister when he gave that commitment?
    Mr. Oppenheim: How can the House and voters trust a shadow Chief Secretary who, in response to a Scottish nationalist amendment proposing a reduction in VAT on fuel from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent, said that it was a

    449
    "cynical ploy from a desperate party"—[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 49.]
    yet only three months ago came to the House and proposed just such a cynical ploy—from another desperate party?

    Company Cars
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to deter company car users from driving unnecessary miles to obtain tax advantage. [9527]
    Mr. Jack: It is for employers to ensure that unnecessary business mileage expenses are not incurred. However, the needs of the genuine high-mileage business traveller are recognised in the current company car tax regime.
    Mr. Robathan: I congratulate the Government on their very sensible policies on reducing unnecessary car usage, but is my hon. Friend aware that independent tax advisers tell their clients with company cars to contrive to drive more than 18,000 miles a year, even if that is unnecessary mileage, because they will thereby benefit from the discount at 18,000 miles? Will my hon. Friend reconsider the policy with a view to finding a better way of allowing heavy usage—necessary mileage—while not encouraging unnecessary driving?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have no plans substantially to change the current taxation regime for company cars. Transport 2000 raised the matter with us, questioning whether unnecessary business mileage was in sum being increased to achieve tax breaks. No evidence of such usage could be found. There is anecdotal evidence, but overall I do not believe that there is widespread abuse.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January. [9545]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister explain why tens of thousands of my constituents are finding it extremely difficult to pay their energy bills this winter? Why did he impose value added tax on their fuel bills when he promised the nation that there would be no increase in VAT? Will he explain why people should suffer from cold this winter because of his imposition of VAT on their fuel bills?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know that, during the past few years, the price of fuel has been steady at the worst. The real price of some fuels has
    450
    fallen as a result of the privatisation of the energy industries. The hon. Gentleman will recall, when last there was a Labour Government, that the price of fuel was rising at a rate of 30 per cent. a year.
    Mr. Legg: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for my private Member's Bill, which is aimed at countering drug abuse in clubs, and is to have its Second Reading tomorrow? Did he manage to make any further progress in the war on drugs during his visit to the Indian sub-continent? What is his reaction to the comments made today by Brian Harvey of East 17, who says that Ecstasy makes people feel better and that he takes up to 12 tablets a day?
    The Prime Minister: I have not read the comments about Ecstasy, but I regard any comments of that sort as wholly wrong. Drug taking, whatever the drug may be, tends to lead on to hard drugs. We have seen often enough the tragedy that then occurs.
    As for my visit to the Indian sub-continent, in Pakistan especially, I looked at one of the most important drug routes along which a very large amount of hard drugs comes from Afghanistan, through Pakistan, to northern Europe. I spent some time discussing with the Pakistan Government and others what measures we may take to assist them to ensure that drugs are caught at source and do not reach either Pakistan or northern Europe.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister accept that, before the last general election, he gave a categorical pledge not to extend value added tax, and that after the election, in the first Budget, he did indeed extend VAT? Is that true or false?
    The Prime Minister: I think that we all know what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to justify the crude and untruthful campaign that was launched this morning—a campaign that he knows is simply scaremongering and which will not persuade the British people. We now know very clearly where the negative campaigning comes from and who encourages it.
    Mr. Blair: Perhaps we can return to the question and see whether we can have an answer. I think that we are entitled to draw attention to the Prime Minister's record and to draw an inference from it. Did he stand at that Dispatch Box and promise not to extend VAT—yes or no—and did he then extend it in the first Budget after the general election, yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the imputations he is trying to make. It is the Labour party—not the Government—that has made £30 billion of spending commitments, and it is the Labour party that would need to raise tax or break the promises that it has made to the people. The Government have set out our tax proposals, our expenditure plans and our declining borrowing requirement. It is the right hon. Gentleman—not the Government—who has questions to answer.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister is so confident in his denials, after 22 Tory tax rises since the general election, and if, as he constantly tells us, he is raring to go in an

    451
    election campaign, why does he not experience a rare moment of decisiveness, call the general election—call it now—and let us all put our arguments to the verdict of the people?
    The Prime Minister: That campaign will come, and I look forward to it, but if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about tax levels and wants to cut them, perhaps he will tell us which of his spending commitments he would cut.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    The Prime Minister: What public expenditure would be reduced under a Labour Government? What expenditure has the Labour party opposed? Which of our tax reductions has it supported? The right hon. Gentleman says one thing, but his entire record shows that he does another.
    Mr. Faulds rose—
    Madam Speaker: Points of order come after Question Time.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend wanted to raise a substantial amount of money in the next tax year, would he tax savings by restricting personal equity plans and tax-exempt special savings accounts, tax pensions by taxing pension funds and increase pensioners' electricity and gas bills with a windfall tax? Is not the truth that the Chancellor has published his tax proposals in public, whereas the Labour party is considering proposals in private?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his points extremely clearly. We know that the windfall tax would pay, were Labour given the opportunity, for all sorts of goodies—there is a larger number of them every day. We now hear rumours that the windfall tax would be illegal. If, as has been said, the Labour party has legal advice to the contrary, let it publish that legal advice. What did the right hon. Gentleman say when asked about the windfall tax? He stated:
    "Well, we haven't given a figure on that because we said that's something that has to be and should be, I mean this would be … ".
    That is the gobbledegook we heard from the right hon. Gentleman. Labour does not know how it would pay for its programme, but we know—it would put up taxes.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I think that I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
    Mr. Faulds: This is rubbish.
    Madam Speaker: I shall hear the hon. Gentleman after the statement. I ask him to resume his seat.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister confirm that it is Government policy to be ready to join a single currency on 1 January 1999, and that they are willing to do so if it is in the nation's interest?
    The Prime Minister: We will keep our options open, which is the entire purpose of the opt-out. We will make preparatory plans—which has been our position since, at Maastricht, some time ago, we established the opt-out.
    Mr. Tracey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of widespread support among the British public for more
    452
    stringent penalties against persistent offenders, as proposed in the Government's Crime (Sentences) Bill? What conclusions does he think that the public will draw from the Labour party's abstention on the Bill and all Liberal Members' voting against it? Is it not a fact that only the party of government is in favour of measures against criminals?
    The Prime Minister: I am shocked by that rare difference between the would-be coalition partners on this subject. Not just on this Bill, but on a series of recent law and order Bills, the Opposition, despite what they have said, have voted against the Government's tougher law and order measures. By their votes they should be judged.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January. [9546]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: The Prime Minister has stoutly refused to own up to his 1992 pledge not to extend VAT to fuel. Conservative Members may not like it, but the Prime Minister is demeaning his office by repeatedly refusing to answer the question. Bearing in mind his shifty performance this afternoon, does he understand that the British people simply do not believe his promises on VAT?
    The Prime Minister: I wonder what makes me suspect a degree of co-ordination in Labour questions. Is it perhaps the guilty look on the hon. Gentleman's face? The Labour party is seeking to smear in a crude campaign about the Government's plans for the next Parliament. It simply will not wash.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Can my right hon. Friend find time today to study the statement by Commissioner van Miert on the proposed alliance between British Airways and American Airlines and the threat—implicit threat perhaps—of fining the United Kingdom Government if they permit that alliance to go ahead? Surely it is a fundamental freedom for a national airline to decide in its commercial interests with whom it may or may not have an alliance anywhere in the world.
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the Commissioner's comments on the alliance, which were made within the framework of the existing structure of air services. I find them very strange when it has been made clear that the British Airways-American Airlines alliance can go ahead only if airline services are liberalised. The present position is that the Director General of Fair Trading will consider the Commission's views with any other views that he has received when he prepares his

    453
    advice to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It will be for my right hon. Friend to decide whether to clear the alliance.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January. [9547]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Cunningham: Can I now have a straight answer from the Prime Minister? Does he recall saying before the last general election that he had no plans to extend the impact of VAT? Why should anyone believe him now?
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to several of my earlier answers.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 16 January. [9548]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Evans: This question is not about VAT. I have not been included in the Opposition's little scheme. I should like the Prime Minister immediately to introduce compulsory homework on basic economics for Labour politicians. They believe that they can spend £30 billion without there being massive tax increases or massive increases in borrowing. Does he agree that the electorate will not want to risk trading an improving economy and shrinking unemployment for the economic paralysis and tax hikes that will certainly come about if the nightmare happens and a Labour Government are elected?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has hit on an extremely good idea. If Labour Members did their homework—particularly the shadow Chancellor—they would learn that Labour's sums do not add up. They cannot promise £30 billion of expenditure and at the same time say that they will not increase taxation.
    Mr. David Shaw: It will end in tears.
    The Prime Minister: What an excellent expression. It will end in tears. I strongly suspect that it will. The reality is that people will rumble the fact that Labour Members cannot keep those promises without putting up taxes.
    454
    They cannot promise £30 billion in that fashion. If they ever formed a Government, Labour would be the same old tax raisers that they always have been.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge the depths of dismay being felt on Merseyside as 1,300 Ford workers face redundancy, despite having won for their plant the company's in-house award for achievement and quality of production just a few months ago? Does he accept that his Chancellor's comments this afternoon that
    "You can't win them all"
    have worsened that sense of dismay and make it look as though the Government do not care? Will he tell the House what action he and his Ministers are taking to secure the future of Ford Halewood and to find work for those who are facing redundancy?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend said—if the hon. Lady had quoted him fully—how much he regretted that decision, and so do I. It is surprising that Ford has decided to move; it flies in the face of most investment decisions, which are moving to the United Kingdom. That should not hide the fact that Ford's new investment in Jaguar is worth 5,000 jobs and that it plans a further £2.6 billion of investment by 2000 and a lot of other investments.
    I understand entirely that that is no comfort to the workers in Halewood and I hope that it will be possible for them to find alternative employment, for example with other inward investors. The hon. Lady sniggers. When has she ever know inward investment like this coming into England? When has she ever known a time when the output of cars was at such a high level? As usual, the hon. Lady—I do not mean the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), who asked the question; I mean the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—sits there assuming that she would be able to put things right. The policies that she advocates led the British car industry to ruin. The British car industry is more successful today than it has been since the hon. Lady was born.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
    Madam Speaker: I am sorry to repeat for the third time that, under our procedures, I can take points of order only after private notice questions, statements and applications under Standing Order No. 20. There is a statement, and I have to hear a Standing Order No. 20 application. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait his time.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20 JANuARY—Remaining stages of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 21 JANUARY—Opposition Day (3rd Allotted Day). There will be a debate on the state of the national health service on an Opposition motion.
Motions relating to the selective cull (Enforcement of Community Compensation Conditions) Regulations and the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Compensation Order.
WEDNESDAY 22 JANUARY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 23 JANUARY—Until about 7 0' clock, completion of consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
Remaining stages of the Local Government and Rating Bill.
FRIDAY 24 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
I regret that I am not able to be as helpful as I have usually been in recent times about the second week. I can announce only the following:
MONDAY 27 JANUARY—Second reading of the Sex Offenders Bill.
The House will also wish to know that it will be proposed that, on Wednesday 29 January, there will be a debate on artists' resale rights in European Standing Committee B. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 29 January:
European Standing Committee B—European Community document: 7050/96 relating to artists' resale rights; relevant European Legislation Committee report: HC51 -xxiii (1995–96).]
Mr. Rooker: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. We understand, in the present circumstances, the Government's inability to know what they will do with the rest of the legislative programme for the remaining part of this Parliament, so we make no criticism.
Given that tomorrow, 17 January, the consultation finishes that started back in October about proposals to change regulations on early retirement of teachers, could the Secretary of State for Education and Employment make an early statement next week on her intentions? Some urgent issues are involved, as I am sure the Leader of the House appreciates—the supply of teachers, the constant denigration of the profession, and the substantial increase in recent years of early retirement among teachers. The House, of course, has a crucial report from the Public Accounts Committee, but Members are entitled to be able to question the Secretary of State well before
456
the changes take place. The matter is urgent for teachers making their plans and, of course, for children in our schools.
The report of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, requested by the Government, on Nirex science will be available next week. It should be published as early as possible—a view, I might add, shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham). Will the Leader of the House arrange it as quickly as possible through the appropriate Minister?
Could we have a statement next week from either a Foreign Office Minister or a Defence Minister on the confusion that they have caused this week? When a concerned mother travels abroad to assist the Red Cross in its mission of highlighting the brutality of anti-personnel land mines, it is demeaning to this House and the British people for senior members of the House and the Government to claim that the issue is too sophisticated or not straightforward. We need a ministerial statement to make it absolutely clear that the United Kingdom Government are doing everything to prohibit the use of those indiscriminate weapons around the world.
Will the Leader of the House clarify what the chairman of the Conservative party meant recently when he referred to the "normal parliamentary conventions" being used over the moving of the writ for the Wirral, South by-election? Do his comments mean that it will be moved within three months or within four months of the death of our colleague Barry Porter?
Mr. Newton: On the consultation on pension arrangements for teachers, I shall, of course, bring the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—although, in doing so, I should make it clear that I reject any suggestion that there has been persistent denigration of teachers. Indeed, quite the reverse is the case.
As the hon. Gentleman says, there has been a lengthy public inquiry into Nirex's application. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will no doubt be giving all those matters appropriate consideration. I will bring the hon. Gentleman's request to his attention.
I frankly thought that the hon. Gentleman's question on land mines could be described as mischievous. It is absolutely clear that the Government are fully committed to working for a worldwide ban on anti-personnel land mines. Indeed, it appears clear from the comments of the Red Cross and the Princess of Wales that they share the Government's position.
The matter of the writ, of course, is not for me. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt familiar with the conventions set out in a letter following the Speaker's Conference of 1973.
Mr. Stephen Day: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, on Wednesday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced the go-ahead for the second runway at Manchester International airport. He will also be aware that my constituency resides under the existing flight path of the existing runway, and potentially lies under the new flight paths once a second runway is built. Will he therefore

457
organise a proper debate to allow me, as Member of Parliament for a constituency greatly affected by the matter, to represent my constituents' views? I have been denied the right to put their points on their behalf because the Government announced the decision in a written answer. Surely if the matter had concerned Heathrow, there would have been a full debate. Manchester deserves nothing less.
Mr. Newton: Of course I understand why my hon. Friend has put that point to me, and I will bear his request in mind, but I also wish to make two points. First, there are opportunities on Wednesday mornings for debates on matters of importance to regions and constituencies. Secondly, I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but it seems to me that yesterday's announcement is good news in general for Manchester airport, for the north-west and for civil aviation as a whole.
Mr. David Alton: The Leader of the House has just referred to good news for the north-west region. Following the devastating blow to the Merseyside economy of the loss of 1,400 jobs at Halewood, will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement, at the minimum, but preferably a debate, in the House at the earliest opportunity—preferably next week?
Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect that the absence of the social chapter in this country, far from making us a honeypot or Mecca for investment, has not stopped the outward investment of those jobs to Germany? Will he also ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to have urgent discussions with Ford UK, not only about the retention of the existing jobs, but about taking up its offer—made to Merseyside Members this morning—on the possibility of new jobs and a new model to be built at Halewood if appropriate assistance is given by the Government?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said only a short time ago on that matter, and I shall not seek to add to it, except in this respect. It is encouraging that Ford considers that Halewood could become the sole European source for an all-new vehicle at the end of this decade, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will bear that in mind in his discussions with the company.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Since it is clear from Prime Minister's questions that there is much confusion in the Opposition mind about our taxation policy and our achievements—especially as we have reduced taxes more than we have increased them, and we now have a lower level of personal overall taxation and a lower level of business taxation than any of our major competitors in Europe—is it not time we had a debate specifically on taxation, over and above the debate on the Finance Bill?
Mr. Newton: My hon. and learned Friend shot down the answer that I was going to give—that a day and a half of debate on tax matters was provided in the business statement that I have just made. I cannot promise additional time, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will make those points in that debate.
Mr. Peter Shore: I am sure that the Leader of the House will recognise that
458
Commissioner van Miert's threat to take this country and British Airways to the European Court of Justice is not only a serious threat to an important and prosperous enterprise, but raises questions of the most fundamental constitutional importance. It raises the basic question whether the Commission will override the policies and the decisions of the Government and this Parliament. In those circumstances, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make an early statement?
Mr. Newton: As it happens, the President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is due to answer questions on Wednesday next. I cannot make a promise beyond that, but I will bring the right hon. Gentleman's request to his attention.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about recent trends in the way we make legislation? I refer to examples of national tragedies, when emotions can run high and we in this place want to be seen to be doing something quickly. Does he agree that those cases can often result in inadequate legislation?
Will my right hon. Friend, as Leader of the House, introduce a convention under which he could talk to his opposite numbers in the other parties to see whether there should be a one-year cooling-off period, on a case-by-case basis, when such events take place, in the interests only of producing legislation that is workable and for the long-term good of the country?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will be aware that there is much exchange through the usual channels about the handling of legislation, but that always leaves plenty of scope for differences of opinion between the Government and the Opposition and between individuals. There is nothing that I can do to prevent that.
Mr. Tony Benn: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to an early-day motion that has been tabled today which expresses the grave anxiety felt across the whole spectrum of opinion about the provisions of the Police Bill? The Bill would allow the police to enter people's houses—including the houses of doctors, journalists, lawyers and others—and tap their telephones without any prior judicial authority. Those affected would be entirely free from any independent judicial opinion. He will have noticed, I hope, the statements made in The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Guardian, and the statements by Lord Callaghan, Lord Merlyn-Rees and Lord Browne-Wilkinson. Will he give careful consideration to the early-day motion, which has attracted wide support across the spectrum of opinion?
Mr. Newton: I have not yet seen the early-day motion in question, and the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that these matters are currently under consideration in another place. However, intrusive surveillance has been providing crucial intelligence in the fight against organised crime for many years. The Police Bill seeks to place those operations on a statutory footing, which I think people will regard as proper. In addition, a senior

459
judge will be appointed as a commissioner and empowered to investigate complaints about the improper use of the power.
Mr. Bob Dunn: Can my right hon. Friend arrange an urgent early debate on the financial anarchy and mismanagement that currently exist in the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled Kent county council, given the failure of that council to grasp the real problems of reducing bureaucracy and its scaremongering in threatening to cut essential services, such as the fire service, old people's homes and libraries? This is an absolute nightmare for which there is no justification, given the generous settlement provided by the Government to that wretched, benighted and wholly loathed local authority.
Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend will find an opportunity to make such points when we debate the revenue support grant orders, which are not now far away.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Will the Leader of the House arrange time for a serious ministerial statement on EU decision 96/239 which gave approval for United Kingdom meat processors to export products that are of non-UK origin? However, the French are preventing the entry of those products into their territory despite the fact that the directive exists and has been reinforced by subsequent amendment. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister responsible for agriculture and the Prime Minister try to prevent what is happening, as it is affecting my constituency? Meat processors in my constituency are losing up to 50 per cent. of their revenue and 50 per cent. of their employees as a result of the French Government acting contrary to an EU directive to which they agreed.
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate, but I undertake to draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friends.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: This House is the basis of our democratic situation. May I ask my right hon. Friend a difficult question? Will he provide time for a two-day wide-ranging economic debate, so that all matters relating to taxation can be discussed? Such a debate would give the Opposition an opportunity to explain to the people of this country how they will pay for their £30 billion-worth of promises, so that when we move to an election, the people of this country can make an honest judgment of right hon. and hon. Members in this place, what they stand for and what their parties stand for.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend described his question as a difficult one, but I do not think that it is difficult at all. His idea was a very good one, and I shall consider it.
Mr. Tony Banks: May I remind the Leader of the House that today the Government received the report on the ethics of xeno-transplantation? Can we have a debate on that crucial issue? Many moral and ethical questions are raised
460
by the report, and the House should have an opportunity to debate it. At the same time, we could debate the distribution of organ donor cards, which all hon. Members should carry, because in the unhappy event that any of us should meet an untimely fate, our organs could be donated, saving the animals from having their organs taken from them—although in the case of Conservative Members, looking for their hearts could pose some problems.
Mr. Newton: The kindest thing that I can do to the hon. Gentleman is to ignore the latter part of his remarks. On the first part, he is right to say that the report has been published today. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been pleased to accept most of its recommendations. The pressures on parliamentary time should be obvious from my previous announcements, but I shall bear in mind the request for a debate.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I, too, call for a debate on the proposals for the early retirement of teachers? That would enable the House to consider both the proposals and the fact that no Labour authority has given the teachers any assurance that it would take a position any different from the Government's, although, as can be seen from the business question from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), the Labour party is posturing and pretending that it would support the teachers in that respect, when we know perfectly well that it would not. Teachers will not be conned by that.
Mr. Newton: That is another request that I shall bear in mind.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House refer back to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) in relation to the Wirral, South by-election? Does he recall that just before Christmas we lost another of our colleagues, Terry Patchett, and that within a short space of time the Labour party moved the writ and we had the by-election? It seems, according to his reply to my hon. Friend, that he is not prepared to answer the precise question whether the by-election will be held within three or four months, according to past convention.
I have tried this business of moving writs before, and I am only too ready, eager and willing to do it, if the Leader of the House will not tell us whether the Government are prepared to go ahead and hold the by-election, so that the people in Wirral, South can have someone here to represent them.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio has made it clear that the intention is to hold the by-election. It is not a matter for me to determine the date, and I am not in a position to add to what I have said.
Sir Irvine Patnick: Can we have an urgent debate on education policy, so that we can discuss proposals such as that of Sheffield city council to abolish sixth form colleges in the event of a Labour Government? Can we also discuss the fact that the

461
majority of local education authorities are already controlled by the Labour party and have the power to set homework in schools?
Mr. Newton: One of the Bills to which I hope that the House will be able to return in the not too distant future is the current Education Bill, and I hope that that may provide opportunities to discuss those points.
Ms Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House recognise the despair on Merseyside at the announcement of 1,300 job losses, the profound worries about the future of the Ford Halewood plant, and the possible knock-on effects on the economy of the disastrous announcement this morning? Will he provide time next week to debate those issues in the House, so that the economy of an entire region, which is already depressed and has unemployment at double the national average, can be properly considered and debated?
Instead of abusing Opposition Members who express some pessimism about the ability of those who will be sacked in the next few months to find alternative work in what is already an extremely depressed region, as the Prime Minister did, perhaps the Government could offer us something positive to give the people of Merseyside hope, rather than merely reinforcing their despair.
Mr. Newton: I did not detect any cynicism in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said; I detected a clear expression of understanding of the concern that the hon. Lady reasonably expressed on behalf of her constituents. It should be acknowledged that the Government have an impressive record of attracting new investment to this country and creating new jobs—to the point where, as we learned yesterday, unemployment fell last month by 40,000.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the call for a debate on that shocking example of Labour in government, the shambles that has been made of the finances of Kent county council by the alliance of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties? Such a debate could highlight the fact that the Government have given an extra 3.6 per cent. for our schools while the Lib-Lab pact proposes to cut the budgets of those schools by 3 per cent.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn), but I hope that my hon. Friend will have a chance to make his point when we debate the revenue support grant orders—although I cannot promise that every Kent Member will be able to take part.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Leader of the House knows that I have raised on four occasions this week in parliamentary proceedings the question of the Go Ahead Group bid for the north-east rail franchise, the insider trading that took place, the public scandal involved and the public concern in the north of England. I have been able to establish today that the average daily share trading volume transacted during the period of the bid was at least 50 per cent. higher than in the previous period of a similar number of days prior to the bid. Does that not show that something was happening? Is there not now more than ever a requirement
462
for Ministers to come to Parliament to answer questions on this highly important case of share speculation in public assets?
Mr. Newton: The bidding process is for the franchising director, as the hon. Gentleman well understands. The Government see no reason to doubt that he is carrying out his duties properly. The stock exchange routinely investigates rises and falls in share prices, but any such inquiry is confidential.
Mr. David Shaw: My right hon. Friend may consider that we should have a debate on the number of Australians entering the country to advise the Labour party on negative campaigning methods. Could we raise in that debate the fact that the evidence of the negative press conference held this morning by Labour on VAT showed that the Australian idea has boomeranged on it?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about negative campaigning. I do not think that I can add to that, although my hon. Friend has made his point in a neat and witty fashion.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I support the plea of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)? The Leader of the House may not have read the recent statement by the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary about the security situation in Northern Ireland. May we have a statement in the near future, preferably next week, by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the deteriorating security situation?
Mr. Newton: I will bring both the hon. Gentleman's support for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and his remarks about the security situation to the attention of those of my right hon. Friends who are concerned.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an urgent debate on unemployment, so that I can point out that unemployment in my constituency has fallen from 3,622 in December 1992 to 2,360 in December 1996? Does that not demonstrate the health of the British economy, which compares with rising unemployment in those countries that follow the policies advanced by the Labour party?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is striking not only how much unemployment has fallen in Britain—and not only in the past month—but how strongly the trend in Britain is different from that in our major European Union partner countries.
Mr. Harry Barnes: In the run-up to a general election, would it not be timely to have a debate on an aspect of the Representation of the People Act? I refer to the position of homeless people.
Homeless people, by definition, cannot get on to the electoral register, or find it very difficult to do so. A person must be a resident to be included in the register, and a resident would be expected to have a residence. Can we discuss the possibility of "care of addresses, care centres and other places that could serve as substitutes for residences? Would that require a change in the law,

463
or would it just be a matter of the Home Office issuing guidance to electoral registration officers? Given that a general election is on the horizon, this would be an appropriate time at which to hold such a debate.
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position to offer the hon. Gentleman instantaneous advice from the Dispatch Box on the technical questions he has asked, but he will no doubt have noted that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is due to answer questions this day week. I shall bring the point to his attention.
Mr. Charles Hendry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that cold weather payments in my constituency are based on temperature measurements taken at Manchester airport, which invariably enjoys temperatures some degrees higher than towns such as Buxton and other communities on top of the Pennines? As a result, my constituents have received only one week's cold weather payments, whereas, if the measurements had been taken at Buxton weather centre, they would have received three. May we have an early debate on the number of weather stations that are used to trigger such payments, and their location, so that the discrepancy that has caused so many problems in my constituency can be brought to an end?
Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, there is no perfect solution to problems such as that, although the position is a great deal better than it was 10 years ago. I shall, however, ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security pays careful attention to my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: This is not a political question, believe it or not.
In December, the Home Affairs Select Committee reported on a subject that is of interest to the whole electorate: dogs. The report is now in the hands of the Home Office, awaiting reply. Could the Leader of the House persuade his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to give that reply speedily? Perhaps, when it has been delivered, an early debate could be arranged during the current Parliament.
Some members of the Select Committee are leaving the House at the end of this Parliament: some are retiring, for instance. They have great expertise in a subject in which the electorate are very interested. Perhaps I could ask that as my last favour of the present Parliament.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know of the conventions relating to the period that is allowed for the Government to reply, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will note his request. As for his other request, for a debate, he will be aware that suggestions about debates on Select Committee reports and the time made available for them are generally made by the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, on behalf of that Committee.
Mr. Nigel Evans: As my right hon. Friend will know, tomorrow we are to debate a private Member's Bill on nightclubs and their policy on drugs.
464
Does he think it appropriate for us to have a general debate on Government policy on drugs, especially in the light of the crass, stupid and highly dangerous remarks made today by Brian Harvey of East 17 about Ecstasy? He said that he thought that taking Ecstasy was fine, and that it could even make someone a better person.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Brian Harvey and East 17 are idolised by many thousands of youngsters, some as young as 12. All the campaigning that has been done by voluntary bodies and others may now be jeopardised by the fact that Brian Harvey has come up with those stupid remarks.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will have heard what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when a related question was asked during Prime Minister's questions. I certainly associate myself with what my right hon. Friend said. As for a day's debate on drugs, we had one not long ago—as I well know, as chairman of the ministerial committee on drug misuse. I cannot promise another early debate, but I will bear it in mind. This is an important subject.
Mr. Max Madden: May I ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement next week about the organisation of the visa section in the British high commission in Islamabad? That will enable me to draw attention to the breathtaking incompetence shown by that department towards my constituent, Mr. Ghazahfer Ali, who was released on bail at the end of November after seven years of imprisonment without trial in Azad Kashmir.
Mr. Ghazahfer applied for a visitor's visa so as to see his wife and family in my constituency, with whom he has had no contact for those seven years. He is still awaiting a decision on his application, despite my request to the Prime Minister, who was in Islamabad earlier this week, to intervene and offer him a seat home on his aeroplane. Will the Leader of the House make urgent inquiries into the matter and get a decision made on Mr. Ali's application as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: Clearly, I am not in a position to comment on a particular case, but I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has made representations—indeed, he said that he has done so—to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others. I am sure that those representations will be carefully considered.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Leader of the House realise that there will be deep dissatisfaction in Merseyside, Chester and the Wirral with the unsatisfactory answers given to questions this afternoon about the future of the Ford plant at Halewood? Does he realise that we on Merseyside will expect a Minister—preferably the President of the Board of Trade and preferably after he has had discussions with the management of Ford—to come to the House as soon as possible to explain how he squares the Government's claim that Britain is the enterprise centre of Europe with the failure to maintain jobs at Halewood?
Mr. Newton: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's reasons for returning to this matter. He will appreciate that I can add little to what I said earlier, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of

465
Trade will have discussions with the Ford management and I am sure that he will report in any way that he feels is appropriate, whether to the House or otherwise.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: The Leader of the House will be aware of the widespread concern about the number of deaths in prison custody and about the number of people in prison who ought, more appropriately, to be cared for in psychiatric hospitals. I refer him to early-day motion 404, referring to the death of my constituent, Kenneth Severin, on whom an open verdict was recorded recently.
[That this House believes that it is in the interests of justice for all parties to go into an inquest hearing with the same amount of information; notes that there is no formal procedure for disclosure in inquest cases; draws attention to the Annual Report of the Police Complaints Authority 1995–96 which expressed concern that at some inquests those representing the police may have material not available to the representatives of other interested parties, particularly the family of the deceased, thus giving a strong impression of injustice; notes that the former Chief Inspector of Prisons, Judge Tumim has made similar comments expressing the view that it is in the interests of justice for all parties to go into an inquest hearing with the same amount of information; draws attention to the difficulties faced by the family and representatives of Kenneth Severin who died in suspicious circumstances in HM Prison Belmarsh; and calls upon the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor to review the rights of the deceased person's family in such cases and to institute rights of disclosure as recommended by the Police Complaints Authority.]
The early-day motion highlights the difficulties that Kenneth Severin's family face and the difficulties that are faced by the families and representatives of the deceased in many inquests. These matters have been drawn to the Government's attention by Judge Tumim, the former chief inspector of prisons, and by the Police Complaints Authority. Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a early debate on the issue of inquest procedure, so that both the Home Secretary and the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department can come to the House to answer questions on this serious matter?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is asking that his concerns should be given careful consideration by the Ministers involved. I shall certainly bring his concerns to their attention.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I know that you, Madam Speaker, are aware that both my hon. Friend
466
the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and I have been approached by the family and friends of Paul Wells in the hope that, following the Prime Minister's discussions with the Governments of India and Pakistan, he might be tempted to say something about the progress he was able to make in respect of determining either the current state of health of Paul Wells, Keith Mangan and the other hostages or what negotiations are taking place for their safe release.
In the event of the Prime Minister not commenting on those matters, would it be possible to arrange for a statement to be made to the House about the current state of knowledge about the well-being and whereabouts of the hostages and about any progress—however tentative—in negotiations for their release? Could that be backed up by a letter from the Prime Minister to the families, setting out what limited knowledge we have about the hostages' present safety and well-being?
Mr. Newton: That is a number of requests to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I will ensure that those requests are conveyed.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we have a debate on genetically modified food and the unique and worrying position that we are in, where such food has been imported to this country and in most outlets cannot be differentiated from other food? The problem with that genetically modified food is that those who take it might not be harmed in any way immediately, but it might in time render certain antibiotics ineffective on people.
I wrote to all supermarkets before Christmas, and the replies that I have so far received show that only one chain of supermarkets, Waitrose, will effectively allow its customers to differentiate between the genetically modified food and other food. That is unsatisfactory and deeply worrying.
Today the Government wisely came out against organ transplants from animals because of the risk. Here we have another experiment which benefits only one company commercially—and that a foreign company. Why on earth should we allow that dangerous experiment with human health?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows that those matters have been given very careful consideration on the basis of considerable scientific advice. However, I am sure that his concern will be examined very carefully by my right hon. Friends.

Ford Plant, Halewood
4.10 pm
Madam Speaker: I have an application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. George Howarth: The House may be aware that earlier today the Ford Motor Company made a statement in which it announced the following:
"in order to bring Halewood vehicle operations' manned capacity in line with forecast demand, the company announced that it was opening a voluntary separation programme with special enhanced terms for approximately 1,300 employees"—
a series of euphemisms which mean that 1,300 people will lose their jobs on Merseyside.
On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara), who unfortunately is fulfilling a long-standing commitment out of the country but is making strenuous efforts to return, I beg to ask leave to move that the remainder of today's business be suspended so that we may debate that issue.
The issue is specific to Knowsley and Merseyside, for several reasons. On Merseyside, unemployment currently stands at 11.5 per cent. compared to 6.6 per cent. for the country as a whole. However, unemployment is running at just over 13 per cent. in Knowsley and at about 22 per cent. in Halewood. For that reason alone, it is an important matter for Knowsley and the Merseyside region.
The urgency of the position hardly needs stressing. However, the Prime Minister's inadequate response to the question posed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) earlier this afternoon does nothing to lessen—in fact, it increases—the urgency of that situation.
I understand that this afternoon the President of the Board of Trade is meeting Mr. Jack Nasser, chief of automotive operations for the Ford Motor Company, and I believe that the House should have the opportunity to debate this matter urgently so that he may give a full report of those discussions and any conclusions that have been reached.
This is a momentous event locally, because of the effect that it will have on the local economy, and nationally, as a commentary on the sorry state of health of our manufacturing industry. I hope that, for those reasons, we may today have the opportunity to debate that devastating news and possibly have the opportunity to question the President of the Board of Trade as to what action he proposes to take, what discussions are being held and what can be done to reverse that disastrous situation.
Madam Speaker: I have listened most carefully to what the hon. Member has said and of course I have to give my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Points of Order
4.13 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you have received a request from the hon. Member for Richmond—to whom I have given notice that I intend to raise this matter—saying that he wishes to apologise to me for the fact that he has circulated his constituency with a statement saying, first, that I sit on the Labour Front Bench, which is manifestly untrue, and secondly, that I have agreed that any number of slots or pathways for aircraft over his constituency should be allowed to expand.
The hon. Gentleman knows both allegations to be totally untrue. I am surprised that a Member of his standing and experience should choose to make the matter public in this way, without coming to the House to apologise for his inaccuracy and lack of responsibility.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Member for Richmond has not approached me about the matter. The hon. Lady is talking about a non-parliamentary document, which is outside my control in any case. I can therefore do nothing about it. I see that the hon. Member for Richmond appears to want to catch my eye, however.
Mr. Toby Jessel: I am the hon. Member for Twickenham, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Of course.
Mr. Jessel: I hope I will be given at least equal time to reply.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a debate. I assume that the hon. Gentleman wants to respond on a point of order.
Mr. Jessel: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Lady has suffered a lapse of memory. She has forgotten her letter to The Times of 20 August in which she supported an increase in the allocation of slots for aircraft using Heathrow—
Mrs. Dunwoody: No, no.
Mr. Jessel: That would certainly have led to an increase in the amount of noise. I did not say that the hon. Lady had suggested an unlimited increase in the number of slots. She favoured allocating 10 an hour, which is about 150 or 160 a day.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a matter that I cannot resolve because it concerns a non-parliamentary document—such as a letter to The Times. I suggest that the two Members concerned go out and have a nice cup of tea.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I gave you notice of it a little earlier because I think it is a matter for you. I draw your attention to yesterday's Hansard, and to the fact that the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara)

469
started at 10.49 am and finished at 12.15 pm, between columns 257 and 277, and had no separate heading. Indeed, each page of the debate is headed "British Prisoners of War", which was the heading of the previous debate.
As there will be considerable interest in the debate on the part of those previously employed by bus companies who have been defrauded of their pensions, I ask that it be reprinted in full and given its correct heading and page numbers. That would be of great convenience to all, inside and outside the House.
This appears to be another serious error by Hansard since the privatisation of HMSO; you will remember, Madam Speaker, other serious errors that were reported to you before Christmas.
Madam Speaker: I find the publication of Hansard of very high quality, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We are fortunate indeed to have the Editor and staff producing Hansard for the House so effectively and efficiently.
I certainly take the substance of the hon. Gentleman's point of order seriously, however. I have had the opportunity to look at Hansard, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to my attention. The Editor has apologised to me for the error, which is quite a serious one. A correction will certainly be published tomorrow, and I hope that it will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.

Orders of the Day
  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill
    New clause 1

      COMMENCEMENT
      '.—This Act shall enter into force on a day to be determined by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument, save that no such order shall be made until the Secretary of State is satisfied that 12 months have passed since any act of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland has occurred.'.—[Mr. Wilshire.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.18 pm
      Mr. David Wilshire: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause is designed to ensure that before any more one-sided concessions are made to psychopathic murderers, those people are required to do something in return. In this case, the one-sided concessions on offer are: an amnesty, protection from any investigation into the guns and explosives that they have used, and protection from prosecution for their murders and atrocities. As it stands, the Bill demands nothing of the terrorists.
      The new clause would require, first, not just a temporary halt to murder, but a permanent end to all violence. Throughout the sham of the ceasefire, there has not been an end to violence. We kid ourselves if we overlook that point. Secondly, the new clause would provide for a decent period so that the terrorists could prove beyond all doubt—I stress that they must prove, rather than pretend—that the second ceasefire was for real and was not a repeat of the first cynical sham that they pretended was a ceasefire.
      The new clause provides the House with a chance to consider whether the events since the Committee stage of the Bill lead any of us—I hope that it is so—to want to change our mind about allowing the Bill to go through the House unamended. In the period between the Committee and this afternoon's debate, we have reached a situation where even the most optimistic—even those who are so desperate for a peace at any price that they have tried to kid themselves that we are making real progress—must understand that all-party talks including killers simply will not happen, terrorists will not hand over their guns and explosives, and any talk by Sinn Fein-IRA about ceasefires is but a sham.
      In Committee, some hon. Members did not wholly grasp that that was the truth. What has happened since spells it out. I urge everyone to ask himself whether an unamended Bill is a sensible way to make progress.
      When I turned my mind to how I might improve the Bill, I found myself wondering whether it was worth the bother. I imagine that the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), has wondered whether it was worth the bother of proceeding with the Bill, as it clearly means nothing to the terrorists. Since

      471
      Committee, the words and the deeds of the terrorists—I include Sinn Fein-IRA and the loyalists in this—have made it crystal clear that they have no intention of decommissioning anything.
      By their words, Sinn Fein-IRA have reaffirmed that they are interested in one thing only: a united Ireland. They have not given an inch. They have again stated that they are not interested in compromise of any sort. By their deeds since Committee, Sinn Fein-IRA have made it clear once again that that simple objective is to be pursued by whatever means come to hand. They will talk if they can—
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: How does the hon. Gentleman define an act of terrorism? Would his definition include a violent act committed by a group that had broken away from the IRA or a loyalist paramilitary organisation?
      Mr. Wilshire: Acts of terrorism are simple to recognise. If someone is nailed to a fence with 6 in nails, or has his legs smashed by a baseball bat, or has to go to the funeral of his child who has been blown up by Semtex, or if people are murdered, those are acts of terrorism. It matters not a jot to me—or, I suspect, to anyone in Northern Ireland—who committed the act or what twisted ideology is concerned. It is an act of terrorism, and that must stop.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: What is more, those who have signed up to the Mitchell principles refuse to condemn such acts of terrorism. They refuse even to say, "We denounce it; we reject and repudiate it." During examination before the body set up by Parliament to consider the matter, the Secretary of State asked them, "If you had been asked to rebuke these people and did it, wouldn't you lose your influence over them?" They said, "Yes," and he replied, "I accept that; it is a good enough reason." Therefore, they do not need to denounce terrorism, even though they have signed up to the Mitchell principles.
      Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Since Committee, we have witnessed more and more atrocities and a return to the sickening ways of the past. There has been not a word of apology or regret. By their words and their deeds, Sinn Fein-IRA and the loyalists set about making a mockery of the peace process. Over the Christmas break, they displayed contempt for democracy and for compromise. They have made it clear once again that they simply despise the decent, law-abiding people of Northern Ireland. The Bill seeks to do some sort of a deal with those groups and I have contended throughout that it cannot happen that way.
      Mr. Seamus Mallon: I understand the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in trying to table amendments or new clauses to a measure that is essentially enabling legislation. If new clause 1 were adopted, would it not have the effect of totally suspending for 12 months any hope, possibility or realisation of decommissioning? Would not that be more damaging to his legitimate case than proceeding with enabling
      472
      legislation that would allow people to try to take the opportunity to end the holding of unlawful weapons if and when that opportunity presented itself?
      Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is a wise parliamentarian and he correctly points to the difficulty of tabling new clauses sometimes. I shall come to the details of my proposals in a moment and, I hope, provide the explanation that he seeks.
      I make it clear that I, too, support decommissioning. I have always done so. I still support the stance adopted by the British Government at the outset before they started to shift their ground. I am happy to try to help decommissioning occur, but the Bill will not achieve it. The Government have long since abandoned their attempt to put decommissioning where it should be: at the beginning. That is the only way in which talks will be able to start. I have said it before and I will say it again: the Government must understand that it is not possible to do deals with evil, which is what we are trying to do this afternoon.
      If I understand the Government's present position correctly—having started with decommissioning and arrived at the Bill—Sinn Fein-IRA must simply stop murdering people for a while. They must then sign up to Mitchell and show that at some stage—we are not sure when—they will use the Bill to decommission something. Ultimately, we shall not know how much they decommission or whether it is everything, as they may claim. If that happens, the earliest possible entry of Sinn Fein-IRA into talks will be sought—some people do not say "as early as possible" but say "immediately". I do not accept those two scenarios.
      The result of not amending the Bill is that we shall end up asking decent democrats to talk to armed terrorists. They will not do that, and it is absolutely right that they should not. Viewed against that scenario, the Bill, if unamended, will make a tragic situation worse rather than improve it, which is what we all want.
      As it currently stands, the Bill provides an amnesty for terrorists. It promises them that no tests will be carried out. It promises them immunity from prosecution and bans the use of evidence, and it does all that without requiring anything in return. If decommissioning were just an exercise, I suppose that we could swallow hard and say that that was something that we could, perhaps, go along with, but it is not; it is an integral part of the route to talks.
      4.30 pm
      Make no mistake, therefore, that once the Bill becomes law, it will be used by the terrorists to demand yet more concessions. They will accept the Bill. They will note the terms within it and say, "Fine, we agree with them, but we are not going to decommission anything now." Therefore, the Bill will not have achieved decommissioning. It will also enable Sinn Fein-IRA to exploit the Unionists in Northern Ireland. It will enable Sinn Fein-IRA to portray Unionists and, indeed, the Social Democratic and Labour party, as intransigent when as democrats they say, "We will not sit down with these people while they are still armed." The Bill will make things a great deal worse.
      The new clause is an attempt to make the Bill less one-sided. I have said some of these things so often that I no longer need to explain that I am opposed to any

      473
      concessions. I am opposed to trying to do any deals with these people. As a Back Bencher, however, I also have to be a realist, especially when I am up against the Government and the Opposition who agree on something. I am a realist, but that does not prevent me from continuing to try, and the new clause is another attempt to persuade the Government to change their mind.
      I want the Government to accept the new clause, so that we can get concessions from terrorists in return for what we have on offer. I see little to be gained otherwise. If we do not get a concession in return, we portray the terrorists, even though they are armed, as democrats, equal to those who renounce violence in the process of what they believe in.
      Through the new clause, I hope that the Government will take it on board to provide a test for the permanence of any ceasefire. This point was made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). It may be the case that a year seems too long, that doing it in exactly this way might put things back, but I believe that we have to find a way through the Bill to test the sincerity of any ceasefire rather than simply taking the terrorists' word for it.
      We know what the previous ceasefire was really about. Taking Sinn Fein-IRA's word for that ceasefire was ridiculous, because the fact of that ceasefire is that there was not one. Torture, intimidation, targeting, training, recruiting and re-equipping continued—all while a so-called ceasefire was in place.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that during the putative ceasefire, the number of brutal punishment beatings went up; that in 1994 the total was 70, but in the two years covering the period of the ceasefire, 1995–96, the totals were 217 and 276 respectively? Does the hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that punishment beatings went up by about 400 per cent. during the period of peace?
      Mr. Wilshire: That is the case. The facts speak for themselves. Here we have proof that those to whom we are supposed to be offering concessions cannot be taken at their word. We know what was happening while there was a ceasefire. We are now being told that we should enact the Bill, make no checks, carry out no tests, offer an amnesty and allow the recipients to say, "Yes, we shall decommission at some stage."
      Mr. Mallon: That is not the point at issue. I am trying to explore with the hon. Gentleman how the new clause would enable the process of decommissioning to proceed if the circumstances allow it to do so. The new clause would postpone the process for 12 months, irrespective of the circumstances. How would the new clause advance potential decommissioning? Would it not simply retard by 12 months the opportunities that may or may not exist in future for getting rid of illegal weaponry?
      Mr. Wilshire: Not at all. A 12-month provision, or any other period that the hon. Gentleman might prefer, would merely require some proof before concessions are made available. There is nothing in the Bill to the effect that it would not be possible to hand over explosives and guns tomorrow. That could be done without the Bill. The message that I keep receiving is that unless concessions are made to terrorists, they will not do anything.
      474
      We have seen what happens when a ceasefire is called and that is taken at face value. If we give concessions the day after another spurious ceasefire is called, we make fools of ourselves again.
      Mr. Mallon: I am at pains to understand what the hon. Gentleman means by concessions. The new clause is not directed at any of the other elements that are set out in the Bill. It might enlighten or help us all if the hon. Gentleman were to tell us what the concessions are that he sees are covered by the application of the new clause.
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
      The concessions are clear for all to see. I should dearly love to address them. I did so in Committee, amendments were divided on and were defeated. Any attempt that I might make to remove bits of concessions would be ruled out of order. I cannot do that. Like me, however, the hon. Gentleman can read the Bill. He can see for himself that we are promising not to prosecute those who hand in weapons and explosives. We are promising also not to carry out tests to ascertain whether we can learn anything. Those are the concessions.
      It may be that the hon. Gentleman and others believe that such concessions should be made. I am saying only that if we are to make such concessions, let us get something in return. The previous ceasefire cannot be regarded as sufficient to allow the proposed concessions to be used for the purpose for which they are intended. I am not prepared to take Sinn Fein-IRA at face value. They claimed that their first ceasefire was permanent and genuine and it was not. I fear that the same thing will happen again.
      I understand that the hon. Gentleman is saying that my proposals are counter-productive. If he is not, someone else will be sorely tempted to advance that argument when I resume my place. I respond to that argument by saying that the new clause cannot do any harm to the peace process because it is wrecked already. Other people's ways of doing things have not taken us very far. The clause cannot produce a return to violence because that has happened already. The usual complaints that I receive when I propose something—neither of them on this occasion—do not bear examination.
      I can anticipate only one criticism of my new clause, which is that it might annoy the Dublin Government, who might not find it to their liking. If it achieves that, it will have achieved something, and I should be delighted.
      Mr. Jim Dowd: That is helpful.
      Mr. Wilshire: Of course it is helpful. Until the Dublin Government understand the reality of Sinn Fein-IRA, we shall go nowhere; and all their comments, behaviour and arm-twisting of the British Government demonstrate that they do not understand. Therefore, I am being helpful. I should be very pleased if my point got across to Dublin in the form that I am making it.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: In support of his proposition, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Dublin

      475
      Government gave a wonderful example of co-operation, with their refusal to extradite to Germany one of the suspected perpetrators of the outrage at Osnabrück?
      Mr. Wilshire: If the hon. and learned Gentleman can contain himself, I should like to consider exactly that matter when I speak to my amendment Nos. 2 and 3. We shall return to the issue then.
      I tabled my new clause because I believe that now is the time to stand firm and not to demonstrate further weakness. This is not the time to make concessions, but the time to continue cracking down on Sinn Fein-IRA. In recent weeks, the police and the Army have made real progress, for which I salute them, and we should continue making such progress.
      We should stand firm also because Sinn Fein-IRA have twice warned members of the nationalist community that they will be beaten and tortured should they be caught helping the democrats in Northern Ireland. If I correctly understand Sinn Fein-IRA, that warning suggests that the public are now turning against terrorism in Northern Ireland. If that is so, why should we weaken at precisely the moment we are making progress?
      Mr. Stephen Day: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland public—whether from the loyalist or nationalist tradition—have never in large numbers supported terrorism? Sinn Fein is still what it has always been: representatives of a very small, violent and unacceptable minority within a much larger and law-abiding nationalist community. We give that minority within a minority far more credit than it deserves. It deserves no credit, and it should have no place in the future of Northern Ireland, the island of Ireland or the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Wilshire: That is correct; my hon. Friend makes the point well. No community in Northern Ireland ever has supported terrorism. However, hon. Members should understand that, if people are threatened with torture or with a beating with a baseball bat with 6 in nails in it, they will of course keep their mouths shut—which is not support of evil, but self-preservation. I think that we understand the distinction. The important point is that, in recent weeks, such acquiescence and submission have been ending. Although people are afraid, they have begun to talk to the forces of law and order, and I salute that change. This is the time when we should stand firm.
      I am a realist, and I understand and accept that the Government seem to be determined to pass their Bill and to choose the course that it sets. I am therefore attempting, in tabling my new clause and arguing its merits, to tell my right hon. Friends, "If you are determined to do this, please try to get something in return. Please see whether you can accept the new clause as it is worded, or agree better wording when the Bill goes to the other place." On that basis, I commend my new clause to the House.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for providing a clever means of ensuring that we have an opportunity now, at the Bill's Report
      476
      stage, to debate all the Bill's facets. He has made the important point, with which I agree, that Sinn Fein-IRA, in particular, are an irredeemable organisation, and that nothing will facilitate their disarmament and movement from violence to democratic practice, because they do not want such movement. He was absolutely right when he said that there is confusion in Northern Ireland between a political process and a peace process, because they have successfully been confused by Sinn Fein-IRA and by those who support or tolerate that organisation.
      The political process should stand alone. One of the difficulties encountered by those of us involved in the current talks process is that politics and peace are so closely connected in people's minds. Politics in Northern Ireland should be purely about political, social, economic and other accommodations between the two traditions. Peace should be about ensuring that the terrorists are totally neutralised and have no ability to wreak havoc, as they have done over the past 25 years and longer.
      Like the hon. Gentleman, I am—or at least I hope that I am—a realist. After living in a culture of violence which has lasted for more than 25 years, I know that no sudden development will cause people to shift overnight from a violent to a democratic outlook. I understand that, irrespective of the intentions of the leadership of various organisations, it will be exceedingly difficult to control everyone who has been part of that culture of violence for so many years.
      We should look to the leadership of those organisations to discover whether they are making the maximum effort to end their forces murdering and inflicting so-called punishment beatings, which are acts of intimidation, to which many of those in what they deem to be their own traditions are subjected. There is a major difference between what is happening with loyalist paramilitary organisations and with Sinn Fein-IRA, because Sinn Fein-IRA continue to espouse the right of people to act against society's democratically expressed will and to use violence when it suits them.
      At least those in the leadership of loyalist paramilitary organisations have constantly pleaded, publicly and privately, for those in possession of guns and other weapons of war to stay their hand and not to embark once again along the road of murder and violence, whether the violence is proactive or retaliatory.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should reward not good intentions expressed by political leaders of organisations with violent propensities, but factual and manifest demonstrations of non-violence by their followers. I take it that the hon. Gentleman is not drawing a distinction between acts of violence that are committed by Sinn Fein-IRA and acts of violence committed by loyalist organisations purely on the basis of what their leaders expressly claim for them.
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows me better than that. I do not tolerate violence from any source. As a practical individual, I like progress to be genuine. When I contemplate the IRA attacks on Canary wharf, Manchester, Osnabrück and Thiepval and its other attempts to take life and increase terrorism, and then, with some satisfaction, the absence of violent reaction from loyalist paramilitaries, I regard it as progress. Those who

      477
      speak on behalf of loyalist organisations deserve, if not credit, at least my acknowledgment of their success in curbing the activities of their acolytes. Long may it continue.
      I return to the part that the Government expect us to play in the talks process. We entered that process on the understanding that there are two separate and distinct tracks that are never to be joined and have no cross-ties—one dealing with political accommodation and the interests of society and the other intending to lead to the end of all violence, disarmament and the verification of the decommissioning process.
      The Irish Government have shown no good intent to keep the two processes apart, but have tried to draw us into the trap whereby every gun that is decommissioned will attract a political reward for the most evil in society. If I read new clause 1 aright, the hon. Member for Spelthorne was concerned with that specific issue. He perceives that the decommissioning Bill contains concessions for terrorists. If it did, I would repudiate it. It would not be worth the paper it is printed on. If I catch your eye again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall address the issue again on Third Reading. The Bill has another purpose in addition to the practical issue of decommissioning.
      Under new clause 1, a ceasefire will not be accepted until 12 months have elapsed since any act of terrorism. As the hon. Gentleman might expect, my party does not find that acceptable because IRA-Sinn Fein have never worked to a time scale. Between 1962 and 1969, they were in a virtually non-violent mode, but of course they were planning future action. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, even during the 17 months between August 1994 and February 1996, in addition to planning the bomb at Canary wharf and training, recruiting and targeting, IRA-Sinn Fein were involved in another variety of terrorism—social and economic terrorism—alongside the gunfire and the bombs.
      The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) was quite right to ask how we defined terrorism. I believe that, when the time is right and when IRA-Sinn Fein consider that enough people are sufficiently naive to believe them, they will be willing to put their guns away for a while. However, they will continue using intimidation and the boycotts to ghettoise Northern Ireland. Only through ghettoisation can IRA-Sinn Fein move towards their ultimate goal—a Bosnia-type situation. I have mentioned that before in the House. They will achieve that by totally controlling significant territories—housing estates or entire districts—within Northern Ireland. That is one reason why my party spoke out about the events at Harriville, saying that they were morally wrong and that such action plays into the hands of those who would ghettoise Northern Ireland.
      Although I appreciate what the hon. Member for Spelthorne has attempted to do and I am grateful for the opportunity to address issues that concern us both, I cannot support new clause 1 as it will not deliver what he requires—a guarantee that the Government will take such steps as are necessary to ensure that not only the words but the actions and the circumstances are right before we accept that the leopard has changed its spots.
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne
      478
      (Mr. Wilshire) for attempting to clarify new clause 1. So far, however, either through my deficiency in understanding or through his deficiency in explaining, he has not fulfilled that objective.
      It is important that we address any proposed amendments to the legislation. It would be easy to toss new clause 1 away: we could say that we will not vote for it because it is not realistic, but that it provides the opportunity to make certain comments. However, that would be the wrong approach to any serious amendments to a serious measure.
      I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that, rather than help the situation, the new clause—or any similar measure—would postpone and enlarge the period of opportunity, if one existed. It assumes a peaceful situation for 12 months, after which legislation would have to be introduced to deal with the consequences of that period.
      The Bill is essentially enabling legislation that will enable decisions on some of the crucial matters to be implemented by order of the Secretary of State when and if an opportunity arises. We do not know when an opportunity will arise.
      Forgive me if I do not join the absolute pessimism that has already been expressed. Forgive me also if I do not engage in a beauty contest on who is most opposed to violence. I assume that every hon. Member, as a democrat, is opposed to violence in any form and that we all accept that to be every hon. Member's position.
      5 pm
      I ask the hon. Member for Spelthorne to accept that there is a fundamental difference between us on the basis on which decommissioning can be dealt with. It has been debated at great length, almost to the stage at which some of us do not like to hear the word any more. That is not because we are afraid of the issues, but because some of us have been dealing with them at close hand for so long and so often that we could make each other's speeches with no difficulty. I have listened at length to members of the Unionist parties in the current talks. I have read their documentation at length. I have listened to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) at length. They have similarly listened to us.
      The fundamental difference between our approaches to finding a solution will not be dealt with by the new clause. I accept that everyone here wants all arms, ammunition and guns to be things of the past and for them to have no role in the life, political or otherwise, of the north of Ireland. I accept the absolute sincerity of people who put forward views with which I do not agree.
      Taking all that as read, however, there is a fundamental divergence, which was best stated by the Secretary of State on Second Reading. It is worth looking at his comments again. He set out the position clearly, saying that it is the role of the security services in any state to ensure that arms, ammunition, bomb-making equipment and all the paraphernalia of terrorism are not held illegally. He went on to make the crucial point, which I also made in that debate, that if it were possible to deal with decommissioning in the normal security ways, we should not be having this debate. If the police, the Army and the legislation framed to deal with terrorism north and south of the border, as well as here, had been successful, this debate would not be taking place. The reason for the

      479
      decommissioning Bill and the on-going debate that there will be about it is that there must be another way of dealing with the inability—I am not using the word "failure"—of the security services to resolve the problem of illegally held arms.
      The Secretary of State put his finger on the issue when he said:
      "It gets harder when it is recognised that, illegal though it is to hold them, the yielding up of those armaments will be done either voluntarily or not at all."—[Official Report, 9 December 1996; Vol. 287, c. 22.]
      I agree with the Secretary of State: it will not be possible to put those arms and that ammunition—the elements of terrorism—out of operation unless it is done voluntarily. That is a difficult statement for the Secretary of State or for me to make, and a difficult fact for any hon. Member to accept, but it is the reality—a reality that we must all face up to if we are to solve the problem. We can fool ourselves that there are other ways of doing it. We can convince ourselves that there are contrivances that will lead to the situation that we want. We can somehow postpone everything and live in the hope that, one fine day, those who organise IRA violence and loyalist paramilitary violence will put through a telephone call to the Northern Ireland Office telling the Secretary of State to expect X number of lorry loads of guns and Semtex, but it will not happen.
      The hon. Member for Spelthorne described himself several times as a realist, as did the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I accept that they are both realists, but we must also be aware of those elements of realism which hurt and which we do not particularly like. The harsh reality—this is where I differ with the hon. Member for Spelthorne—is that a voluntary decision means a decision taken by those who speak on behalf of the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Freedom Fighters, the Red Hand commandos or whoever they all may be, to give up, destroy or decommission their weapons. That will not happen in a void—not in a void of 12 months, not in a political void. It will not happen outside negotiations.
      That brings us to the second harsh reality: the thesis of the Mitchell report—the report of the international commission—which was accepted by the two Governments, was that voluntary decommissioning means decommissioning as a result of negotiations, which means that inclusivity is inevitable. Mitchell decided—we all accepted this, by the way—that decommissioning would be mutual between republican and loyalist paramilitaries. There is a chain of logic in that proposition which cannot be broken, because if it is, there is no validity in the Secretary of State's belief, which I very firmly share, that decommissioning, if it happens, will happen on a voluntary basis.
      Mr. Maginnis: Is not the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is logical, none the less spoiled by the fact that Mitchell assumed that Sinn Fein-IRA were sincere in wanting to move towards peace and to decommission? In so far as they betrayed the judgment that he made, that part of his thesis falls down. Has he seen anything that the ordinary man in the street over the past 10 or 12
      480
      months could take as an indication that there is sincerity on the part of any member of Sinn Fein-IRA in the desire to move towards a peaceful solution?
      Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, both of which are valid. I shall try to answer them as briefly as I possibly can, but I am not sure that there is a quick way of answering either of them.
      The first question is whether, in effect, Mitchell made his recommendations on the basis of a false premise that there were those in the republican movement who wanted peace. I do not think that such a premise is false. I think that there are those in that organisation who want an end to violence. The ideological gap between their position of being able to fulfil their political objectives through violence, and their present position of the acceptance of the use of tactical violence for political purposes, is very distinct.
      The second question is whether I have seen anything that will convince me of the sincerity of the republican movement's position in relation to the matter to which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone referred. I, he or anybody else can judge the sincerity of anyone's position in such circumstances only when they are in the position where it will be a matter not of words but of accommodating the political realities that we all face. Let us not forget that, after the bombing of the Thiepval barracks in Lisburn, the IRA stated for the first time an objective as being an inclusive political negotiated settlement: that is a far cry from the 32-county united socialist republic, which was to begin every six months as a result of force.
      I am not saying that that statement convinces me. What will convince me will be seeing, while sitting at the negotiating table, that organisation being able to accommodate the principles laid out by Mitchell and those of democracy and the democratic process, encapsulating the principle of consent; when it accepts that, whatever the outcome of the negotiations, whether it likes them or not, it will not oppose them, except by political means, and will not use violence. It is in that context that I would start believing. I believe that scepticism is healthy in any element of political life. When it degenerates into cynicism, which prevents people looking at some of the realities that we have to consider, it becomes a dangerous and corrosive factor.
      I want to test the IRA, the UDA and the UFF on decommissioning and politically, but I want the circumstances in which that can be done to be right. Those circumstances, in terms of the Secretary of State's position, which I share and which Mitchell has put forward, are that voluntary decision, based on mutuality, can come about only as a result of an inclusive negotiating position.
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman talks about testing the IRA. He and other colleagues who have nationalist aspirations sought with great sincerity—I believe—to test Sinn Fein-IRA over a year during the meetings of the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. During that entire time, the hon. Gentleman and his pro-nationalist colleagues were unable to get the fundamental accord from Sinn Fein-IRA that is required if we are to make progress: that they should agree on the word "consent"—that the consent of the people of Northern Ireland at the ballot box is fundamental to all progress.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman again makes a valid point, but I think that he misses two crucial elements. He made the case that there would have to be a very dramatic sea change from being involved in violence and the conviction that violence will obtain political objectives to being in the normal political process. The discussions to which the hon. Gentleman referred had two very valuable elements. Whether they liked it or not, Sinn Fein representatives saw across the table that, in effect, there was a nationalist consensus on the island of Ireland. That nationalist consensus was based on two things: an abhorrence of and a refusal to countenance the use of violence for political objectives, and that consent and the principle of consent must underlie any solution to the problem. Yes, they discovered that there was a nationalist consensus; they discovered that they were outside it and that, despite their arguments and bluster, they could not change all the parties.
      One of the difficulties that we all face, especially Sinn Fein, which must start to recognise it, is that there is and will be a nationalist consensus, in just the same way as there is a Unionist consensus. Surely no one is putting a stricture on anybody that they should not fully believe in their own political policy and ideology. There cannot, however, be a set of circumstances in which there will be a special place in anybody's ideology for those who reserve a right to kill, threaten or use violence of any form. That was the real learning curve in the forum, and I want to see it extended and adopted in circumstances in which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone will be able to see the colour of IRA representatives' eyes when he puts his arguments, when the hon. and learned Member for North Down will be able to see their reaction when he puts his arguments, and when the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) will be able to be there to see and hear the reaction when he describes his position. I make that request, although I know that I am deviating slightly.
      We all take the opportunities that come and we are all there to ensure that the principles of the democratic process are pursued by those who believe in the democratic process. If we can convince others, we would surely look on it as being successful. I can put it even more strongly than that: I reckon that if our generation of politicians in the north of Ireland does nothing else but achieve an end to violence, however tenuous, which enables a political process that begins to engage in dialogue and negotiations, however difficult, and we can leave as a legacy that foundation for the future, it will be no mean achievement. It will not be the fulfilment of my political objectives, because I want to see, create and build a united Ireland by democratic, peaceful means, and it will be not the fulfilment of any Unionist objectives because it will not incorporate all their requirements, but it will be a foundation from which to move forward.
      When we consider new clause 1, and when we consider all the issues, let us all be big enough, strong enough and intellectually rigorous enough not to create whipping boys when we come up against problems that we ourselves find it difficult to accommodate. The whipping boy has readily been identified already this afternoon: it is the Irish Government. That has already been stated—and two amendments have been tabled on the subject—but that is not realistic. The position of the Irish Government on arms and the whole question of terrorism is more
      482
      unassailable than anyone else's, so much so that even in Committee some parties in the House saw the wisdom of taking parts of the Irish legislation and tabling them as amendments to the British legislation. The Irish had good reasons for the differences in their legislation: it had to be different because there are constitutional and procedural differences and differences in the way in which legislation is introduced in the Dail and the system here.
      Let nobody seek out whipping boys or try to create a scapegoat in the consideration of an issue on which we have to make an accommodation. Before making a case about extradition terms, people should find out exactly what they are talking about. They should find out what opportunities may have existed to take a case in the Republic of Ireland and they should have evidence for their remarks. I assure the hon. and learned Member for North Down, who no doubt will be able to put not just the political but the legal spin on the subject better than I can, that no Irish Government would lightly make their decision if there was a sound legal basis for an extradition. It is not enough to shake the head and say what I have said is rubbish. The issue should be considered carefully before anybody starts to make a whipping boy out of anyone else.
      Many of us have been part of the talks and negotiations in Castle buildings since 10 June and we have been given a poisoned chalice. The question of decommissioning has been dropped in the laps of the political parties in the north of Ireland to get the Government off the hook that they created for themselves at Washington 3. However, that is our problem and we must deal with it if we accept the Mitchell report, which I do, but we must also be able to deal with it. I invoke the Prime Minister's words on this point and I especially refer the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to those words. Following the Mitchell report, in the joint communiqué of 28 February—after the breakdown of the ceasefire and after the violence had been restarted—the two Governments claimed that a meaningful and inclusive process must be available to those who represent those who are carrying out republican violence if there is to be any hope of achieving decommissioning through the negotiating process. Those are not Mitchell's words or the words of any nationalist party—they are the words of the Prime Minister in a joint statement with another sovereign Government. The Government should remember those words.
      My party, indeed all of us, was promised in this Chamber that the negotiations would be real, that they would be meaningful and that no single issue would stand in the way of progress. We have not even got to the beginning of the negotiations. We have not even got to the ending of the opening plenary session, because the negotiations have not been real or meaningful and one single issue has been allowed to stand in the way of progress. That issue is the one that we are dealing with today.
      We can continue in the same way, but if we do, the political process, as represented by all of us, will be seen to have failed even to start the serious negotiations that we need. It is the duty of the Prime Minister to take all the steps necessary to ensure that he honours the commitment that he made to all the parties that negotiations would be real and meaningful and that no one issue would stand in their way. He has an absolute responsibility to all of us and to peace to honour that

      483
      commitment and I request him to do so. I know that when the Minister of State winds up, scant reference will be made to what I have said if the precedent of Second Reading is followed, but I ask formally that the Minister refer that matter to the Prime Minister, who made those solemn and binding commitments to us in the Chamber of the House of Commons, because he should have the opportunity to ensure that he enforces them.
      Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to what is happening in the talks process and bemoans the fact that we have not made the progress that many of us would have liked. He has indicated that the stumbling block is decommissioning, the disarming of terrorists and the verification of that process, but he appears to point the finger in the direction of Unionists and perhaps of the United Kingdom Government when he makes that allegation. I cannot go into details, because we are bound by confidentiality, but is it not true that two simple issues—one which could have been resolved by the Irish Government and one which could have been resolved by his party, and which would have been in the spirit of what is intended by the legislation—if accepted, would have allowed Unionists to move forward on the understanding that there was practical, and I emphasise the word "practical," sincerity in the approach to decommissioning?
      Mr. Mallon: Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not wish to break any confidentiality which exists, so I refer him to his party's public statements on the matter. The Ulster Unionist party has gone on record saying, first, that there must be the decommissioning of a tranche of weapons before any paramilitary grouping—by which it means Sinn Fein—could enter talks. That is a matter of record, and not a matter of supposition or interpretation. Secondly, the UUP—in commenting on the committee that is to liaise with the international verification committee—stated that staged factors in relation to decommissioning would have to be to determined prior to any movement into the substantive negotiations. That is the public position of the UUP.
      5.30 pm
      I will put a question to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone which I have no doubt that he will answer in his future contributions: does he even remotely imagine that decommissioning as defined by the Secretary of State—a definition with which I agree—will be possible in spite of the two substantial road blocks laid down by his party in the way of substantial and serious negotiations?
      Mr. Maginnis: I promise that this will be my last intervention, Madame Deputy Speaker. I must state clearly that when we abandoned what was called Washington 3—we abandoned it on the basis of Mitchell, the very basis on which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) argues his case—we accepted that decommissioning had to begin from the very start of the process. In addition, we accepted that we could not move through the political process—no one knows how far through—without seeing the colour of IRA-Sinn Fein's money. We do not apply that rule or tenet solely to Sinn Fein-IRA, but we apply it to every paramilitary
      484
      organisation. Those organisations cannot move beyond the introductory stage of talks—according to Mitchell himself, who stated that the process must be parallel—and into the substantive element without an indication of what will happen. We stick by that position, and we shall continue to do so.
      Mr. Mallon: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman's party is to stick by some positions on this issue. The Ulster Unionist party did not abandon Washington 3—the British Government abandoned it. The Ulster Unionist party reintroduced it when it presented its position on decommissioning publicly during a previous stage of the talks. The hon. Gentleman invokes the Mitchell report, which clearly states that decommissioning would take place not before or after negotiations, but during them.
      The position laid down by the Ulster Unionist party is that decommissioning must take place before negotiations. The position of Sinn Fein-IRA, as I understand it, is that decommissioning will come at the end. Can we not at least agree that the only way in which decommissioning should be used as a precondition is to allow us to get up from the table with a solution, and that it should not prevent us from beginning to try to find a solution?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Some hon. Members here today may remember a powerful and moving speech made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) some time ago, in which he castigated the fact that Sinn Fein had sat in a forum in Dublin with fellow members of what we, as Unionists, would call a pan-nationalist front—they were all nationalists, and they all wanted to bring about a united Ireland. They had a debate, and the hon. Gentleman saw the whites of their eyes. If he could not persuade his own kind, if the Dublin Government could not persuade their own kind and if all the diverse groups in the Irish Republic could not do so, why does he say that he is a realist? Why does he say that, if the Unionists looked at the whites of the eyes of the nationalists, a great miracle would happen?
      Tonight, we need to come back to harsh realities. I have heard people say that they are realists, but what are the realities? We have been told by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that the subject of tonight's debate is a poisoned chalice that is to be handed to the people taking part in the talks, but the subject was raised by the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), in 1992 when he said in regard to talks that
      "there can be no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door."
      That is my position, and it is the position of any democrat in Northern Ireland.
      I am not in the business of talking to murderers. I am not in the business of talking to those who went to the children's hospital before Christmas to try to murder my colleague and assistant in Europe, and who put a bullet through an incubator in a children's intensive care ward. I neither want to see their eyeballs, nor to do business with them. The basis for talks was to be
      "no guns on the table, under the table or outside the door."
      Moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said something that I could have said—that he is for decommissioning as originally

      485
      set out in the statements made by various people. Dick Spring, the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic, said after the Downing street declaration was signed—and before the ink was dry on the paper—that
      "we are talking about a permanent cessation of violence, and we are talking about the handing up of arms, with the insistence it would not be the case of 'we are on a temporary cessation to see what the political process offers'."
      It was not some belligerent Unionist who said that, but the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic. However, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has argued tonight that we must have some political bait to attain decommissioning. Mr. Spring went on to say on 1 June 1994:
      "There will have to be a verification of the handing over of arms … it has to be permanent and there has to be evidence of it."
      Just after that, the Secretary of State said on Radio Telefis Eireann that
      "the IRA will have to give up its guns and explosives to prove violence is over."
      Those conditions were set not by Unionists, but by the Government.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that he wanted the Prime Minister to come to the Dispatch Box; I should like the Prime Minister to come here and repeat to the House a statement he made to us. He said that the IRA would hand over a substantial tranche of arms to start with and then, when the talks commenced, hand over a further instalment of arms every month. I said at the time, "Prime Minister, I have one question. How are you going to do that? Say they give you a large tranche of arms, we have a month's discussion, and then they say that they won't give any more. What are you going to do? Throw them out?"
      Once people get into talks, they are in and can do what they like. They can swear that they have renounced violence, as did certain people who will be sitting at the table in a fortnight's time. Now those people say that they will not hand over one weapon. We need to be realists.
      Albert Reynolds, who was still in circulation at that time, said:
      "if all the weapons were decommissioned before a settlement was found … that would be a recipe for disaster."
      He had done a complete somersault. He must have been singing before making that wonderful statement, and on something stronger than buttermilk. Martin McGuinness, the colour of whose eyes the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh wants us to see, said:
      "when we talk to the British Government we will not talk about the decommissioning of IRA arms, we will talk about the dismantling of partition."
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made much tonight of the process of decommissioning, but there is no process whatever on either side.
      Strong statements were made at Washington 3 about arms having to be found out and so forth, and President Clinton said:
      "Paramilitaries on both sides must get rid of their bombs and guns for good and the spectre of violence must be banished",
      and the Prime Minister reiterated:
      "All-party talks are impossible until moves are made on decommissioning."
      That idea was sold to the people of Northern Ireland by the British Government. Unfortunately, some of us believed it. We believed that they would do as they said.
      486
      I find it rather amusing that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh can tell the House today about the great obstacles to the talks, when he was the man who moved that there should be no vote when I tried to bring the matter to a head so that we could make a decision. He said that there would never be a vote. Without a vote, how can we bring the matter to a head? Like Pilate, he washed his hands and told us that we were holding the process back. From what? I want a decision on decommissioning, and I want to know what the British Government, the Dublin Government and the hon. Gentleman are up to on decommissioning.
      Mr. Mallon: The Ulster Unionist party?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to know what anyone is up to. I was amazed by the dialogue tonight between the Ulster Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party. I never knew that we all agreed to mutual decommissioning. The official Unionists may have agreed that with the SDLP and vice versa, but I never agreed it, as I have made clear. The hon. Gentleman will have heard long speeches from me without hearing one line in which I said that, because I do not believe in it.
      Today, there are two so-called army councils, the IRA Army Council and the Combined Loyalist Military Command—high-falutin' titles. Those two bodies hold a noose around the neck of Northern Ireland and say, "If you don't give in to us, we'll give you your bellyful of what we've given you in the past," and the two Governments sit and compromise with them.
      I heard the Secretary of State saying that the Combined Loyalist Military Command should be "helped forward" because of its stand, but I do not think that anyone here today knows who its members are. Who could stand up and say that they can name the men? They are faceless people, and if hon. Members are so foolish as to think that Garry McMichael and Councillor Hughie Smith are the generalissimos commanding that body, they are sadly mistaken.
      The dogs on the street in Northern Ireland know what is happening. They know that the IRA is at its work and that the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Ulster Volunteer Force are at their work. What about the man who was shot in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson)? The police admit that the UVF did that. What about the bombs in north Belfast, for which the police in the area said the UFF was responsible?
      5.45 pm
      The Secretary of State seems to think that schoolboys, rather than politicians, are the right audience for his major speeches. He made a major speech to some schoolboys in Londonderry the other day and told them that the Combined Loyalist Military Command ceasefire was holding. I wish that he would come with me to see some of the people who have been beaten up on the orders of that group, the people who have been partially crucified and the homes that have been wrecked.
      Last Sunday, a member of my church went home to be told by the police that he had to shift house, get out, pull up all his chattels, take his family and go—and yet we are told that the ceasefire is intact and all is well. All is not well in Northern Ireland, and the people are getting sick

      487
      of politicians telling them that it is. The ceasefire is not holding. The Minister told us today about the startling number of beatings going on in both communities. Action needs to be taken.
      It has been argued today that the military, the police, security and legislation have failed, and that we need another method. Spokesmen for the IRA have been advancing that argument for years. They say that they have won the war and that we have to sit down with them and make peace. In fact, the war has never been fought. There is one reason for that: the people most concerned were not allowed to fight it.
      When Northern Ireland became a state, the same forces that are operating today tried to break and destroy it, and the ordinary people of Northern Ireland fought and won the battle against them. They did it because they were fighting for their hearth-stones, for the land where their fathers lay awaiting resurrection, for their country. We, on the other hand, have not had a battle with the IRA. The IRA has never felt the determination of the Ulster people. We are marginalised and told to keep quiet and let others take care of everything.
      With all due respect to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, one would have thought that, with all the years that have passed, the Dublin Government would have extradited a person accused of a terrorist bombing in Germany. The extradition would not even have been to the United Kingdom, but would have been to another country in the European Union, yet that man thumbed his nose and walked out of court. If that is how we intend to fight terrorism, we will be defeated all down the line.
      The Government and hon. Members should go to Northern Ireland and talk not to politicians, but to people who are not active in politics. People in the professional and business worlds, trade unionists and others have at long last realised how serious the situation is. People are asking why they are held in a noose by two outlawed councils of thuggery and murder and why we have to deal with them. We cannot run a country by telling criminals that, if they mutually agree something, we will go ahead and do it. That is what the Bill does. It is not worth the paper it is written on because it says that, until those two councils of thugs and outlaws agree to hand in their arms, nothing shall be done.
      I came to the House in 1970. I never thought that I would be here so long or that I would ever discuss a Bill such as this in the United Kingdom, which boasts of its belief in the democratic process. Tonight we are passing a Bill that tells two outlawed so-called military councils of terrorists that nothing will be done until they mutually agree. That is not law; it is capitulation and concession to the men of violence. The tragedy is that not hon. Members, but the people of Ulster, will reap the sad results. The House is sowing the wind but those people will reap the whirlwind. Hon. Members should go to Northern Ireland and talk not to politicians, but to ordinary people, who are becoming alarmed at how far the Government and the talks are seeking to take them.
      Finally, I say to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh that I will be at no talks with this crowd. I do not believe that the people who sit at the talks at the moment have clean hands. There should be one law right across the board: if they do not go by the principles that they
      488
      swore to uphold, and are not even prepared to condemn acts of violence—let alone dissociate themselves from them—they should not be at the talks because they have violated the Mitchell principles. Those are entirely different from the Mitchell report. I do not accept the report, but I accept the principles.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: There are few hon. Members who do not utterly abhor violence and would not like it to end. Those present probably have no quarrel with the particularities of the Bill. The question is how relevant the legislation is to the state of affairs in Northern Ireland. To see its relevance, one has to look at the general picture.
      In my view, there never was such a creature as the so-called peace process. It was apparent to several political thinkers in Northern Ireland, and in the United Kingdom, that at some time in or about 1988 or 1989, there was a change in direction in British policy away from an attempt to accommodate the nationalist minority in Northern Ireland in a settlement within the United Kingdom to a new policy that involved the appeasement of the violent aspect of Irish nationalism. There was an attempt to discover on what terms an accommodation could be made with violent republicanism in the form of the IRA.
      The philosophy was essentially laid in the initial negotiations that took place between the leader of the SDLP and Mr. Gerry Adams, the titular head of Sinn Fein and some time participant in IRA activity. They laid the foundations for the policy that subsequently emerged, through the Brooke-Mayhew talks, as the peace process. Essentially, the peace process was that an arrangement would be made whereby a meeting of democrats would not be used to settle the political problems of Northern Ireland; instead, a collection of democrats would be got together to give a veneer of democratic responsibility to what was really a peace conference between two sets of combatants: the British state and the representatives of violent republican terrorism.
      The foundations were consolidated by secretive meetings between representatives of the Secretary of State and the IRA in 1992–93. Out of that emerged the Downing street declaration, in which the British Government declared that in respect of part of the territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, they no longer had any selfish strategic or economic interest in maintaining that portion of the United Kingdom within the kingdom. They would agree to act, if not as persuaders, as facilitators for a solution of Irish unity. It is true that it was declared that no other solution would be excluded but it is more important to note that no solution other than Irish unity was adumbrated in the Downing street declaration.
      The declaration was careful never to describe the majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland as British citizens. They were described as the people of Ireland north and south, or as those Irish people living in Northern Ireland. Never once were the 1 million British citizens who describe themselves as, and claim to be, British citizens described as such. More interestingly, the phrase about Britain having no selfish economic or strategic interest was not new. It had become an official declaration of policy, but it was not a novel statement. It had been made in 1991 by the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke). However, he got the phrase from the public,

      489
      agreed statement of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and Gerry Adams on 18 September 1988 in The Irish Times, in which the hon. Member for Foyle declared that he thought that the British Government had no economic or selfish or strategic interest in staying in Northern Ireland.
      A statement made in 1988 by the leader of Northern Ireland's constitutional nationalists and the leader of Sinn Fein was taken up three years later by the then Secretary of State. By 16 December 1993, in the joint declaration, it had become British Government policy. That policy was an open invitation to Sinn Fein-IRA to enter into negotiations and to declare a ceasefire, but the British Government required that the ceasefire had to be permanent. Time passed—a week, let alone two years, is a long time in politics—and everyone forgot about the British Government's insistence that the ceasefire must be permanent. After three months, the Government declared that they had assumed that the ceasefire was permanent.
      Mr. John Hume and Mr. Albert Reynolds had no doubt whatever that "complete" meant permanent, entirely ignoring the fact that, as anyone with any element of logic would know, "complete" is a definition of kind, while "permanent" is a definition of duration. The pro-Union people of Northern Ireland want a cessation of violence that is complete in its nature and permanent in its duration—something that they will never be afforded by Sinn Fein-IRA, and something on which, even after the dastardly breach of their tactical ceasefire on 9 February 1996, the British Government were still not prepared to insist.
      6 pm
      Indeed, the Command Paper of 16 April 1996 that established the basis for the present talks at Stormont in Belfast requires an unequivocal restoration of the August 1994 ceasefire—not even the restoration of an unequivocal ceasefire, but an unequivocal restoration of something that was wholly flawed and false. That requirement is incorporated in a Command Paper that became one of the central documents of the current talks at Stormont.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) talks of the wrangling and the obstacles introduced by Unionists. What Unionists were saying was quite simple: we were not going to take part in a game whose rules have been set to predetermine the result. Unionists were not prepared to accommodate Sinn Fein by allowing it to restore a tactical ceasefire that was always very impermanent, or to engage in a process whose central objective was a framework document.
      People ask why we object to the framework proposals. I will tell the House exactly why we objected to those proposals as the centrepiece of the negotiations. The framework document wants to employ for the uniting of Ireland exactly the methodology for the unification of Europe to which large sections of the major parties in the House of Commons object. In both cases, the aim is exactly the same. If a process can be undertaken involving joint institutions and organisations, covering everything from natural resources to transport to tourism with a central dynamism, after a time the whole concept of national sovereignty becomes a myth of no value. The Government's hypocrisy in setting up that policy to unify Ireland is based on the fact that they are employing a
      490
      methodology for the purpose that they find repugnant in relation to any diminution of the national sovereignty of the United Kingdom as a whole, and of the House.
      Far from involving wrangling, the seven months of negotiations and so-called peace talks at Stormont have been about the rejection of—if I may use a slang phrase—a stacked deck of cards. The pro-Union people refuse to engage in a game in which the cards are marked by the British and Irish Governments in accordance with the predestined result that they wish to achieve. That is what the past seven months have been about.
      Let me now deal specifically with the issue of decommissioning. Originally, the British Government said that there must be an absolute and permanent ceasefire, and the Irish Government said exactly the same. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has already quoted extensively from a speech made in the Dail by the Tanaiste—Dick Spring, the Irish Foreign Secretary—the day after the announcement of the joint declaration. What did he say? He said, "This ceasefire must be permanent. We will not tolerate paramilitaries—Sinn Fein—coming into the democratic process, looking about, picking and choosing, deciding whether there is something in it for them and, if there is not, returning to armed violence." He said, "You must come in, and you must come in for good."
      At that time the present Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, was not in government; he was the Leader of the Opposition. But, on behalf of his party, he made a written submission to the Dublin Forum for Peace and Reconciliation. What did he say in 1994? He said, "Sinn Fein-IRA must hand over their weapons now." "Now" is a very short word, but its meaning is explicit. It does not mean "tomorrow" or "in a little while"; it means immediately, at once, without delay.
      After a while, it became apparent that Mr. Hume and Mr. Reynolds had grossly oversold to Sinn Fein-IRA what the British Government were prepared to deliver, and Sinn Fein-IRA refused to declare their ceasefire permanent. Only, presumably, after being promised something did they declare a ceasefire on 31 August 1994. They were coming in to look around: they were being permitted to do exactly what Mr. Spring had said, the day after the joint declaration, that they would never be allowed to do.
      Sinn Fein-IRA came in and looked around for 18 months. What did they do during that time? They reconnoitred, they monitored, they prepared; they placed in position all the weaponry and all the bombs that they would require for a series of spectaculars on the United Kingdom mainland in case they did not get what they wanted.
      It was plain to the British and Irish Governments that Sinn Fein-IRA were not going to come in and surrender their arms: they had to have a deal. What did the British Government do? They resiled from every position that they had adopted. The only tune on their bugle at any stage was the retreat. Eventually, they reached the stage of Washington 3. Washington 3 was very simple: it said, "If you declare a ceasefire in words and evidence it in action by handing over a significant tranche of weaponry, you can join in." But it became plain that the IRA had never intended to hand over any weapons.
      Mainland politicians appear not to understand that logic is a poor master when it is applied to Sinn Fein-IRA. I heard all sorts of arguments—for instance, that if Sinn Fein-IRA handed in 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of their

      491
      weaponry, they could continue to run an effective terrorist campaign—but the reason they will not hand in a single rusty revolver or an ounce of Semtex has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with the ideological block that places them in the position of legitimate inheritor of the provisional Government of 1918. To hand over anything would be to accept that the remainder of their weapons were held unlawfully and that the authority to which they were handing that rusty revolver or that ounce of Semtex was a lawful authority: that they will never do. When will the Government get it into their heads that Sinn Fein-IRA will never hand over any weapons to anyone, be that directly to the British Government, or to any international commission acting on behalf of the British or Irish Governments?
      The Bill is a nonsense. It is a mechanism—one that might be valid in itself, but is purely a small part of a much larger political policy that is totally false. The idea that the British and Irish Governments could ever do some sort of deal, not with democrats, but with the plenipotentiaries of violence, was totally flawed.
      Not only is that policy flawed, but the policy of expediency without proper political principle has corrupted the very roots of democracy. It has forced the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), to make statements about ceasefires being intact that stretch credulity to the limits. To suggest after the events of the past month that the so-called loyalist ceasefire is still intact is reminiscent of "Alice in Wonderland"—indeed, I am glad to know that the spirit of Hans Christian Andersen and the brothers Grimm has not perished from the Northern Ireland Office. Such statements amount to a fairy tale.
      The Government's logic is: the fact that no bombs are going off can be accredited to the Combined Loyalist Military Command; because no one is being shot with weapons accredited to the CLMC, they can say that there is a peace process and that the loyalist ceasefire is intact. That completely ignores loyalist violence in the form of barbarous punishment beatings, which have increased from about 30 incidents in 1993, before this marvellous peace process, to 118 in the first 11 months of 1996. Any assertion that an increase in those terrible beatings, which are often the cause of orthopaedic and other injuries far worse than would be caused by a bullet, is consistent with an intact ceasefire is absolutely ludicrous.
      I am sure that other hon. Members who speak later will be able to develop this theme and ask: what is an act of terrorism? If a bullet is fired through the fleshy part of someone's thigh, is that an act of terrorism? Is boring a hole through someone's kneecap with a Black and Decker drill an act of terrorism? Nailing someone upside down to a fence and breaking his legs with clubs would not be an act of terrorism amounting to a breach of the ceasefire, but a failed attempt at a mortar bombing, which killed no one, would be a breach. Only those who are pursuing a policy that has no moral, ethical or political credibility can force themselves into the corner of having to ask people to believe that such activity does not amount to a breach of the ceasefire.
      The only difference between the loyalists of August 1994 and those of today is that they have shifted the range and medium of their operations. The vast increase in punishment beatings—by about 400 per cent. in both
      492
      communities—is evidence that terrorism and violence are being used by terrorists in their own communities for the purpose of enforcing their political will. They are creating an environment in which they can achieve political domination by methods that no democracy should tolerate in the 20th century.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Day: I am interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying—he is giving us a marvellous analysis of a period of history that has yet to be judged. I am, however, concerned about the effects on the democratic process, to which he alluded earlier. Does he agree that the peace process has not only warped the democratic process, but by legitimising in the eyes of the public—especially the nationalist community—Sinn Fein as a political entity that appeared, through the peace process and the so-called ceasefire, to be genuinely searching for peace, it has increased Sinn Fein's electoral support? The peace process legitimised Sinn Fein in the eyes of the world at the expense of the real democratic forces in the north of Ireland. Is that not yet another way in which the peace process has destroyed the very values that the Governments of Britain and Ireland purport to be trying to uphold?
      Mr. McCartney: I could not agree more. During the period of the peace process, not only has the number of punishment beatings increased by more than 400 per cent.—with all that that entails in the destruction of community values—but those in charge of community relations agencies in Northern Ireland say that, at present, relations between the two communities are the worst that they have ever encountered throughout their existence. The price of a policy that appears to appease terrorism, that has brought, at best, a period of non-use of bombs and bullets and is now over, has been to destroy intercommunity relationships that are the real foundation of peace in any society. Owing to a fraudulent peace process, the intercommunity relationships that should form the basis of any true peace have been diminished and destroyed.
      Unfortunately, representatives like me, who have never been involved, at any stage or in any form, with organizations—
      Dr. Joe Hendron: A few minutes ago the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to punishment beatings. I intend no criticism and I understand what he was saying and why he used those words, but will he accept that "punishment" is the wrong word to use? He is not the only one to use the word—indeed, everybody does—but it implies, first, that the victim has done something wrong and, secondly, that those who carry out the beatings, many of whom are gangsters with dreadful records, are in some way and in the perception of some people justified in their actions.
      Mr. McCartney: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We have encouraged people who represent a terrorist organisation to assume a place in our society that appears to afford them political and community legitimacy.
      In his radio and television speech to the nation after the Downing street declaration, the Prime Minister said:
      "Only the men of violence can give peace."

      493
      The import of that statement went unnoticed. He was saying, "In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Government and the forces of law and order can no longer enforce the rule of law. If you want peace, you will have to authorise the Government to adopt a policy of appeasement or accommodation with those who violate the rule of law."
      That brings us back to some of the comments and concepts that were offered as eternal verities by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, who is unfortunately no longer present. He advanced the idea that decommissioning, as a mode of peace, must be voluntary. That amounts to a suggestion that we must reach some accommodation with violent terrorism that will persuade it to hand over its weapons of its own volition.
      I suggest that the source of that great persuasion, which would make terrorists give up their weapons voluntarily, would be the fulfilment of their political objectives; they have not given the slightest hint that those have been diminished. They remain determined to have Brits out, self-determination on an all-Ireland basis and an Irish united socialist Government—and I use the word "socialist" as one who, with a great deal of reserve, favours some aspects of socialism. There is no suggestion that they will ever give up their guns before, during or after negotiations unless those negotiations produce a settlement that they can endorse.
      When the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh speaks about an inclusive form of negotiations, he means that the Union must be on the table. He avoids the issue raised by the hon. Member for North Antrim. When the pan-nationalist bodies of Ireland met in the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation to discuss the way forward, it was clear that the principle of consent—that there could be no united Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland—was put to Sinn Fein-IRA in its most anodyne form. The pan-nationalist bodies sought to produce such a watered-down version of consent that they were astonished that even that anodyne form of consent was unacceptable to Sinn Fein.
      Mr. Andrew Hunter: Is it not the more remarkable that, in those circumstances, some members of the SDLP should have been thinking aloud of an electoral pact with Sinn Fein?
      Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because he is right.
      That brings us back to the raison d'être of the so-called peace process. It was essentially the creature of a pan-nationalist front. Sinn Fein was brought in out of the cold by its association with constitutional nationalism in the form of the SDLP and the Irish Government. It was further sanitised and endorsed by Irish America and received the imprimatur of the White house; it was brought back to Europe in that cleansed and resurrected form. Its members were now, in a sense, suitable candidates for the company of democrats—except that they never were democrats. They never ceased to be anything but a bunch of gangsters, thugs and violent terrorists who would kill, maim and destroy as the only means of achieving their objectives.
      The time has come when, instead of pursuing a bipartisan policy that effectively disfranchises the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the House and
      494
      both major political parties in it should say, "Enough of these violent men." I do not want my remarks to be confined to the violent men of Irish nationalism. I am equally adamant that we must eschew those who pose as defenders of the Union because the Union cannot be protected by people who ignore the rule of law. It cannot be defended by the principles that, as democrats, we all oppose, and it cannot be maintained by pretending that these folk are not exactly what they are.
      What has reality come to when some credible politicians from the United Kingdom can describe serial murderers and those who have been involved in despicable crimes as unsung heroes of the peace process, on the basis that they should be congratulated on refraining from doing what no civilised human being should ever have done in the first place? That is an example of how crazy this business has become.
      I welcome the purpose of the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). It has enabled the House to examine a broader spectrum and ambit of the concepts and ideas involved. We must look for a new beginning. This peace process, wrongly so called, has been built on false principles; it has been built on sand, and it is now disappearing into that sand.
      We must all unite as democrats. I appeal to those whose long-term objectives for Ireland I do not share, but whose position as democrats I respect. We must all seek a solution; but that solution is not to be found by pro-Union people incorporating the CLMC into any part of their thinking, or constitutional nationalists having any truck with Sinn Fein-IRA murderers.
      Mr. Tony Worthington: I congratulate the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on apparently providing the stimulus for a significant number of Members to speak very broadly on this issue. However, I shall be innovative and restrict myself to new clause 1 and the issues arising from it. I trust, Madam Deputy Speaker, that that will be in order.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): It will be welcomed.
      Mr. Worthington: We are here today because of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill and because of the Mitchell report. After extensive discussion, the Mitchell committee reached the conclusion that appears at paragraph 17 of the report:
      "Everyone with whom we spoke agrees in principle with the need to decommission. There are differences on the timing and context—indeed, those differences led to the creation of this Body—but they should not obscure the nearly universal support which exists for the total and verifiable disarmament of all paramilitary organisations. That must continue to be a principal objective."
      Listening to tonight's debate, I did not pick up a similar feeling of unanimity about people seeking a mechanism for decommissioning. But that is why we are here. We believe that there should be decommissioning, and for that there needs to be a mechanism—hence the need for this Bill.
      The new clause states:
      "This Act shall enter into force on a day to be determined by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument, save that no such order shall be made until the Secretary of State is satisfied that 12 months have passed since any act of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland has occurred."

      495
      The new clause thus assumes that decommissioning and the mechanism to enable it to occur will come about. Thereafter, however, it becomes somewhat surreal.
      6.30 pm
      The new clause also assumes that there is a ceasefire, because there would otherwise be no impetus to decommission. To extend the logic: there being a ceasefire, the new clause would tell those who wanted to begin decommissioning that they could do so, but not yet. Only in 12 months' time could it be embarked upon. That is certainly flawed.
      The whole idea of decommissioning is that it should be voluntary. That is what Mitchell said; it is what those, including my party, who signed up to Mitchell would say. If people want to begin decommissioning, we should welcome that with open arms, and get the weapons of destruction off the streets as quickly as possible. It is therefore strange to delay the process by 12 months. Hitherto, those who have asked for decommissioning only at the end of the process have been the terrorist organizations—
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman said just now that he was one of those who had signed up to Mitchell. What does he mean? Does he mean that he signed up to the Mitchell principles, or to the whole report?
      Mr. Worthington: My party, the Government, and other parties, here and in Northern Ireland, have said that they accept the principles in the Mitchell report, which still stands as a remarkable contribution, given the short time in which it had to be produced. We accept the six principles concerning talks—the hon. Gentleman probably knows them better than I do. They are valuable principles on which to proceed.
      If decommissioning is to go ahead, it must be voluntary. In Committee, the Government were right to resist amendments that would have rendered it less than voluntary—by introducing penalties, and so on.
      Holding up the process once a ceasefire is in place seems to me fundamentally flawed, yet that is what the new clause would do. Furthermore, how is an act of terrorism to be defined? The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) posed that question. It is not easy to answer; and in any case, who will decide? Who will decide whether such an act of terrorism is connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland? What about an act of terrorism committed in Great Britain and not accredited to any Northern Ireland group?
      For all these reasons, new clause 1 is fatally flawed. As we all know, the whole Bill demands great acts of faith, but the new clause seems to attempt to suspend reality altogether. We do not back it.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Sir John Wheeler): The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for constructing the new clause so ingeniously as to enable such a wide-ranging debate to take place, thus allowing us to hear so many expressions of opinion about the affairs of Northern Ireland.
      496
      Some hon. Members have questioned the very purpose of the Bill in current circumstances, given that we face an escalating campaign of terrorism by the Provisional IRA. Hon. Members on both sides have referred to the statistics of terrorist crime. It is sometimes difficult to define terrorism, but acts against the law are crimes, whether terrorist or otherwise.
      There is a certain irony in debating decommissioning against the backdrop of an increasing number of terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but the House must not let terrorists set the agenda. The Mitchell report provides the best way forward. The hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) referred to that report; incidentally, I was grateful to hear him support the Government's position on the Bill.
      The Government accept the recommendations for parallel decommissioning and political negotiations, and this Bill, as a first step, lays down the statutory foundations. Time will tell whether it was futile. We are not talking about a general amnesty for past crimes. Those who have committed crimes under the guise of terrorism will still be liable for the consequences. But the Government will not give up searching through all options at their disposal to bring a genuine and lasting peace to the people of Northern Ireland; just as they will not give up their firm stand against terrorist violence from whatever quarter.
      As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said—reinforced by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie—this is an enabling measure. Its purpose is to facilitate decommissioning, and to help to get that process under way in parallel with the talks, in line with the Mitchell commission compromise. It is for the democratic parties and the democratic process to make demands of the terrorists, requiring them to demonstrate their good faith and their commitment to a genuine political and democratic process. That has been a theme of this debate.
      If there is a new ceasefire by Provisional IRA-Sinn Fein, it must be genuine, and must be seen to be genuine. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said, it must include giving up the other means of violence and intimidation—not just the awful punishment attacks, which, as he rightly said, are intended to keep the nationalist population under control by intimidating them. Any new ceasefire must also mean an end to winkling people out from their homes and farms, and an end to the boycotts. In short, it must be a genuinely inclusive process.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) went wider, and questioned the Government's purpose. I hope he will accept from me that the Government's purpose is not to appease anyone. The Government's overriding objective in Northern Ireland is to secure a comprehensive and widely acceptable political settlement founded on democracy and based on consent—words that have been employed during this afternoon's debate.
      I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that, if the process were concluded, it would be for the people of Northern Ireland in a secret vote to indicate whether they accepted the outcome. They would be the sovereign masters of the final stages of the process.
      The hon. and learned Member for North Down raised the spectre of the Government having a secret agenda or secret negotiations. No such objective exists, nor would it

      497
      be practical. How would it win the support and consent of those in the talks in Stormont Castle buildings, let alone the people of Northern Ireland? If the process succeeds, that will be because it is open and above aboard, not a series of deals behind the scenes.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wanted to ensure a debate on serious issues affecting the situation in Northern Ireland. I understand his desire for a genuine cessation of all terrorist activity in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That objective is common to all of us in the House. The Government have said time and again that there must be a credible and permanent end to violence in both words and deeds. We all want that, but, like the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, I do not believe that the new clause would achieve what my hon. Friend intends.
      Through the Bill, we are trying to achieve a start to the decommissioning process—to lay the statutory foundation that will enable decommissioning to be taken forward in parallel with substantive political negotiations. We all recognise the irony of debating such legislation against the backdrop of the terrorist campaign that is developing in Northern Ireland.
      The clause would have no impact on the entry of IRA-Sinn Fein to the negotiations. The House laid down last year in section 2 of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Act 1996 the circumstances in which, and only in which—I emphasise only in which—that would happen. The Act gave effect to paragraphs 8 and 9 of the ground rules for substantive all-party negotiations, published as a Command Paper, according to which the key requirement for the entry of Sinn Fein to negotiations is the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. If that requirement is not met, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no power to invite Sinn Fein to send a negotiating team to the talks. If the criteria of paragraphs 8 and 9 are met, he must do so.
      The Prime Minister made it clear on 28 November that, if a ceasefire were announced, we would need to be assured that it was genuine and unequivocal. That has been discussed during the debate. It would mean, I suggest, an ending of terrorist violence, a standing down of the means to participate in terrorism, and an ending of punishment attacks and all the other criminal acts to which hon. Members have referred. The ceasefire must be lasting, rather than merely tactical. It would be necessary to assess carefully whether the words, actions and all the circumstances were consistent with a lasting ceasefire.
      Those provisions regulate the entry of Sinn Fein to the talks process. If the conditions were satisfied, Sinn Fein would have to be admitted, but if the new clause took effect, there would be no provision whereby decommissioning could take place until a year had passed since the last act of terrorism, however that may be defined.
      6.45 pm
      I do not believe that my hon. Friend was aiming at a talks process in which decommissioning was impossible, but that is what the new clause might achieve. The truest test of the peaceful intent of people who have previously used violence for political ends is whether they are willing to decommission their weapons and stocks of Semtex. As soon as they are willing, we wish to give them the opportunity to do so.
      498
      My hon. Friend's new clause has the further drawback that it does not specify from where the act of terrorism need come. The consequence is that a single act by a group or individual wholly unconnected with the talks process might prevent decommissioning.
      In summary, the Government believe that the existing provisions on entry to negotiations, approved by Parliament last year, are right. In any event, the new clause does not bear on them. We also believe that arrangements must be made to ensure that it is possible for decommissioning to begin at the earliest opportunity. The new clause would, without good reason, remove that possibility in some circumstances, and might thereby present a needless obstacle to progress in the talks. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the motion.
      Mr. Wilshire: We have had a fascinating two and a half hours—not what the Whips wanted, perhaps, but a necessary and worthwhile debate. I shall respond briefly to some of the comments about me and my new clause.
      The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) said that he was sorry that he could not support me. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the rest of the speech. I note that he thinks that the new clause would not work; the same theme ran through other contributions. The hon. Gentleman put his finger on my key concern: the Bill, if enacted, is only the beginning of a process that will lead us ever further down the slope of one-sided concessions. He said that Sinn Fein-IRA do not work to a timetable. That is fair comment.
      The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) wants the Bill left as it is, so that it can be used when the opportunity arises. That is a noble motive, but the hon. Gentleman failed to go on to explain what he meant by "opportunity". That is the problem that the new clause might address.
      The hon. Gentleman argued that realism means that we must accept uncomfortable situations. I think that he was arguing that we must accept the Bill as it is, but the argument that realism requires us to do something could be used to justify anything. I would argue that realism means that some realities clash, and we must work out how to handle that. I am not sure that the Bill would do so satisfactorily.
      The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that he would speak about harsh realities. What he said needed saying and always needs saying, however uncomfortable it makes us feel. Like it or not, what the hon. Gentleman says is the authentic word of an awful lot of people in Northern Ireland. That voice is one of the realities, and, like all the other realities, it will not go away. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the war against Sinn Fein-IRA has never been fought. I pray to God that it never will be fought, and that we can find a different solution to Northern Ireland's problems.
      The speech by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) was one of the best that I have heard him make. I wish that every member of my party had been in the Chamber to listen to his analysis of the real situation. He said that the Bill is nonsense, and initially I thought that my clause might make it less so. I agree with his assertions that there never was a peace process, and that the framework documents equal a united Ireland. I also agree with his claim that decommissioning will never occur.

      499
      The hon. and learned Gentleman made only one point with which I did not concur. He said that he was telling a fairy story, but those stories have happy endings, and I am afraid that this tragedy will not fall into that category.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) singled me out for attention: I do not think that I deserved all his criticism. He described new clause 1 as surreal. He may find it so, but I assure him that it is in order—I hope that he has noted that fact. He is unhappy about the 12-month delay, but I dealt with the matter as best I could. Although it introduces a delay before the concessions cut in, nothing in my new clause says that decommissioning cannot happen during the 12 months. It states only that there will be no concessions until there is proof that everything is for real.
      My right hon. Friend the Minister described the Bill as a first step. However, I ask, as gently as I can: without my improvements, who knows what direction those steps will take? He said that we need parallel decommissioning. As I have said before, I oppose parallel decommissioning. I have always supported decommissioning at the outset so that people will sit around the table as democrats together. He said that a new ceasefire must be genuine. How will we know that? We were told that the last one was genuine. My new clause tries to provide a means of testing the sincerity of the ceasefire.
      If I understand my right hon. Friend's analysis of my new clause correctly, I suspect that he has rumbled me. In the circumstances, the best I can do is muster as good a grace as possible, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 3

      METHODS OF DECOMMISSIONING
      Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out line 10.
      I shall try to be brief. The amendment simply seeks to delete one of the four ways in which decommissioning can occur. I support—as I suspect all hon. Members do—the first three methods. I have no difficulty supporting the contention that weapons can be decommissioned by giving them to the commission. That makes enormous sense; we have been arguing for such a handover for a long time.
      The second method of decommissioning is to put weapons and explosives somewhere that the commission can find them. It achieves the desired result by putting the weapons and explosives in the hands of the commission, and I support it. The third means of decommissioning is for someone to tell the commission where it can find the weapons and explosives. I have no difficulty with that method, because the arms and explosives will end up in the hands of the commission. Those three methods make sense and achieve the desired result: a party removed from this sorry mess will take possession of the arms and explosives.
      However, given the events that have occurred in the interval between the Committee stage and tonight's debate, I am afraid that I cannot support the fourth method
      500
      of decommissioning, which says that it is acceptable for the terrorists to destroy the weapons and explosives. That cannot be right. Given the lack of faith, the twisting and turning, and the murder and mayhem, how can we swallow the notion that Sinn Fein-IRA may simply ring up and say, "We've got rid of them," and that they will then receive all the protection that the Bill offers? There must be independent verification.
      The fourth method of decommissioning represents an enormous loophole. I am not a lawyer, but I can anticipate the defence that will be offered against criminal prosecution. A terrorist who is being pursued and who knows that he will be caught might dismantle his gun or defuse his explosives and say, "I have just decommissioned them. It says in the Act that I have destroyed them, and so you cannot use the weapons that you have caught me with as evidence. You cannot carry out tests on the gun that I have dismantled because the Act says that you cannot do so. There is no evidence and I am immune from prosecution." That is an appalling loophole and I hope that the Minister will at least reassure me about that point if he cannot fix the serious weakness in the Bill.
      If we are to have decommissioning, the arms and explosives must end up in the hands of the commission. We cannot, and dare not, rely on the claims of Sinn Fein-IRA as to what they have done with the weapons without seeking proof.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I support the comments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He has touched on an important point: why should those who unlawfully possess murder weapons have the right to destroy them and then claim amnesty? That is not reasonable. The hon. Gentleman offered a vivid example of a known terrorist, who is about to carry out an act of terrorism or has just committed one, legally destroying his weapons under the Bill. That leaves the door wide open and I believe that the Government should withdraw the paragraph altogether.
      We are talking about an unlawful organisation that has carried out some of the vilest murders in the community and has shown no signs of repenting. Why should it be judge and jury and settle its affairs as it likes? That is what the IRA wants to do. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) referred to the blockage in its thinking: the IRA is not prepared to allow a lawful authority to deal with its unlawful possessions and deeds.
      Mr. Maginnis: I wish to add to the comments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). My party also has considerable difficulty with the words of clause 3(1)(d), for the reasons that he outlined. It is not for me to put words into the Minister's mouth, but I urge upon him the hon. Gentleman's interpretation. Even if the word "verifiable" were added to the clause, it would not be good enough.
      Will the Minister give a firm reassurance that a verifiable process means a structured rather than a spontaneous process? If the paragraph is to remain in the Bill—we would support the hon. Gentleman's amendment in a vote—will the Minister assure us that there will be a proper, well-defined, verifiable process, which is structured rather than spontaneous?
      Mr. Robert McCartney: Although I agree entirely with the thrust and intention of the amendment, I am not entirely certain that the amendment and the Government's intention in drafting clause 3(1)(d) are necessarily at odds.

      501
      The destruction of weapons by the persons in unlawful possession of them is different from the evidence of such destruction. For example, if terrorists were in possession of a number of kalashnikov rifles, and if those weapons were provided to the commission with their barrels completely bored out or twisted beyond recognition, one could say that they were effectively destroyed, and destroyed by the persons in unlawful possession of them. That is completely different from the evidence of such destruction.
      7 pm
      I say this off the cuff, as it were, but perhaps clause 3(1)(d) should be amended to read, "destruction by persons in unlawful possession, and such destruction to be evidenced to the satisfaction of the commission". Not only would the weapons have to be destroyed, but evidence of their destruction would have to be such as to satisfy the commission that it had taken place. For example, it might be decided—as was done in Russia—to run a steamroller over certain pieces of equipment and thereby totally destroy them. I do not care who destroys them, provided evidence of their destruction is available to the commission.
      I suggest to the Minister that clause 3(1)(d) be amended to read, "destruction by persons in unlawful possession, and such destruction to be evidenced to the satisfaction of the commission or such other verifying body."
      Sir John Wheeler: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for raising this issue. Allow me to return to the reason for this part of the Bill.
      Paragraph 44 of the Mitchell commission report, to which my hon. Friend referred, specifies four possible ways of dealing with firearms, explosives and ammunition. It acknowledges that those ways are by no means exhaustive, but in a desire to reflect the report's recommendations, we may have made clause 3 require a decommissioning scheme to make provision for one or more of those specified ways while still allowing the scheme to make provision for other methods, if required. In practice, a variety of methods might be needed, because the circumstances of where the munitions may come from will vary—the location and so on.
      Amendment No. 1, proposed by my hon. Friend, and commented on and supported by others, would remove from the list of methods of decommissioning the one whereby those unlawfully in possession of weapons may destroy them. That method is, the Government believe, the one most likely to encourage terrorist groups to decommission. It is important for the House to remember that for that method not to be included when it was included in the Mitchell report itself would send the wrong signal to those whose confidence we wish to build in the direction of decommissioning.
      I sense that the House is really asking me to give an assurance that it is not the Government's intention that that method should be carried out unsupervised. I can give the House that assurance. There would be no point in sending a note to the Northern Ireland Office to say that the Semtex has gone, it has been buried deep in the
      502
      ground, lost at sea, or anything of that kind. That would not do. There is no question of any disposal under this method being unsupervised.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Sir John Wheeler: I shall develop my point a little more, and then see whether my hon. Friend still wants me to give way.
      The Government envisage that a member, or members, of the commission to be appointed will be present to verify the destruction of weapons, Semtex and other munitions. It is through that verification process that public confidence in the decommissioning process can be built. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made the point that the verification must be credible.
      Mr. David Trimble: We are greatly encouraged by what the Minister has just said, but will he go just a little further and give the House an assurance that any decommissioning scheme that the Government introduce will contain clear, comprehensive provisions for the sort of verification that he has just mentioned, and that it will be clear in the terms of the scheme that such verification will take place?
      Sir John Wheeler: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is seeking. I remind the House that, in the event of the decommissioning process succeeding, it will involve the Government of the Republic of Ireland, who are enacting similar legislation to that before the House this evening. Their proposed legislation has had its Second Reading, and I understand that they will continue with the scrutiny of their Bill before the end of this month.
      The commission to be appointed must command the support and confidence of both jurisdictions, but I can go so far as to say, to satisfy the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), that there can be no point in this process unless there can be verification. The purpose of establishing the commission, which will operate in two separate jurisdictions—within the territory of the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom—must be to ensure that the decommissioning is genuine, and that it can be publicly ensured.
      I am confident that when the commission is established, part of the requirements of its work, to be agreed by the two Governments and no doubt approved by the House, and the talks process, must be that it has firm instructions as to how it will carry out supervision, and report to the public and others with an interest how it has verified the destruction and disposal of the weapons and munitions. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman and the House as a whole, because it is an important point.
      I make one other point. Disposal by that method, if it should occur, would have to be undertaken in a way that was safe to the public interest in either jurisdiction. That burden would also fall to the commission, so it would have a serious task to perform if we were to be at the happy stage of expecting decommissioning to take place.
      I hope that I have been able to satisfy the House and that my hon. Friend will feel able to seek the leave of the House to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: It occurs to me that the argument advanced for not deleting the fourth requirement is powerful. If the requirement is in the Mitchell report, its presence in our legislation makes some sense to me.

      503
      I listened with some interest to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who offered me one word—"verifiable". I suspect that that is the schoolteacher in him. He wishes to keep it simple. Then I heard the lawyer, the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), offer me more words than I could write, because of my lack of shorthand. He offered me those words to achieve the same result, that of qualifying the fourth requirement and guarding against the very thing that worries me.
      Would my right hon. Friend the Minister be willing to think further about the wording that has been suggested by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for North Down before the Bill goes to another place?
      Sir John Wheeler: Yes, of course. I shall take from the debate my hon. Friend's urgings and the sense of the House as I perceive it to be. I shall do my best to ensure that the concepts that have been discussed are built into the process that we shall have to contemplate when and if a commission is established to supervise and verify the destruction of weapons and munitions.
      Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I judge from hon. Members' nods that his response has probably satisfied the House. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 7

      THE COMMISSION
      Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 10, leave out from 'State' to 'may' in line 11.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 13, leave out from 'State' to 'may' in line 14.
      Mr. Wilshire: The amendments leave out the phrase:
      "after consulting the Minister for Justice of the Republic of Ireland".
      I cannot believe that I am alone in the House in being amazed that a sovereign Parliament is being asked to enact legislation relating to an integral part of its sovereign territory that requires one of the Queen's Ministers to go cap in hand to a member of a foreign Government before we do something. I know that we have had problems with our sovereignty in relation to Brussels, but whatever we might think about that, the issue has not become so bad that we should write into legislation a commitment to go cap in hand to the Dublin Government before we take certain actions in our own country.
      If that were not bad enough, the Minister in the Dublin Government to whom we must go is the very Minister who has let out of prison this week someone whom the German authorities want to interview for terrorist activities. I am against the principle of going to a Minister in the Dublin Government, and I am against the Minister who has been selected to have something of a say in our affairs.
      504
      It may seem that I am raising a small point. It may seem also that I am being unhelpful, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) implied a while ago. I see, however, the start of a slippery slope. First, the Secretary of State must consult. When we next have to legislate, he will have to seek permission. After that, we shall have to seek the permission of the Dublin Government and the involvement of a supervisory joint body. I am raising more than a small point. Indeed, we are facing the thin end of a wedge.
      Mr. Worthington: Everyone seems to assume that the great majority of the armaments that we are discussing are within the Republic, and that we should be seeking to get the full co-operation of the Republic for there to be decommissioning. How can that occur if there is not consultation, which should be built upon so that we might get rid of weaponry throughout the island of Ireland?
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Wilshire: The purpose behind the amendments is not to forbid consultation. My objection to the Bill is that it fetters the sovereignty of this Parliament by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to go cap in hand to a foreign Government. Any Secretary of State worth his or her salt will consult, but to introduce a statutory requirement to consult is to begin to concede that Northern Ireland is somehow not a proper part of the United Kingdom. I cannot go along with that. I am sure that the requirement is not necessary, and on that basis I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will be able to tell me that common sense will break out, discussions will take place and the requirement will not have to be set out in the Bill.
      Mr. Trimble: I support the amendment. If the Bill, when enacted, is to be effective, that will require co-operation. Indeed, it will require an agreement to be made between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland even to establish the commission. No one wishes to exclude co-operation that will bring about the decommissioning of terrorist weapons. We want, of course, to see all such weapons removed.
      I am concerned about the references to consultation with the Minister for Justice of the Republic of Ireland because we are in danger of bringing about a situation in which the Secretary of State will not be able to act. He will not be able to bring legislation into force if there is not that consultation or if the consultation is not effective. It might be possible for a future Minister for Justice of the Irish Republic to stultify the operation of the proposed legislation that is before us.
      We must—especially as there are elections pending in the Republic of Ireland—take into account the possibility that we might find ourselves with a Government who will not be co-operative in the way that we now expect.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) has raised an important issue. Has the Minister been consulted about the Bill that is now before the Dail Eireann? Is there a reference to consultation in that Bill? Does that Bill refer to the Secretary of State for Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Is that term used in the Bill?

      505
      Let us get things straight. We had the southern Republic refusing at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to give the United Kingdom its proper term. I have had to fight the issue in Europe. The Eire Government want to refer only to the United Kingdom and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What is the reference in their Bill? If a reference to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not in their Bill, why should we have the requirement to consult in the Bill that is before us? If the Eire Government are not prepared to recognise our proper jurisdiction and description, we should not have to consult them.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recollect that when the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 was signed, there were two forms, one signed by the United Kingdom Government, which was an agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Republic, and one signed by Dublin, which was between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Republic. I take it that that is the point to which the hon. Gentleman alludes.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: That is the point, and it is an extremely important one. In Europe, a subtle change was introduced under the Irish presidency on one occasion. It was only after representations were made to the President that it was reversed. We joined the European Union as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thereafter, there was a reference to Great Britain only, followed by a reference to the UK. The final part of the UK's description was omitted. As I have said, the hon. Member for Spelthorne has raised an important point.
      Is it not the first time in British history that a Minister of another regime is written into our legislation—a reference that has the effect that our Minister can do nothing until he first consults that foreign Minister? Who will prove that we have consulted him? Will the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ireland have a right to tell a British court, "I am supposed to be consulted, but I was not"?
      Such a scenario is where this provision—which was formulated by Irish civil servants—will lead us. We have seen posters showing people with demon eyes. I have sat at the talks and looked at the whites of those boys' eyes, and they have demon eyes. Some of them would do Loyola and the Jesuits credit, because they know every way in which to try to put a dagger in the back of the Ulster people and of the United Kingdom. The Minister needs to tell us what we are trying to do.
      Mr. Robert McCartney: The suggestion seems to be that consultations with Ministers of the Republic of Ireland, and particularly with their Minister for Justice, are necessarily beneficial. Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) alluded to the recent matter of the extradition of Mr. Lowry, who is wanted by the German Government in connection with the post-Canary wharf, post-ceasefire outrage at the British base in Osnabrück. Although somewhat belatedly, the Irish Government signed the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, and they did so knowing that the convention's function was to ensure that terrorists are provided with no hiding place in the territory of European
      506
      Community member states—each of which, to achieve membership, must have been defined as a democracy, not a police state, which operates under the rule of law.
      Dr. Godman: What does the hon. and learned Gentleman make of the claim made by the Minister for Justice that no extradition treaty exists between those two member states of the European Union? Are not the Government of Germany as responsible for the situation as the Government of the Irish Republic?
      Mr. McCartney: I take that point on board. However, if the purpose of the convention was to ensure that terrorists should find no hiding place in the Community, all the signatories must have realised that their domestic law would have to be modified by agreeing a treaty, or by agreeing that the convention itself provided sufficient legal authority to achieve the convention's intent. Is it not passing strange that the Irish Government, since 1987, after signing the convention and realising its purpose, have failed to make any modification of their internal law or to alter their relations with Germany to effect the purpose of the convention?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As far as I can tell, the amendment is not about extradition arrangements between the Republic of Ireland and Germany.
      Mr. McCartney: I am dealing with the broad principle of consultation and the issue of whether it is a good idea to consult someone about whose bona fides one has an element of doubt. However, I take on board entirely your suggestion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may have strayed beyond the bounds of strict relevance.
      It is curious that it should be necessary to consult the Republic's Minister for Justice on a decommissioning scheme for arms found in Northern Ireland. Clause 8, which provides for arms in England, Wales and Scotland, does not require a similar consultative process. Is that because—as I said earlier in the debate—Northern Ireland is not considered a bona fide, real and first-class member of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, thereby making consultation with the Irish Government necessary? Is consultation necessary on arms in Northern Ireland, but entirely unnecessary on arms in a first-rate member of the United Kingdom, such as England, Scotland and Wales?
      Mr. Maginnis: I am anxious not to contravene your reminder to stay close to the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, as we are discussing the role of the Irish Republic's Minister for Justice, I should say that—irrespective of which treaty or arrangement the Irish Republic willingly enters into—primacy rests in that state's constitution.
      In 1985, that fact was demonstrated in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was party to a challenge, in their own supreme court, to the Government of the Irish Republic. The senior judge in that court ruled that the status of Northern Ireland—which the Irish Republic stated that it would respect—was not defined, and carefully not defined. When we have to deal with wordsmiths who can concoct language, which is always secondary to the

      507
      constitution of the Irish Republic, we have to be aware and wary of what is intended. Before you remind me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall sit down.
      Mr. McCartney: I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, on the issue of consultation with the Irish Government, my experience has been that virtually no extradition warrant on which they have been consulted has ever been successful—the papers have been lost or the name or address of the wanted person has been wrong. Inevitably, a technicality has been found to refuse the warrant, which is why I have reservations about the value of consultation.
      Sir John Wheeler: I am again grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for enabling the House to have such an ingenious and interesting debate. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy hon. Members who have spoken in the brief debate on the amendments.
      The Bill's provisions have been carefully constructed in co-operation and consultation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland because we realise—as I am sure that the House does—that, to achieve success, decommissioning must take place in both the north and south of the island of Ireland. We also realise that, on 28 November, when the two Governments announced that they had agreed in parallel to establish an international body to facilitate decommissioning—
      Mr. Roy Beggs: May I ask the Minister, to satisfy those of us within the Unionist community, to use the term "Northern Ireland" instead of "north and south of Ireland", which contains many incorrect connotations?
      Sir John Wheeler: I acknowledge, of course, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom; that is beyond dispute. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
      As currently drafted, clauses 5, 6 and 7 do no more than provide for a continuing and essential joint approach to the problem of decommissioning. The Bill provides for the two Governments to consult on the timing of commencement of clause 7.
      The equivalent provision of the Government of the Republic of Ireland's decommissioning Bill requires consultation with the Secretary of State before it comes into operation. I have a copy of that Bill and I quote from clause 3(1):
      "The subsequent provisions of this section shall come into operation on such day as the Minister"—
      meaning the Minister for Justice in the Republic—
      "after consultation with the Secretary of State, may for the purpose of enabling the agreement to have full effect, by order appoint."
      I can further assure the House that in the Republic's Bill
      "'Secretary of State' means a Secretary of State in the Government of the United Kingdom".
      Several hon. Members rose—
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: That illustrates better than I could have hoped my point about ambivalent language. There is no such thing as "the Secretary of State". There is a Secretary
      508
      of State for Defence, a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and a Secretary of State for Scotland, but there is no such thing as "the Secretary of State". That is an example of the disingenuous language of Dublin's wordsmiths. I need say no more.
      Sir John Wheeler: There is, at least in the lifetime of this Parliament, a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. What there will be in any future Parliament depends on the will of any future Prime Minister and the structure that the House chooses.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The measure refers to the United Kingdom and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is the legal term. Our coinage depicts the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Let us get the matter straight. It is an example of the evil skulduggery of Dublin and we are right to raise the issue. Dublin is always after the same thing. The Irish Government would not allow us to describe their country as the Irish Republic. It would be impossible to get that on to a document. It has to be the Republic of Ireland, but it is not; it is the Irish Republic. The Irish Government certainly do not govern all Ireland, but if we described their country as the Irish Republic, they certainly would not put that title in their law, but by hook or by crook they will get their knife into the Union.
      Sir John Wheeler: I am not sure how to respond to that intervention. However, as far as I am concerned, we are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I refer to the Republic of Ireland when I refer to that country.
      I have explained what is in the measure to be laid before the Parliament of the Republic of Ireland, the provision for consultation and what it means. The consultation is just that. It does not give one Government a veto over the affairs of the other or constrain their actions, but joint action is the only sensible approach. Unless we proceed together as two countries, we shall not achieve our aim of establishing a joint strategy basis for decommissioning terrorist arms wherever they may be. That is the purpose of the clause, and I hope that, having heard my remarks, my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Wilshire: At the start of the debate I assumed automatically that there would be no question but that I would withdraw the amendment. However, the debate has taken on a slightly different complexion.
      First, let me address the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) about the value of consultation. In all fairness, having heard the debate, I should put it on record that I was attacking the office of Minister for Justice in the Republic. I have known Nora Owen, the current postholder, for a long time and I should make it clear that I was not casting any slur on her, but was criticising the office of the Minister for Justice in the Republic. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, when people take on that role, something seems to happen to them, and they take strange decisions.
      I am not impressed by the argument that, because the Republic's Bill referred to us, it must be right. If the Government of the Republic want to get involved, let them rejoin the Union. That would be one way in which they could talk to the rest of us. I certainly do not buy the notion that somehow two wrongs make a right.

      509
      My right hon. Friend the Minister sought to reassure us by reading out those words from the Republic's Bill, but that turned an otherwise pleasant, brief debate into a fundamental issue. The reaction of the House spoke volumes. We did not need to hear what was said; we could see the rightful anger that was generated at that moment.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that anger has existed for a long time, but it has intensified because there is no evidence that our Government are arguing that very point? Some years ago, at the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Ottawa, delegates from the Irish Republic did what they have tried to do in Europe. By majority voting, they changed the title of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom because they had a political axe to grind. Does the hon. Gentleman share our concern that representatives of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do not appear to have the same determination to maintain our integrity?
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I hope that, over the past few years, I have made it quite clear, at least to him, that I understand his concerns and I am prepared to speak up for them.
      My right hon. Friend sought to reassure us by quoting those words, but he did the exact opposite. They were weasel words. If anyone had any doubt, they laid bare exactly what the Dublin Government get up to whenever they get involved in the subject.
      If I am being asked whether I will withdraw the amendment because I am reassured, I can say that I am not reassured and I will not withdraw on those grounds. However, I am prepared to consider withdrawing it because I am a realist. On the basis that there is not the slightest chance of the amendment being carried by the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
      7.37 pm
      Dr. Hendron: I had not intended to make this point, but I found the last 10 minutes of the previous debate rather amusing. Occasionally, I spend a weekend in Donegal, which is in northern Ireland. I realise that it is not in the state of Northern Ireland, but it is definitely in the north of Ireland. No member of my family feels that we are visiting a foreign country. I shall not bore the House by explaining that there are two traditions in Northern Ireland as hon. Members know what I mean.
      I listened carefully to the debate in Committee and on Report, and I am sure that I shall say nothing new. I have listened carefully to all the arguments and I shall make only a couple of points.
      All hon. Members, and 98 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland, want peace and want the gun out of Irish politics permanently. The hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), and the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), spoke about the role of the Irish Republic. I remind hon. Members that, when the
      510
      Irish Government had the presidency of the European Union, they were present daily at Stormont castle to participate in the peace process.
      A Bill similar to this is going through the Dail Eireann. I do not know whether it has become law yet, but as an act of good will the Irish Government showed the Ulster Unionist party the proposed legislation, at that party's request. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone accepted that it was a stronger Bill than this one. Aspects of it have been used in this Bill, but I shall not pursue that point because I am not sure of the details.
      The Bill would not be before the House if we had not had the Mitchell report. The same applies to the Bill going through Dail Eireann. The purpose of both Bills is to implement that report. As other hon. Members have said, decommissioning is a voluntary exercise. When peace comes to Northern Ireland—I believe that it will come—it will not be at the end of a gun. Perhaps those of us who hope for peace are naive. I accept the point made by several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the more we give, the more those people want. Those are not his words, but that is the implication of what he said. Somewhere along the road, a line has to be drawn in the sand to say that enough is enough. However, it can only be right to try to draw in those involved in violence, who are part of a tradition going back centuries—that historical fact is an important point.
      I have spent a lifetime in west Belfast, which has seen more violence than any other part of these islands, Britain or Ireland—I do not care how anyone wants to define the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland. I have seen more than most of the violence and, wearing my medical hat, the suffering of families. The Catholic, nationalist people of the Falls road and the Protestant, Unionist people of the Shankhill road hope for peace. I link myself with them when I say that we cannot afford to stand on some sort of moral high ground, saying that we shall not speak to A, B or C. We want peace. It can only be right to try to involve the people who are involved in violence, as part of a tradition that goes back centuries.
      There is no excuse for violence, even though it is a tradition in the island of Ireland. The despicable recent attack on the children's hospital in the Falls road—the main regional hospital for Northern Ireland—happened in my constituency. The IRA attempted to murder the colleague of the hon. Member for North Antrim, or bodyguards, or both. That was a despicable act and did not seem like the behaviour of an organisation that was supposed to be talking peace. I certainly have a problem with that. Then, the other evening—I think that it was the evening before yesterday—there was a mortar attack in Andersonstown. An elderly couple were held hostage and an attempt was made to murder members of the security forces.
      The strange fact is that the people who talk peace—I refer to the paramilitaries and their representatives—in addition to attempting to take life, are bringing soldiers on to the streets of my constituency. In so doing, they are ensuring that there will be many house searches. It is ironic that the organisation carrying out the violence thereby brings security forces on to the streets, causing more searches. The people in many housing estates resent those searches, but they do not seem to appreciate that the fault lies with the Provisional IRA.

      511
      The Minister referred to a settlement and to democracy. I have nothing new to say on the subject, but I should like stress that that is what the talks in Castle buildings are all about. That is why we had an election last May. Some of those who wanted that election are now saying that we can postpone the talks until after the next election. The people of the island of Ireland—including the Irish Government—especially the people of Belfast, want those talks to succeed, but for them to be total and inclusive, Sinn Fein must be present.
      No hon. Member is better qualified than I am to put a question mark against the credibility of an IRA ceasefire, should one come about. We cannot judge the IRA by its words, but we judge it by its deeds. No one else—not this Government or the Irish Government—will know whether a ceasefire is credible. I accept that several murders took place during the last ceasefire. They were so-called drug-related murders—a term that I would not normally use. They were committed by the IRA. The Northern Ireland Office was slow to put the blame where it rightly lay, as were the Irish Government. I assume that they were hoping that the IRA and the republican movement would go down the road of democracy. I understand that, but it was the IRA that carried out those murders. Recently, in the heart of my constituency, a young man was tied upside down and had his legs broken, again for some so-called crime.
      If a ceasefire is called, I, perhaps more than most, shall certainly put a question mark against it, but I still want the IRA to call one. Only time will tell whether it is serious. A ceasefire relates not just to soldiers and police. It concerns the communities of west Belfast and far beyond. It is to do with community control—a subject that others referred to earlier and which I could go on about for hours. It is to do with beating young people and with vigilante groups. When a ceasefire is called—it may be called before the election—instead of standing on some sort of moral high ground and saying, "We will not talk to them," people should say, "Let's see what is going to happen." Only time will tell. We shall have to judge the IRA by its actions, not by its words.
      7.46 pm
      Mr. Maginnis: As we come to the conclusion of the debate, we are, I suspect and hope, considering the Bill in the certain knowledge that IRA-Sinn Fein form an irredeemable organisation, inexorably wedded to a strategy of violence that is intended to take them through to the next millennium. On that basis, many will wonder whether the Bill is a waste of time. During the past quarter of a century, normal society has had to endure not just violence, but the propaganda and the justification of that violence nationally and internationally.
      Throughout the world, the constant barrage of such propaganda has unfortunately fixed in the minds of some the concept of freedom fighter versus occupying force. We must constantly grapple with how best to show that that is not the case. It is essential that the Government and society have formal legislative measures in place to demonstrate effectively that we are a democratic society and that, as President Clinton said when he visited Belfast late in 1995:
      512
      "Violence has no place at the table of democracy and no role in the future of this land."
      If we use it to press home that point, the decommissioning legislation can convey the message that Northern Ireland is an integral part of a sophisticated democracy that has in place the means whereby men and women of violence can recant and come in from the cold. To protect innocent members of society, it will of course be necessary for the Government to continue to meet force with force. Let there be no doubt or equivocation about that. Terrorists must never be in doubt that they will face the full and unrelenting rigours of the law. At the same time, however, we must be able to show that there is prepared and ready a safe and privileged path along which today's terrorist can pass with impunity into the democratic mode. That will help to refute his assertion that he is in any way denied an alternative to the course that he has previously chosen in defiance of the expressed will of the greater number in Northern Ireland.
      Whatever the response, what we are in the process of enacting today must not be seen as the property of the terrorist—something to be pigeonholed until he decides to respond. Instead, it must be employed as another weapon in the arsenal of democracy to be used unrelentingly to diminish the propaganda of the terrorist.
      Like many in this House, I am jealous of the integrity of what I call my Britishness. I do not believe that other nations have any right to interfere in our internal affairs, but on the other hand I hold the view that our international friends have an obligation to us—and we to them—in times of trouble and distress. I wish that I could be convinced that those who live to the south of me were my international friends.
      On such a basis, we have considered a Bill that allows the Government to invite people of international reputation and such technical skills as will be required to participate in the disarmament of the terrorist process, and we must use our openness to involvement by others to our best advantage.
      Like others here, I do not believe in deals with terrorists. I hope that the Government learnt a salutary lesson between 31 August 1994 and 9 February 1996. They should now know that working assumptions that fly in the face of reality and ignore informed advice can only end in tears. That must never happen again. Since our society accommodates each individual on the basis of their willingness to abide by its norms, neither I nor anyone else has the right to preclude someone from either making that choice or making a positive adjustment. Disarmament must be a prerequisite of such a metamorphosis.
      The issue of retribution must of course arise, for heinous crimes have been committed. Where the perpetrators can be brought to justice through the courts, that must be done and be seen to be done. We must never equivocate on that. Where that is not possible, and if the alternative to be accepted is the orderly and verifiable disarmament of terrorists, so be it. In the practical interests of the law abiding and the vulnerable in society, whom we represent in this place, every viable and justifiable avenue towards peace must be open. That, it must be understood, is the purpose of what we are attempting to enact today, and every aspect of what my party deems to be the Bill's purpose must be understood and implemented if we are not to make a mockery of this place.

      513
      The Bill must never be seen as a sop or an accommodation to the evil men of violence. It has to be the property, a bulwark and a defence of the most vulnerable in society. It must be what decent people can expect and hope to achieve—never what the terrorist, or indeed any inherently disingenuous Dublin Government, will permit.
      7.54 pm
      Mr. Worthington: I should like to raise a particular point and make some general remarks. The particular point is that, in Committee, we tabled an amendment and I should like to invite the Government to respond to it. As I said in a previous debate, the issue involves some imagination—that a decommissioning scheme was in place, that there was therefore a ceasefire, and that what we have been talking about today went forward satisfactorily.
      I am sure that the great majority of people would be very unhappy if the police and security forces were about to make an arrest, or detect somebody for the commission of a crime, and the person's get-out was the decommissioning of their weapon. That scenario need not necessarily concern a terrorist offence; it could concern a criminal offence involving the use of guns or weaponry. The person might sense that the police were about to move in and that the evidence of the weapon would be crucial to detection. It would not be satisfactory for the person simply to say, "I wish to decommission that weapon." I would like the Government's response to that point.
      I should like to follow along the lines of the speech of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). Since we debated these matters in Committee, there have been no grounds for optimism. When we debated these issues on 17 December, there was a sense of unreality, which has certainly increased since. I am sure that images of events over the recess have stayed in hon. Members' minds, as they have in mine. The realisation that there are thugs around who are willing, even eager, to let loose automatic fire in the vicinity of an intensive care ward for newly born children has been referred to. No political goal can justify such behaviour. We were similarly appalled by the 1,000 lb bomb in the grounds of Belfast castle near a wedding reception, where the destruction would have been random.
      It is clear that the IRA has been trying to provoke a full-scale resumption of hostilities. It must not succeed. I commend all those who have used their influence to stop the decline into a full-scale onslaught. The crucial point, of which we must not lose sight, is that, at the moment, a framework is in place on which a genuine peace process and a negotiating process can be built. It includes an independent chair, the backing of the two Governments, and negotiating teams who represent a great majority of the people in Northern Ireland. It has taken a great deal of effort to reach that position, and it must not be thrown away. It takes no effort whatever to go downhill to mayhem but, as the Minister knows, it has taken immense effort to crawl upwards to something near peace.
      One of the most memorable parts of the Mitchell report was where Mitchell said that what was most needed was the decommissioning of mindsets. Unfortunately,
      514
      in recent times, the dominant sound has been of the recommissioning of mindsets. Indeed, what Mitchell called
      "the vast inventories of historical recrimination"
      are reasserting themselves.
      We ought to congratulate the police—I do not think that anyone else has—on their recent successes. It is clear that the IRA is disturbed by the improved information getting through to the police. We must give the security forces all the support that we can muster. No hope can come from the gunman: the only hope can come from the politicians. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone said earlier, that means that the onus on the politicians is as strong as ever to show that they can make progress through negotiation. When I hear the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) debating in the House, I am convinced that they can find an agreement—I hope that that does not destroy their political careers—and that there is a solution that could command the support of the great majority of people. Efforts have to be redoubled to find points of agreement and obtain movement and progress.
      It was clear that all members of the Committee felt uneasy about some aspects of the procedure. It is impossible to feel sanguine about the fact that the person who fired the bullets in the intensive child care ward would be able to decommission that weapon and that the evidence of that weapon could not be used against that person. No one could feel content about that, but we are pursuing a greater good in an attempt to take the gun out of Northern Ireland politics and to remove hideous weapons of destruction. There is a compromise, which the Bill embraces; giving up the evidence that the weapons would provide in return, for the knowledge that they will not be used for destruction, and for the contribution that decommissioning would make to the building of trust.
      The Government were right to resist the amendments tabled by Unionists and Conservative Members that would have destroyed the idea of decommissioning as a voluntary step. It could not work if evidence from the weapons was to be collected and used. Mitchell concluded, and we agree, that arms decommissioning should not expose individuals to prosecution. Either we have voluntary decommissioning without the threat of prosecution or we do not have decommissioning. At the moment, decommissioning seems a long way away, but at least the Bill will put a framework in place if it ever becomes reality, and that is why we have supported it.
      8.1 pm
      Sir John Wheeler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for his words and I shall come at once to the point to which I undertook to respond on Third Reading when we considered the Bill in Committee. Of course I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the use of terrorist arms in evidence and the relationship between a decommissioning scheme and criminal proceedings. The way in which decommissioning will fit in with criminal proceedings when they have been instituted, or when the investigations of the police are well advanced, is indeed an important issue.
      We cannot permit someone who is caught red-handed committing a crime to plead that any weapon in their

      515
      possession cannot be tested or used in evidence because when they pulled the trigger they declared they were engaged in the process of decommissioning. I undertook in Committee to seek to address that point when we come, in conjunction with the participants in the talks process, to draw up the details of the decommissioning scheme. There must be no room for criminals to abuse the scheme. Any such scheme will set out as clearly as possible the circumstances in which a person will be held to be acting in accordance with the scheme. Everything possible will therefore be done to minimise the possible mischief to which the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie referred in Committee. I hope, therefore, that I have been able to give him that assurance: it is of course dependent on the future.
      I am grateful to the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) for their contributions. I listened with great care to what they had to say. As has been said, this decommissioning measure is being considered against the backdrop of increasing tension in Northern Ireland and further and continuing terrorist acts by the Provisional IRA and others. They are to be deplored; there is no excuse for them. However, I share the satisfaction of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie at the success of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and others in the prevention of terrorist crimes. People are being arrested, people will be processed through the criminal justice system and terrorism will not win, but I apprehend that Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom will go through difficult times.
      The Bill will provide a statutory basis for enabling detailed decommissioning arrangements to be put in place and ensure that there can be no delay or prevarication. The Irish Government share the determination of the United Kingdom to attain agreement on this most difficult and complex issue and to that end they have worked closely with us in preparing similar legislation, which will be put before their Parliament before the month is out and which will mirror clauses in the Bill.
      Agreement on decommissioning would transform the prospects for political progress and I am in no doubt that it is achievable. The opportunity is there: I hope that in due course it will be taken. I commend the Bill to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LIAISON COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Matthew Carrington be discharged from the Liaison Committee and Mr. Barry Legg be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ottaway.]

PETITION

  Pontefract and Pinderfields NHS Trusts
  8.6 pm
  Mr. Jon Trickett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to introduce this petition. I am delighted to be able to introduce the petition, a part of which is being presented before the Table. It is a very large petition. The project manager for the trust merger accepted three months ago that more than 62,000 signatures had already been presented and three further months have now elapsed. It is a singular petition and has been signed by more than one in three adult citizens of the district of Wakefield. It also has the full support of the four hon. Members representing the Wakefield district.
  I shall read out the petition:
  The petitioners of the Campaign Group against the Merger of the Pontefract and Pinderfields NHS Trusts declare that the proposed merger of these trusts would have a detrimental effect on local health services. The petitioners, therefore, request that the House of Commons call upon the Secretary of State to reject any recommendation seeking approval of the merger of the two hospital trusts. The petitioners remain, etc.
  I beg leave to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

North Korea
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ottaway.]
8.7 pm
Mr. Harold Elletson: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of the Government's policy towards North Korea and to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for agreeing to reply to the debate. It is appropriate that we should discuss Korea tonight, 200 years since the first contact between Britain and Korea and less than two weeks before the scheduled tripartite meeting between the two Korean Governments and the United States, at a time when uncertainty shrouds the intention of the North Korean leadership and unrest in South Korea attracts the world's attention.
Over the past six months, events on the Korean peninsula have thrown into sharp focus the very different destinies and prospects of the peoples of North and South Korea. They have shown the nervousness and instability that exists in much of south-east Asia because of the Korean situation and they have demonstrated the shock waves of destruction that might accompany the death throes of the North Korean regime.
North Korea is the world's last remaining Stalinistic dictatorship. It sits uneasily on the Pacific rim among tiger economies and emerging super-powers, frightened of their intentions and envious of their achievements. It glowers menacingly at its southern neighbour across the demilitarised zone, and at its old enemy to the east across the sea of Japan. To the north and west lie its former comrades, whose embrace of capitalism it watches with the bitterness of betrayal.
In the years that followed the Korean war, and with the development of a quasi-religious personality cult around the so-called "Great Leader" Kim Il Sung and a state ideology known as chuche—which means self-reliance, but is in fact a form of isolationism based around Stalinist command economics—North Korea isolated itself from the non-communist world, confident in its self-proclaimed position as the eastern forward outpost of socialism.
The shock of perestroika and an end to preferential trade relations with Russia and China—followed more recently by the death of Kim Il Sung—have left it more isolated, uncertain, unpredictable and uncontrollable than before. On 15 September, a North Korean submarine infiltrated a team of commandos into South Korea near the city of Kangnung. Their aim was to destroy military targets and to shatter the confidence of South Koreans in their Government's ability to deter threats from the north. It was a calculated act of aggression against a sovereign state that is one of Great Britain's major trading partners. Last year, South Korea accounted for more than £1 billion of our exports. The incident caused widespread concern about the true nature and intentions of the North Korean regime.
As a result of international pressure—including representations from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State—the North Korean Government agreed to apologise and to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. As my right hon. Friend said in reply to me on 13 January:
518
"the statement of apology … has led to a welcome easing of tension on the peninsula."—[Official Report, 13 January 1997; Vol. 288, c. 29.]
The Minister is right that the situation is now less tense.
There have been welcome developments in other areas, including attempts since the death of Kim Il Sung to persuade the leadership in Pyongyang to co-operate. The Korean Energy Development Organisation managed to sign a protocol with North Korea about its nuclear installations, and the United States signed a bilateral agreement freezing the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. The fundamental problem has not gone away, however, and I cannot help thinking that in the very near future we face some serious challenges. Indeed, the very fact that North Korean Radio's version of the leadership's apology for the submarine incident was that South Korea had been made to apologise by the Americans shows Pyongyang's contempt for the concerns of the international community.
There are two issues that worry me most about the current situation. The first is North Korea's military strength and its political psychology; the second is its dire economic predicament and the threat of a sudden political implosion in Pyongyang. North Korea possesses an abundance of weapons of mass destruction. Its Scud B and C missile units deployed in hardened facilities 50 km from the demilitarised zone could reach Seoul and other targets in the southern half of the peninsula. It also took delivery recently of a Soviet-made SS21 missile from Syria and has been trying to reverse-engineer the missile's guidance package. Its No-Dong 1 ballistic missile has a projected range of 1,000 km and is now ready for deployment, giving North Korea the ability to hit targets throughout the south and also in most of Japan. Work is continuing on the Taep'o-Dong 1 and 2 missile programmes, with ranges of 1,500 km and 4,000 km, respectively. Despite the agreement with the United States to freeze its nuclear weapon programme, the Governments of Japan and of South Korea continue to be concerned about the ability of North Korea to field nuclear-tipped weapons or to attach chemical or biological warheads.
North Korea's conventional military capability is also substantial. It has more than 1 million active members of the armed services and 4.5 million reservists. Although South Korea's armed forces are better trained and equipped—and are also backed by United States military and air power—a sudden attack by the north could quickly inflict severe damage. There are still grounds for serious concern about the possibility of conflict. North Korea's unpredictability, isolationism and paranoia, and the unreality brought about by the diet of lies with which the regime has sustained itself, could make a military adventure seem an attractive way of obtaining concessions from South Korea and the United States. As the danger grows in North Korea of internal dissent—with a leadership aware that the necessary programme of reforms will only hasten its downfall—an attack on the south, perhaps of a limited nature, could be used to divert the attention of North Koreans from their hardships and rally them to the patriotic cause.
Even assuming that the military threat does not materialise, North Korea still represents a major problem. Its economy is spiralling downwards. GDP has fallen for the past six years and, according to South Korea's central bank, it fell by 4.6 per cent. last year. Trade dropped to a mere $2 billion last year—less than a week's-worth of

519
South Korean exports—and most of North Korea's sources of foreign exchange are now accounted for by the proceeds of occasional arms sales to other isolated regimes and remittances sent by Japanese of Korean descent.
Grain output of 3.5 million tonnes last year was less than half the demand, and grain shortages are now so bad that there are fights in food queues. There is not enough warm clothing in the bitterly cold winter and energy shortages have plunged major cities into darkness. As a result, the leadership—which, despite early indications to the contrary, appears to be in the hands of Kim Jong I1, the son of Kim I1 Sung—is now faced with the classic dilemma that confronts ailing dictatorships: the necessity of reform inevitably bringing with it, sooner or later, an irresistible pressure for political change.
The danger is of total economic collapse and political implosion in Pyongyang, together with an exodus of starving refugees and a demand for massive assistance from South Korea and the international community. Neither of those concerns—the military or the economic—is one from which we can afford to distance ourselves.
There has been no peace treaty since the armistice which ended the Korean war in 1953, and South Korea has a defence agreement with the 16 countries—including the United Kingdom—which took part in the hostilities on the side of the United Nations. That agreement states that if aggression from the north occurs, the former contributing states will again resist it. We have a clear national interest in seeking to bring about a reconciliation between north and south.
Equally, the threat that North Korea poses to some of our most important trading partners in the region cannot be ignored. However, it is the threat of economic destabilisation that should be of most immediate concern to us. The fall of communism in the north of Korea will create an immediate demand for reintegration with the south. That will present a bigger challenge and create a greater strain on the world economy than the reunification of Germany, an event from which European economies are still recovering. The North Korean economy is in much worse shape than East Germany's was. The population ratio between West and East Germany was 4:1, whereas between North and South Korea it is only 2:1. That places a much greater burden on the shoulders of the South Korean worker.
When change comes in North Korea, it will come quickly and the shock of it will send more than just ripples across south-east Asia. The international community must ensure that it is ready for the change and is capable of responding with initiatives that are both effective and sustainable. We must not allow ourselves to be caught off guard, or to be overwhelmed by the sudden but foreseeable collapse of a communist dictatorship. The world needs a clear plan for managing change in Korea, and Great Britain—with all its experience, contacts and commitments—has an important role to play in developing it.
The United States is, of course, the driving force behind attempts to engage North Korea in dialogue. It deserves our full encouragement and support in its efforts, but it must be wary of North Korea's attempts to use
520
improvements in bilateral relations with it, and a limited engagement with the wider international community, as a full substitute for seeking rapprochement with the south.
The Americans are crucial to the strategic balance of south-east Asia and it is worth remembering that events in Korea, among others, will ensure that the region remains a priority for US foreign policy makers, with the possible corollary of a decreasing willingness to maintain a wider role as a global policeman and, perhaps more specifically, to become involved on Europe's periphery. That must give us pause for thought.
The United States is the most significant foreign power on the Korean peninsula, but China, Russia and Japan also have important interests, and their concerns, together with their potential influence over Pyongyang, should not be forgotten. There may be merit, when the time is right, in expanding the present tentative tripartite arrangements to include other such powers with an interest in the area. Every opportunity must be taken to open North Korea to international influence and pressure. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will help to do that and will make available the experience and resources of the United Kingdom.
I hope that there will be further detailed planning to assist South Korea and north-eastern China to deal with the enormous refugee problem that may follow the collapse of the North Korean regime. It would be inexcusable if we failed to assist in planning for that entirely foreseeable event. Equally, the international community must plan now to play its part in the eventual reconstruction of North Korea. That will help to stem the flood tide of refugees and mitigate the potentially disastrous effects of Korean reintegration on the economies of south-east Asia.
Our task is to assist in bringing about the peaceful, stable and orderly transition to normality of an unpredictable, unstable and dangerous dictatorship which constitutes a serious threat to some of our closest allies. It is neither an insignificant nor an easy task, but it is a matter, as I hope that my right hon. Friend will agree, of the greatest importance for the peace and stability of a region where Britain continues to have major interests.
8.21 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Minister for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) for raising this subject in the House today. United Kingdom policy towards North Korea is an extremely important subject that is rarely mentioned in the Chamber, so we are truly grateful to him. The tense situation on the Korean peninsula is a matter of concern to us and to the international community as a whole. As my hon. Friend graphically described, the threats are very great.
After the second world war, when Koreans hoped to resume their unity and independence, the peninsula was divided and two separate states were established. The invasion of the south by North Korea in 1950 resulted in a bitter and tragic conflict that cost more than 2 million lives. The results of the Korean war are starkly visible today in the continued division of the peninsula at the demilitarised zone, with its many miles of barbed wire, its minefields, and hundreds of thousands of heavily armed combatants facing each other, as I have seen for myself.

521
Britain was quick to pledge support for the United Nations action to defend the Republic of Korea in 1950, and our forces fought alongside the South Koreans in all the major campaigns of the war. More than 1,000 of our young men died, and more than 2,000 were wounded. We remember them still today.
The armistice agreement, signed on 27 July 1953, brought an end to hostilities, but, while the fighting stopped, the tension remained and continues to this day. North Korea has carried out regular breaches of the armistice, and has been involved in terrorist activities against the south. The recent submarine incident that my hon. Friend graphically described is the latest in a long line of such events.
After the armistice was signed, Britain continued to play an important role in preserving peace on the peninsula. Our forces remained there until 1957, and the British defence attaché in Seoul is still a member of the UN Command delegation to the military armistice commission. We have played an important role in South Korea's post-war reconstruction and, later, in the early stages of its economic take-off. South Korea is now the 11th largest economy in the world. Although its population is only twice as great as that of the north, its gross domestic product is well over 20 times greater.
Today, South Korea is one of our major trading partners, and we have succeeded in attracting more than 50 per cent. of all Korean manufacturing investment in Europe, with existing and planned projects valued at more than £4 billion and providing more than 11,000 jobs, mostly in large plants in regions vulnerable to unemployment. South Korea is a close and valued friend, with which our relations are expanding at an extremely rapid pace. I pay tribute to the work of the Korean ambassador here at the Court of St. James, Mr. Choi, and of our ambassador at Seoul, Mr. Tom Harris, both of whom work tirelessly to improve our mutual relations.
For obvious reasons, our links with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea in the north have been more tenuous. Its role in the Korean War, and its continued hostility to South Korea, made that inevitable. Britain has not, however, ignored North Korea. In the hope that wider contacts would lead to a modification of its hard-line policies, successive British Governments encouraged trade links and sporting and cultural contacts with North Korea, but sustained contact foundered in the face of North Korea's continued pursuit of unacceptable means to achieve its ends.
At the moment, we impose no sanctions against North Korea, and British companies are free to do business there. However, we make it clear to those exporters considering visiting Pyongyang that, in the absence of diplomatic relations, we cannot offer them any commercial assistance or consular protection.
One reason for the relatively low level of commercial contact is that North Korea's poor record of paying debts remains a major impediment to any suggested expansion of trade or investment. The North Koreans are, however, welcome to come here on legitimate business, and indeed, more than 40 visas were issued to North Koreans to visit the United Kingdom in 1996. We hope that those contacts will increase.
Because of the problems to which I have alluded, relations between Britain and the DPRK have never been normalised. In that, of course, we are not alone. However,
522
we remain willing to help North Korea out of its isolation. When it joined the United Nations in 1991, we formally recognised its existence as a state. We allowed the establishment in London of a North Korean mission accredited to the International Maritime Organisation, and there are currently two North Korean officials and their families here on IMO business. There has also been a series of exploratory talks between British and North Korean officials to determine whether any further improvement in our relations is possible.
Like other countries, we are concerned at the reports of food shortages in the north. In contrast with the south, the DPRK is a rigidly centrally planned economy that relied upon preferential trading arrangements with the Soviet Union and China for its survival. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the North Korean economy has nose-dived, and since 1990 its GDP has contracted by about 5 per cent. per annum.
Recent floods and serious droughts have exacerbated the problem of a systemic failure of the state-run agriculture to feed its people. The floods have been terrible, and the result has been increasingly widespread malnutrition. In 1995 and 1996, North Korea appealed to the international community for food aid. Britain responded: we have donated, on humanitarian grounds, through the United Nations and the Red Cross, a total of nearly £0.5 million for food aid and flood relief in North Korea.
The harvest in the north last year was again far short of the needs, but we stand ready to consider further appeals for assistance. Such palliatives, however, can do little to solve the underlying problem of a system in long-term structural decline.
There is great uncertainty about the intentions of the DPRK Government, and the attitude of the people. The Government exercise totalitarian control over the population, who have virtually no access to outside information. North-south contacts are strictly controlled by both sides, and North Korea maintains armed forces of more than 1 million and huge stocks of conventional weapons. It also has a missile development programme that, as my hon. Friend again accurately described, ranges from Scuds—with a range of several hundred miles—to development of an advanced derivative of Scud with a range of thousands of miles.
A crisis on the Korean peninsula would damage regional, and possibly global, stability. There is a risk that economic decline in the north might lead to a mass exodus of refugees. My hon. Friend set out those problems clearly. In the first instance, it would be for the countries on North Korea's borders to react as best they could, but they would be hard pressed to cope, and the international community would need to consider how best to respond. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, and given our previous involvement in Korea, it is important that we should do what we can to reduce the risk of such a crisis.
In recent years, there has been widespread concern about North Korea's apparent nuclear weapons programme, because it has prevented International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors from gaining the full access to certain nuclear sites that would reassure the world. After long negotiations, there was a breakthrough in October 1994, when the US and North Korea signed a framework agreement whereby the north agreed to freeze, and

523
eventually dismantle, its existing nuclear reactors in exchange for the construction of two light water reactors and the provision of interim energy supplies.
South Korea agreed to provide the majority of the $4 billion required to fund the programme, and the Japanese Government are expected to provide most of the balance. Those two countries and the US formed an international consortium, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation—or KEDO—to finance and administer that exciting project.
We have strongly supported the agreement, and KEDO, as a way of countering the threat that the DPRK posed to the integrity of the non-proliferation treaty. We contributed $1 million to its start-up costs—the first European country to do so. We worked hard to achieve the recent agreement under which the European Union will contribute 15 million ecu annually until 2000 and become a member of KEDO. The Government are also considering national membership. We will maintain our support for KEDO and continue to encourage the DPRK to implement fully the framework agreement.
To ensure peace and stability on the Korean peninsula is an important task, inseparable from the peace and stability of the entire Asia-Pacific region—an area of extreme importance to us both politically and economically. We believe that lasting peace can be achieved only through meaningful dialogue between the north and the south and we take every opportunity to encourage such dialogue. For many years after the Korean war, both sides made frequent proposals on reunification, but there were no formal contacts.
In 1991, the world's hopes were raised following a series of meetings at prime ministerial level, and the signature of a set of potentially far-reaching agreements on matters such as non-aggression and mutual co-operation. However, the North Koreans moved away from the agreements almost as soon as they were signed, and they have remained a dead letter ever since.
Another moment of hope came in 1994, at the height of the nuclear crisis, when a summit meeting was planned between Presidents Kim Young Sam of the south and Kim I1 Sung of the north. However, Kim I1 Sung's death in July 1994 led to the postponement of the summit, and it has not proved possible to arrange one with his de facto successor.
North Korea has strongly opposed dialogue with the south, ostensibly because it was not a signatory to the armistice agreement. The DPRK has insisted that it should talk exclusively to the US, which signed on behalf of the UN. To end the impasse, we welcomed the proposal announced by President Clinton and President Kim Young Sam on 16 April 1996 that talks should take place involving North and South Korea, the US, and China as North Korea's main neighbour. Known as the four-party talks, the proposal was designed to initiate a process aimed at achieving a permanent peace agreement to replace the armistice.
Unusually, North Korea did not reject the proposal out of hand, and agreed to consider it, but it has yet to give a formal response. After some months during which North Korea showed little interest in participating in the talks, claiming that it needed more information on their purpose, US officials suggested a briefing meeting to explain the proposal.
524
However, those efforts came to a standstill when a North Korean submarine was discovered grounded on the east coast of South Korea, apparently on an infiltration mission. In the ensuing manhunt, 24 North Koreans were killed, one was captured and one is still at large. Twelve South Koreans died, including five civilians.
The incident raised tension on the peninsula to a very high pitch. South Korea, understandably angry about the flagrant violation of the armistice agreement and the loss of civilian life—indeed, of any life—demanded that North Korea take responsibility by apologising. Together with our European partners, we condemned the North Korean action as a serious violation of the armistice, and urged the authorities in Pyongyang to cease all activities that could result in a further increase in the tension.
After much difficult negotiation, the US managed to persuade the DPRK to issue a statement on 29 December that expressed deep regret over the incident, and undertook to make efforts to ensure that such an incident would not recur. The North Koreans also agreed to take part in a briefing on the four-party talks proposal. We are encouraged by that development, and urge the North Koreans to approach the briefing positively and constructively.
I mentioned that we have had recent contacts with the North Koreans. They were limited to three meetings at official level, the first taking place in 1995. Our aim is to reinforce the efforts of our partners on the nuclear issue and north-south dialogue, and to do what we can to improve North Korean contact with the outside world. We have made it clear to them that continuation of the process and any moves towards expanding our relations will depend upon their compliance with the nuclear agreement and willingness to enter into dialogue with the south.
We have kept the Government of the Republic of Korea fully informed of our contacts. The influence that we can bring to bear is, naturally, limited, but through our support for the Republic of Korea and the United States, our willingness to engage North Korea in dialogue and to provide humanitarian aid when needed, I believe that we have made—and will continue to make a—real contribution. I assure the House that those efforts will not slacken.
We should not forget that, if the North Korean regime remains on its present path, it will continue to be isolated. It is a threat to its neighbours and to the region. It is said that it abuses the human rights of its populace, and it cannot feed its people. We therefore believe that dialogue with the south is essential.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising the subject. I am sorry that there are not more hon. Members, especially Opposition Members, here to show an interest in this vital subject. He has graphically described the dangers; I hope that the efforts of the world community will mean that we will not see the impact of those dangers. I particularly hope that the north and south can enter into dialogue, because that is the way to peace.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Nine o'clock.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Pre-School Play Association
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Scottish Pre-School Play Association concerning core grant funding; and when he expects to be able to respond. [10666]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The association has applied under section 10 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 for an increase in core funding from 1997–98. Its application is being carefully considered. We will shortly be advising it of the outcome at the same time as other grant applicants.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an environmental assessment of the beach adjoining the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority plant at Dounreay to take account of reports his Department has received of the presence of plutonium particles. [10800]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The Scottish Environment Protection Agency, as regulator, is responsible to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It monitors the Dounreay site closely, including the environmental impact of discharges from the site and the strict independent assessment of routine beach surveys undertaken by UKAEA.

  Water and Sewerage Charges
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated cost in 1996–97 to each water authority in Scotland of continuing the relief from water and sewerage charges given by former local authorities to(a) the premises of charitable organisations under the Water (Scotland) Act 1967 and (b) the premises of nursing and care homes under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978. [10451]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Water authorities cannot provide at reasonable cost accurate estimates of relief given to charitable organisations in 1996–97. Water authority estimates of the relief given for the premises of nursing and care homes are as follows:

  North of Scotland Water authority £1.3 million

  East of Scotland Water authority £1.6 million

  West of Scotland Water authority £1.9 million

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which local water and sewerage authorities gave discretionary relief under the Water (Scotland) Act 1967 to charitable organisations in 1995–96. [10440]
  306
  Mr. Kynoch
  All former regional and islands councils gave discretionary relief to charitable organisations in 1995–96. The Water (Scotland) Act 1980 gave the relevant statutory power.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what was the value in 1995–96 of the rebate in respect of relief for water and sewerage charges granted under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978 in the area now covered by(a) North of Scotland Water Authority, (b) East of Scotland Water and (c) West of Scotland Water; [10442]

  (2) what was the value in 1995–96 of rebate to each regional and islands council in respect of relief for water and sewerage charges under the Rating (Disabled Persons) Act. 1978 [10441]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Water Authority

  Old undertaking

  Amount of non-domestic water and non-domestic sewerage rate rebated(£)

  Amount of Government grant payable at 90 per cent. of total rebated (£)

  East of Scotland

  Borders regional council

  151,377

  136,239

  Central regional council

  103,796

  93,416

  Fife regional council

  283,789

  255,410

  Lothian regional council

  969,759

  872,783

  Central Scotland Water Development Board (eastern)1

  see below

  see below

  1,508,721

  1,508,721

  1,357,848

  West of Scotland

  Dumfries and Galloway regional council

  2102,172

  291,955

  Strathclyde regional council

  1,862,415

  1,676,174

  Central Scotland Water Development Board (western)1

  see below

  see below

  1,964,587

  1,964,587

  1,768,129

  North of Scotland

  Grampian regional council

  2521,876

  2469,688

  Highland regional council

  2282,339

  2254,105

  Tayside regional council

  2419,271

  2377,344

  Orkney islands council

  224,472

  222,025

  Shetland islands council

  23,084

  20,776

  Western Isles islands council

  257,405

  251,665

  1,328,447

  1,328,447

  1,195,603

  1 Information relating to reliefs provided in the Central Scotland Water Development Area is not held centrally and is included in figures for Strathclyde and Central Regional Councils.

  2 Unaudited returns.

  Cornton Vale Prison
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to prevent further suicides at Cornton Vale prison; what is being done to deal with the drug problems among the prisoners there; and if he will make a statement. [11854]
  307
  Mr. Michael Forysth
  The care of prisoners and the prevention of suicide in prisoners are operational matters for the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service, and I have had full discussions with him about the recent cluster of suicides at Cornton Vale.

  The chief executive shares my concern at the number of suicides at the prison and joins me in offering condolences to the families of those who have died. I have reviewed with the chief executive the steps being taken to address the problem of suicide at the prison, in the light in particular of the recent recommendations from Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons. The vast majority of those recommendations are already being implemented.

  As indicated in my response to the chief inspector when his report was published last year, the governor had already put in place new arrangements for the induction of remand prisoners, for extra time out of cell, and for increased access to education, physical training and other regime opportunities. A number of outside agencies are also now working in the prison, including the Samaritans, Rape Crisis, Cruse and Women's Aid, and a listeners scheme has been put in place. All remand prisoners now share a cell, to encourage mutual support.

  In addition to the extra staffing provided last year, more money is being provided to address the drug-related problems experienced by a very large proportion of the prisoner population. A further addictions worker post has been approved, together with additional psychiatric sessions; and the increased resources I have provided to the Scottish Prison Service for the forthcoming financial year will enable the governor to fund five additional posts to assist with drug reduction work and to expand the programme already in operation. The purpose of these changes is to ensure that all prisoners at Cornton Vale who have been identified as having a drug problem have the opportunity to address their addiction either on an individual basis or through organised group work as appropriate.

  If work on drug reduction undertaken in the prison is to be effective, it is important that there is adequate throughcare on release, and my officials are discussing with local authorities and voluntary agencies what steps may be taken to ensure that this is available. In particular, discussions are in hand with the City of Glasgow council on the provision of further drug rehabilitation facilities for Glasgow and what was before local government reorganisation the wider Strathclyde area.

  I have offered to provide through the 100 per cent. funding mechanism two additional posts to the council related to the delivery of addiction programmes. One post would be aimed at providing links between drug misusers, particularly those released from custody, and community-based programmes. The other post would be located in the stipendiary/sheriff court with a view to identifying and making arrangements for those for whom a non-custodial disposal might be appropriate. I also propose to extend bail information and supervision services to the stipendiary court in Glasgow.

  I have also offered £50,000 to convert properties operated by the Church of Scotland and Sacro for use as bail accommodation, and my officials are discussing with
  308
  the City of Glasgow council financial support for the addition to existing provision of a further 15 bail bed spaces.

  An independent researcher is currently undertaking a six-month study to obtain detailed information on the extent and type of drug and alcohol misuse among women prisoners at Cornton Vale, both before and after conviction, and this will provide information in targeting resources for the future.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Deaf-blind People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many deaf-blind people are supported in employment through the placement advisory council team scheme. [9474]

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

  Letter from Leigh Lewis to Mr. Alfred Morris, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about "the number of deaf-blind people who are supported in employment through the Placement Advisory Council Team Scheme". This is something which falls within the responsibilities delated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Employment Service, through is local Placing, Assessment and Counselling Teams (PACTs) provides a wide range of specialist services for people with health problems and disabilities through its network of Disability Employment Advisers (DEAs), who are mostly based in Jobcentres.
  The Employment Service does not however hold figures for placements of people into work broken down into types of disability, and thus figures are not available specifically relating to deaf/blind people.
  The Employment Services does, however, record the total numbers of people with disabilities placed into jobs by its PACTs. The PACT placings for the period April 1995 to March 1996 total 17,474. The latest figures available are for April to October 1996 during which period 11,961 disabled people were placed into employment by PACTs.
  I hope this has been helpful.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the final date on which teachers can apply for early retirement under the existing regulations. [11036]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Teachers do not apply for premature retirement under the regulations. Premature retirement is at employer's discretion. Arrangements whereby teachers express a wish to be granted premature retirement by their employers are for local determination. Under my right hon. Friend's proposals, employers would pay part of the pension to teachers under 60 to whom they granted premature retirement, for all those teachers whose date of retirement is 1 April 1997 or later.

  Education Funding (Lancashire)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the funding,
  309
  per pupil, of school children in Lancashire, allocated by Government, for 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 for (a) under five-year-olds, (b) five to 11-year-olds and (c) 11 to 16-year-olds. [11227]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out the education standard spending assessment per pupil in Lancashire for 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 for(a) under five-years-olds (b) five to 10-year-olds and (c) 11 to 16-year-olds.

  Education SSAs do not determine the level of school spending. It is up to local authorities to decide how much they spend on schools and other services within the resources at their disposal.

  Lancashire Education SSA Per Pupil

  Under five years£

  Five to 10 years £

  11 to 16 years £

  1994–95

  267

  1,867

  2,611

  1995–96

  277

  1,877

  2,502

  1996–97

  300

  1,964

  2,616

  1997–981

  2140

  2,046

  2,689

  1 1997–98 figures are provisional.

  2 This figure is lower than in previous years because of the SSa deduction for the nursery voucher scheme.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Child Care Facilities
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what provision the House currently makes for the child care needs of hon. Members. [11352]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Members' Families Room, off the Lower Waiting Hall, is available for use by hon. Members and their spouses on sitting days from 10 am until the Rising of the House, and on non-sitting days from 10 am until 6 pm. A colour television set is available. If space permits, it may also be used by the children, parents, brothers and sisters of hon. Members, but not by other guests.

  The Library maintains a small collection of books in the room for the use of hon. Members' children, and welcomes any suggestions about this collection from hon. Members.

  There is also a small changing room, with washing facilities, off the Families Room. A nappy changing table is available in the disabled persons' lavatory off the Lower Waiting Hall.

  Children of any age, accompanied by an adult, are admitted to the Galleries, provided they do not interrupt the business of the House.

  Serjeant at Arms Department (Survey)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee when the survey of the Serjeant at Arms Department is expected to be completed; and when it will be made available to hon. Members. [11328]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The Administration Committee was not directly involved in the Serjeant at Arms survey, which was completed in March 1996. I310
  understand that all those who completed the questionnaire were sent a management summary of the results, and I have asked the Serjeant at Arms to send a copy to my hon. Friend.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Custody Services
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the progress of the sale of custody services. [11693]

  Mr. Freeman
  I have decided that Apax Partners and Co., the proposed acquire of the support services division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, should be granted exclusive access to further information about custody services, with a view to its supporting a final bid for the business. Three other indicative offers were submitted, but I considered these to be unacceptable as they did not meet the objectives for sale. The bid for custody services will be compared with the option of retaining the business in the public sector.

DEFENCE

  Terrorism
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what studies his Department has(a) undertaken and (b) commissioned into the terrorist threat posed by non-state sub-groups threatening to use crude nuclear weapons. [10886]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department keeps the possibility of such a threat under constant review. It would not be appropriate, for reasons of national security and defence, to provide more specific details of any studies in this area and the information is therefore withheld under exemption 1 of the code of practice on access to Government information.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations were made to his Department at the seminar held in London on 27 November 1996 on the terrorist threat posed by crude nuclear weapons; and what plans he has to take any action following the information disclosed at the seminar. [10887]

  Mr. Soames
  A member of my Department attended this seminar. Conversations on a range of topics took place but no specific representations were made to the Ministry of Defence. Contingency plans exist for responding to terrorist threats which involve the threatened or actual use of nuclear material. In the interests of national security, and for the protection of the public, these plans are regularly reviewed, tested and updated in the light of changing circumstances.

  Gulf War
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current location of the tents used in Operation Granby in the Gulf war; how many were returned form the Gulf after hostilities ended; and how many were(a) burned and (b) buried in the Gulf area. [10897]
  311
  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the anti-malarial agents administered to troops and medical support personnel during Operation Granby in the Gulf war. [10895]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all vaccinations and injections administered to service personnel during the Gulf war were recorded on their medical records; and if he will make a statement. [11222]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the vaccinations administered to personnel during the Gulf conflict should have been entered on to individual medical records—form FMed4— by transcription from nominal rolls compiled in theatre. Details should also have been recorded on personal medical records—form BMed27—if available. Unfortunately, in many cases transcription of the relevant details has not taken place. Some nominal rolls have also been lost or destroyed since the conflict. A search has now been initiated for any surviving nominal rolls, and medical records of Gulf veterans which are currently incomplete will be updated to a more acceptable standard wherever possible.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Gulf war veterans are being charged a fee to obtain a copy of their service medical records; and if he will make a statement. [11225]

  Mr. Soames
  No charge is made to general practitioners who request copies of service medical records to assist their treatment of ex-service personnel. Under the Access to Health Records Act 1990, a charge to cover the cost of retrieval, plus a photocopying charge per sheet may be made to individuals who themselves request their medical notes. The Ministry of Defence normally levies a charge of £10 plus 10p per sheet, as does the national health service.

  Harrier Pilots (Redundancies)
  Mr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Harrier pilots have applied for premature volunteer redundancy in each of the past 12 months; how many of these were turned down in each month and for what reason; and if he will make a statement. [11224]

  Mr. Soames
  In February 1996, one RAF Harrier pilot applied for premature voluntary release, and his application was accepted. Applications under the RAF's redundancy scheme were required to be submitted by November 1995.

  Ex-service Personnel (Falklands War)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex-service people who served in the Falklands conflict have(a) committed suicide and (b) been found guilty of criminal acts since 1982. [11038]

  Mr. Soames
  Statistics held by the Defence Analytical Services Agency indicate a total of 329 confirmed suicides by serving personnel, from January 1982 to the 312
  present time. The information requested in respect of ex-service personnel who served in the Falklands is not, however, available, as my Department does not keep records pertaining to ex-Service personnel, nor specifically to those who served in the Falklands conflict.

  Statistics on disciplinary convictions, are contained in "Tri-Service Personnel Statistics 16", copies of which are held in the Library of the House. The latest available are those for 1994. Such statistics have only been kept since 1986. Until 1991 they were contained in "Tri-Service Manpower Statistics 32".

  Correspondence
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Ashford sent to his Department on 4 October, 15 November and 30 December 1996, about the withdrawal of NATO medals when a WEU medal is awarded. [11040]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has replied to my hon. Friend.

  Ty Gwyn Centre
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the Ty Gwyn centre in respect of his Department's support for ex-service people. [11221]

  Mr. Soames
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Anti-ballistic Missiles
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the use of lasers to develop a British anti-ballistic missile capability. [11223]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  In our work to evaluate the options for active ballistic missile defence systems, we have studied a number of land, air and sea-based systems which, individually or combined, might provide a BMD capability. These included systems, at various stages of research and development, which employ laser technology.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Structure Plans
  Mr. David Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he plans to give to local planning authorities concerning their structure plans currently being considered to 2011 in the light of his intention stated in paragraphs 8.2 and 8.7 of "Household Growth: Where shall We Live?", Cm 3471, to revise planning policy guidance and to start to consider options immediately. [10845]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Local planning authorities should continue to prepare or update structure plans with reference to the current planning policy framework. Any policy changes that the Government consider necessary as a result of the current consultation on the Green Paper will need to be taken into account by local authorities when they are issued.

  Contaminated Land
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish statutory guidance on contaminated land. [11173]

  Mr. Clappison
  A total of 299 responses have been received to the consultation on draft statutory guidance on contaminated land, to be issued under part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995. We are examining these responses, as well as the second report on the Environment Committee of this House, to see what changes are needed to the draft statutory guidance and my right hon. Friend will consider when to lay the final draft guidance once we have completed this.

  Broadmoor Farm Business Park
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to notify Caradon district council of his response to the two planning applications, 94/1331/0 and 95/282/0, about the proposed Broadmoor farm business park which were sent to the Government office of the south-west on 2 December 1996; and if he will make a statement. [11095]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  As soon as the Secretary of State has completed his consideration of the issues raised; I regret that I cannot comment further on these applications.

  Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations. [11174]

  Mr. Clappison
  We hope to do so before the end of January.

  Valuation Tribunals
  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response was received to the consultation paper on the appointment of valuation tribunals in the light of local government reorganisation in parts of England. [11855]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The list of responses received has been placed in the Library of the House; copies of individual responses may be obtained through the Library. Regulations will be introduced shortly to give effect to the following measures.(i) That, with effect from 1 April 1997, the appointing bodies for the valuation tribunals listed in column 1 will be those authorities listed in column 2, who will be entitled to appoint members in the proportion given in column 3; the revised membership complement is shown in column 4.
  314

  Column 1 Name

  Column 2 Appointing bodies

  Column 3 Proportion

  Column 4 Complement

  Bedfordshire CC

  2

  Bedfordshire

  Luton UA

  1

  21

  Buckinghamshire CC

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  Milton Keynes UA

  1

  36

  Derbyshire CC

  7

  Derbyshire

  Derby City UA

  2

  63

  Dorset CC

  6

  Bournemouth UA

  3

  Dorset

  Poole UA

  2

  33

  Durham CC

  5

  Durham

  Darlington UA

  1

  42

  East Sussex CC

  2

  East Sussex

  Brighton and Hove UA

  1

  36

  Hampshire CC

  5

  Hampshire

  Portsmouth UA

  1

  South

  Southhampton UA

  1

  35

  Leicestershire CC

  14

  Leicester City UA

  10

  Leicestershire

  Rutland UA

  1

  50

  Staffordshire CC

  3

  Staffordshire

  Stoke on Trent UA

  1

  56

  Wiltshire CC

  5

  Wiltshire

  Thamesdown UA

  2

  21

  1. Vacancies should be filled as they arise—whether through retirement of members, or an increase in complement—by the new appointing authorities, until their entitlement is reached. All subsequent vacancies would be filled by the authority which appointed the departing member.

  2. Where the appointing body by which a member was appointed has ceased to exist, it will fall to the president to give notice of termination of office, if so directed by the Secretary of State.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are for the present Governor of Hong Kong to be involved in handover ceremonies on the return of Hong Kong to China; and if he will make a statement. [10888]

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Patten will be in Hong Kong as Governor of Hong Kong until midnight on 30 June. We will naturally be a full member of the British team at the handover ceremonies.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to reply to the letter of 3 December from the hon. Member for Walsall, North regarding the mother of a constituent. [10998]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  I shall be replying to the hon. Member's letter by 20 January.

  Japan (War Reparations)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the amount of reparations made by the Japanese Government to British prisoners of war since 1966. [11176]

  Mr. Hanley
  None. The question of reparations to the British Government was settled by the 1951 San Francisco peace treaty.

TRANSPORT

  Roads Programme (Property Purchases)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what income was obtained in each year since 1988 from the disposal of(a) houses, (b) other properties and (c) land which had been acquired for roads schemes but was no longer required. [10850]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available in the form requested. Total income from the sale of land in each of the years 1988–89 to 1995–96 was:

  1988–89: £9.6m

  1989–90: £17.5m

  1990–91: £8.5m

  1991–92: £15.3m

  1992–93: £11.2m

  1993–94: £21.4m

  1994–95: £29.3m

  1995–96: £43.1m

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what expenditure was incurred in each year since 1988 in acquiring(a) houses, (b) other properties and (c) land for road schemes. [10849]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available in the form requested. Total land and compensation expenditure in each of the years 1988–89 to 1995–96 was:

  1988–89: £66.3m

  1989–90: £95.2m

  1990–91: £157.3m

  1991–92: £179.9m

  1992–93: £259.7m

  1993–94: £273m

  1994–95: £217.2m

  1995–96: £185.7m

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the property purchased for the purposes of the roads programme is no longer required following the removal of schemes from the programme; and if he will list(a) the number of houses, (b) the number of other properties and (c) the extent of the land holdings involved. [10847]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of properties and separately identified land holdings on schemes withdrawn from the roads programme in November 1996 is 1,055.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total purchase price of property purchased for the purposes of the roads programme and now surplus to requirements; and what estimate he has made of the present value of this property. [10848]

  Mr. Watts
  We are still to complete the identification of all the surplus following the November 1996 budget. To date, on all schemes, we have declared surplus property and land which we purchased for £138.2 million. The purchase price excludes compensation payable for disturbance, home loss removal expenses and fees, and so on. The resale value of these properties will depend on the state of the property market at the time of sale.
  316
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each road scheme in the main and longer-term pre-1995 roads programme, the quantity and value of property(a) held, (b) acquired, (c) disposed of and (d) held but now surplus to requirements, incorporating the effects of the revisions to the programme in November 1995 and November 1996. [10851]

  Mr. Watts
  I have placed in the Library four lists showing every scheme for which the Highways Agency holds property, including withdrawn schemes, schemes under construction and completed schemes. The lists cover:(a) all property held, (b) all property acquired, (c) all property recorded as disposed of, (d) all property held but now surplus. Acquisitions and disposals do not record properties acquired under discretionary powers but immediately sold.

  Deaf-blind People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what training providers of public transport services and their employees receive in communicating and making contact with deaf-blind people. [9470]

  Mr. Bowis
  We do not have details of the training programmes provided by individual transport operators. Many run disability awareness training covering many issues, including the particular needs of deaf-blind people.

  The Department has worked with Bus and Coach Training Ltd., the training arm of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, on a disability awareness training programme for bus drivers. It is intended that this will form part of the national vocational qualification training programme for the bus industry. The programme covers a wide range of disability issues, including those relevant to deaf-blind people.

  Airbags
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many injuries have been caused by airbags in cars inflating too slowly on collision. [11015]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department has not heard of any injuries caused by airbags inflating too slowly.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what safety checks are required by his Department on airbags in cars. [11014]

  Mr. Bowis
  Airbags are not compulsory and there are no performance standards governing their performance. The vehicle manufacturer is considered to be best placed to specify the airbag characteristics to complement the vehicle's other crash protection systems.

  Marine Safety Agency (Fees)
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if Marine Safety Agency fees are to be increased. [11799]

  Mr. Bowis
  Some of the Marine Safety Agency's fees will change on 1 February 1997. The most significant change is an increase in the hourly rate for merchant ship and fishing vessel surveys from £45 to £60. This increase is required to comply with our aim of full cost recovery for services provided by the Government. We believe that
  317
  the new fee is still competitive when compared with private sector rates for similar work, and this is the first significant increase for some years.

  Air Traffic Control Services
  Mr. Channon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he accepts the Civil Aviation Authority's recommendations on the future provision of air traffic control services, following the review of its two-centre strategy; and if he will make a statement. [11897]

  Sir George Young
  The Civil Aviation Authority reported to me shortly before Christmas that its review had validated the strategy of providing air traffic control services through two centres based respectively at Fareham in Hampshire and Prestwick in Scotland. The Government are minded to accept this recommendation, but would wish the airlines and other interested parties to be consulted before a final decision is taken. I am now asking the chairman of the CAA to initiate this consultation and hope that it will be possible to announce the outcome in March.

  National Bus Company
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a dated copy of his response to the pensions ombudsman's provisional determination in respect of the former National Bus Company. [10880]

  County

  Name

  Appointed

  Retirement date at 75

  England

  Bedfordshire

  Mr. Samuel Whitbread

  January 1991

  February 2012

  Berkshire

  Mr. Philip Wroughton

  May 1995

  April 2008

  Bristol

  Mr. Jay Tidmarsh

  April 1996

  September 2007

  Buckinghamshire

  Sir Nigel Mobbs

  January 1997

  September 2012

  Cambridgeshire

  Mr. James Crowden

  May 1992

  November 2002

  Cheshire

  Mr. William Bromley-Devonport

  June 1990

  March 2010

  Cornwall

  The Lady Mary Holborow

  September 1994

  September 2011

  Cumbria

  Mr. James Cropper

  July 1994

  December 2013

  Derbyshire

  Mr. John Bather

  June 1994

  May 2009

  Devon

  The Earl of Morley

  May 1982

  May 1998

  Dorset

  The Lord Digby

  September 1986

  July 1999

  Durham1

  Mr. David Grant

  August 1988

  January 1997

  East Sussex

  Admiral Sir Lindsay Bryson

  November 1989

  January 2000

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Mr. Richard Marriott

  April 1996

  December 2005

  Essex

  The Lord Braybrooke

  August 1992

  January 2007

  Greater London

  Field Marshal The Lord Bramall

  January 1986

  December 1998

  Greater Manchester

  Colonel John Timmins

  December 1987

  June 2007

  Hampshire

  Mrs. Mary Fagan

  January 1994

  September 2014

  Hereford and Worcester

  Sir Thomas Dunne

  June 1977

  October 2008

  Hertfordshire

  Mr. Simon Bowes Lyon

  January 1986

  June 2007

  Isle of Wight

  Mr. Christopher Bland

  December 1995

  October 2011

  Kent

  The right hon. The Lord Kingsdown

  July 1982

  January 2002

  Lancashire

  The Lord Shuttleworth

  December 1996

  August 2023

  Leicestershire

  Mr. Timothy Brooks

  April 1989

  March 2004

  Lincolnshire

  Mrs. Bridget Cracroft-Ely

  March 1995

  October 2008

  Merseyside

  Mr. Alan Waterworth

  October 1993

  September 2006

  Norfolk

  Sir Timothy Colmon

  March 1978

  September 2004

  Northamptonshire

  Sir John Lowther

  March 1984

  November 1998

  Northumberland

  The Viscount Ridley

  December 1983

  July 2000

  North Yorkshire

  Sir Marcus Worsley

  March 1987

  April 2000

  Nottinghamshire

  Sir Andrew Buchanan

  February 1991

  July 2012

  318
  Mr. Watts
  My Department made no comments to the pensions ombudsman on his provisional determination. The pensions ombudsman has not carried out any investigation or made any determination with respect to the Department or the former National Bus Company.

  Heathrow-Plymouth Flights
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Airways regarding the slots into Heathrow from Plymouth. [8781]

  Sir George Young
  [pursuant to his oral answer of 13 January, Official Report, c. 6]: I have now received a reply to my letter to the chief executive of British Airways in which he informs me that, as from 30 March, Brymon Airways will switch its London to Plymouth and Newquay service from Heathrow to Gatwick. At the same time, flights will be increased to five daily on weekdays and four daily at weekends, in both directions. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library.

PRIME MINISTER

  Lord-Lieutenants
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the Lord-Lieutenants together with their date of appointment and current date of expected retirement. [11070]

  The Prime Minister
  A list of Lord-Lieutenants, together with the dates of their appointment and expected retirement, at the age of 75, is set out in the table.
  319

  County

  Name

  Appointed

  Retirement date at 75

  Oxfordshire

  Mr. Hugo Brunner

  February 1996

  August 2010

  Shropshire

  Mr. Algernon Heber-Percy

  February 1996

  January 2019

  Somerset

  Sir John Wills

  October 1994

  July 2003

  South Yorkshire

  The Earl of Scarborough

  March 1996

  December 2007

  Staffordshire

  Mr. James Hawley

  May 1993

  March 2012

  Suffolk

  The right hon. The Lord Belstead

  December 1993

  September 2007

  Surrey

  Mr. Richard Thornton

  May 1986

  October 1997

  Tyne and Wear

  Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison

  May 1984

  December 2000

  Warwickshire

  Mr. Martin Dunne

  December 1996

  March 2013

  West Midlands

  Mr. Robert Taylor

  November 1993

  June 2007

  West Sussex

  Major General Sir Philip Ward

  July 1994

  July 1999

  West Yorkshire

  Mr. John Lyles

  August 1992

  May 2004

  Wiltshire

  Lieutenant General Sir Maurice Johnston

  June 1996

  October 2004

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Sir William Gladstone

  August 1985

  October 2000

  Dyfed

  Sir David Mansel Lewis

  February 1979

  October 2002

  Mid Glamorgan

  Mr. Murray McLaggan

  December 1989

  September 2004

  South Glamorgan

  Captain Norman Lloyd-Edwards

  August 1990

  June 2008

  West Glamorgan

  Mr. Robert Hastie

  April 1995

  May 2008

  Gwynedd

  Mr. Meuric Rees

  December 1989

  March 1999

  Gwent

  Sir Richard Hanbury-Tennison

  June 1979

  January 2000

  Powys

  Mr. Mervyn Bourdillon

  June 1986

  August 1999

  Scotland

  Aberdeen City

  Lord Provost ex-officio

  Aberdeenshire

  Captain Colin Farquharson of Whitehouse

  May 1987

  August 1998

  Angus

  The right hon. The Earl of Airlie

  October 1989

  May 2001

  Argyll and Bute

  The Duke of Argyll

  January 1996

  August 2012

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Major David Henderson

  April 1991

  July 2006

  Banffshire

  Mr. James McPherson

  October 1987

  November 2002

  Berwickshire

  Major General Sir John Swinton

  September 1989

  April 2000

  Caithness

  Major Graham Dunnett

  January 1996

  March 2004

  Clackmannan

  Colonel Robert Stewart

  December 1994

  August 2001

  Dumfries

  Captain Ronald Cunningham-Jardine

  October 1991

  September 2006

  Dunbartonshire

  Brigadier Donald Hardie

  June 1990

  January 2011

  Dundee

  Lord Provost ex-officio

  East Lothian

  Sir Hew Hamilton-Dalrymple

  January 1987

  April 2001

  Edinburgh

  Lord Provost ex-officio

  Fife

  The Earl of Elgin and Kincardine

  October 1987

  February 1999

  Glasgow City

  The Lord Provost ex officio

  Inverness

  The Right Hon. The Lord Gray of Contin

  August 1996

  June 2002

  Kincardineshire

  The Viscount of Arbuthnott

  July 1977

  October 1999

  Lanarkshire

  Mr. Hutchison Sneddon

  June 1992

  April 2002

  Midlothian

  Captain George Burnet

  January 1992

  December 2002

  Moray

  Air Vice Marshal George Chesworth

  March 1994

  June 2005

  Nairn

  The Earl of Leven and Melville

  June 1969

  May 1999

  Orkney

  Vacant

  Perth and Kinross

  Sir David Montgomery

  March 1995

  March 2006

  Renfrewshire

  The Lord Goold

  July 1994

  May 2009

  Ross and Cromarty

  Captain Roderick Stirling of Fairburn

  May 1988

  June 2007

  Roxburgh, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry

  June 1974

  September 1998

  Shetland

  Mr. John Hamilton Scott

  February 1994

  November 2011

  Stewartry of Kirkcudbright

  Lieutenant General Sir Norman Arthur

  January 1996

  March 2006

  Stirling and Falkirk

  Lieutenant Colonel James Stirling of Garden

  December 1983

  September 2005

  Sutherland

  Major General David Houston

  November 1991

  February 2004

  Tweeddale

  Captain David Younger

  June 1994

  May 2013

  West Lothian

  The Earl of Morton

  July 1985

  March 2002

  West Lothian

  The Earl of Morton

  July 1985

  March 2002

  Western Isles

  The Viscount Dunrossil

  December 1993

  May 2001

  Wigtown

  Major Edward Orr Ewing

  September 1989

  September 2006

  Northern Ireland

  Antrim

  The Lord O'Neill

  April 1994

  September 2008

  Armagh

  The Earl of Caledon

  March 1989

  May 2030

  320 321

  County

  Name

  Appointed

  Retirement date at 75

  Belfast

  Colonel J. Elliott Wilson

  February 1991

  May 2000

  Down

  Major William Hall

  October 1996

  August 2009

  Fermanagh

  The Earl of Erne

  June 1986

  July 2012

  County Londonderry

  Colonel Sir Michael McCorkell

  May 1975

  May 2000

  County Borough of Londonderry

  Mr. James Eaton

  August 1986

  August 2002

  Tyrone

  The Duke of Abercorn

  December 1986

  July 2019

  1 To be succeeded by Sir Paul Nicholson.

  Visits to Pensioners
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister what visits he made to pensioners on low incomes during the recent cold weather. [11093]

  The Prime Minister
  I meet pensioners throughout the year. Our commitment to help during periods of cold weather is underlined by the fact that over 5 million cold weather payments worth more than £43 million have been made this winter.

  In addition to cold weather payments, the total extra help above normal upratings made available to pensioners on income-related benefits since 1988 is worth around £1.2 billion a year.

  Bangladesh (Biharis)
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he had during his recent visit about the situation of the Biharis living in Bangladesh. [11246]

  The Prime Minister
  This issue was not raised during my visit. We regularly discuss human rights issues such as refugees and displaced people with the Bangladeshi authorities.

  Companions of Honour
  Mr. Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list those people created Companions of Honour since 30 November 1990. [11074]

  The Prime Minister
  Members of the order of the Companions of Honour appointed since 30 November 1990 are as listed:

  13 April 1992: The right hon. Kenneth Wilfred Baker MP

  13 April 1992: The right hon. Peter Leonard Brooke MP

  13 April 1992: The right hon. Thomas Jeremy King MP

  13 June 1992: Dame Elisabeth Jean Frink DBE

  13 June 1992: Noel Joseph Terence Needham FRS

  31 December 1992: Sir Victor Sawdon Pritchett CBE

  12 June 1993: Charles Hubert Sission

  12 June 1993: Dr. Elsie May Widdowson CBE FRS

  31 December 1993: Francis David Longhorne Astor

  31 December 1993: Dame Janet Abbott Baker DBE

  31 December 1993: Sir John Lindsay Eric Smith CBE

  11 June 1994: Sir Alec Guiness CBE

  11 June 1994: Professor Reginald Victor Jones CB CBE

  11 June 1994: The right hon. David Anthony Llewellyn, Baron Owen

  31 December 1994: Cesar Milstein

  31 December 1994: Professor Carel Victor Morlais Weight CBE

  17 June 1995: Sir Denys Louis Lasdun CBE

  17 June 1995: Sir Nevill Francis Mott FRS

  322

  30 December 1995: Sir David Frederick Attenborough CVO CBE

  30 December 1995: Sir William Richard Shaboe Doll OBE FRS

  30 December 1995: The right hon. Douglas Richard Hurd CBE MP

  30 December 1995: The most Reverend Derek John Harford Worlock

  15 June 1996: The right hon. Richard Edward Geoffrey, Baron Howe of Aberavon QC

  31 December 1996: Alfred Leslie Rowse

  Pakistan and Bangladesh
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has recently had with the Governments of Pakistan and of Bangladesh about refugees and displaced people in their countries. [11245]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed Afghan refugees in Pakistan during my recent meeting with the Prime Minster of Pakistan. I have not had any discussions recently with the Government of Bangladesh. However, we do discuss these issues regularly with the Bangladesh authorities.

  Peerages
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the peerages created since 30 November 1990 together with the dates on which the holders were introduced. [11069]

  The Prime Minister
  The peerages created since 30 November 1990 are as listed, together with the dates on which the holders were introduced:

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Waddington

  4 December 1990

  4 December 1990

  Lord Sterling of Plaistow

  17 January 1991

  23 January 1991

  Lord White of Hull

  25 January 1991

  29 January 1991

  Lord Runcie

  1 February 1991

  26 February 1991

  Lord Palumbo

  4 February 1991

  12 February 1991

  Lord Griffiths of Fforestafch

  5 February 1991

  20 February 1991

  Baroness James of Holland Park

  7 February 1991

  19 February 1991

  Lord Laing of Dunphail

  8 February 1991

  19 February 1991

  Baroness Seccombe

  14 February 1991

  26 February 1991

  Lord Wolfson of Sunnigdale

  26 March 1991

  26 March 1991

  Lord Desai

  5 June 1991

  18 June 1991

  Baroness Hamwee

  6 June 1991

  12 June 1991

  Lord Marlesford

  7 June 1991

  11 June 1991

  Lord Judd

  10 June 1991

  25 June 1991

  Baroness Denton of Wakefield

  11 June 1991

  11 June 1991

  Baroness Hilton of Eggardon

  14 June 1991

  2 July 1991

  Baroness Mallalieu

  19 June 1991

  19 June 1991

  Lord Hollick

  20 June 1991

  25 June 1991

  Baroness O'Cathain

  21 June 1991

  3 July 1991

  Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn

  24 June 1991

  9 July 1991

  323

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

  26 June 1991

  26 June 1991

  Lord Skidelsky

  15 July 1991

  17 July 1991

  Baroness Perry of Southwark

  16 July 1991

  16 July 1991

  Lord Cheshire

  17 July 1991

  24 July 1991

  Lord MacFarlane of Bearsden

  29 July 1991

  15 October 1991

  Lord Craig of Radley

  30 July 1991

  16 October 1991

  Lord Browne-Wilkinson (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1991

  15 October 1991

  Lord Mustill (a Lord of Appeal of Ordinary)

  10 January 1992

  11 March 1992

  Lord Rix

  27 January 1992

  12 February 1992

  Lord Prentice

  30 January 1992

  12 February 1992

  Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank

  12 February 1992

  25 February 1992

  Lord Wilson of Tillyorn

  14 February 1992

  15 July 1992

  Lord Slynn (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  11 March 1992

  11 March 1992

  Lord Wakeham

  24 April 1992 am

  28 April 1992

  Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

  24 April 1992 pm

  28 April 1992

  Lord Taylor of Gosforth

  27 April 1992 am

  29 April 1992

  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

  29 April 1992

  29 April 1992

  Baroness Thatcher

  26 June 1992

  30 June 1992

  Lord Finsberg

  27 June 1992

  13 July 1992

  Lord Parkinson

  29 June 1992 am

  7 July 1992

  Lord Healey

  29 June 1992 pm

  1 July 1992

  Lord Owen

  30 June 1992 am

  8 July 1992

  Lord Howe of Aberavon

  30 June 1992 pm

  1 July 1992

  Lord Lawson of Blaby

  1 July 1992 am

  6 July 1992

  Lord Merlyn-Rees

  1 July 1992 pm

  7 July 1992

  Lord Howell

  2 July 1992 pm

  9 July 1992

  Lord Moore of Lower Marsh

  3 July 1992

  6 July 1992

  Lord Tebbit

  6 July 1992

  9 July 1992

  Lord Younger of Prestwick

  7 July 1992

  14 July 1992

  Lord Amery of Lustleigh

  8 July 1992 am

  8 July 1992

  Lord Walker of Worcester

  8 July 1992 pm

  21 October 1992

  Lord Archer of Sandwell

  9 July 1992

  14 July 1992

  Lord Ashley of Stoke

  10 July 1992

  13 July 1992

  Lord Eatwell

  14 July 1992

  19 October 1992

  Lord Weatherill

  15 July 1992

  15 July 1992

  Lord Ewing of Kirkford

  17 July 1992

  26 October 1992

  Lord Geraint

  18 July 1992

  27 October 1992

  Lord Stewartby

  20 July 1992

  20 October 1992

  Lord Clark of Kempston

  21 July 1992

  28 October 1992

  Lord Plant of Highfield

  24 July 1992

  4 November 1992

  Lord Archer of Weston Super Mare

  27 July 1992

  20 October 1992

  Lord Ridley of Liddesdale

  28 July 1992

  28 October 1992

  Baroness Jay of Paddington

  29 July 1992

  21 October 1992

  Lord Williams of Mostyn

  30 July 1992

  26 October 1992

  Lord Braine of Wheatley

  10 August 1992

  2 November 1992

  Lord Cooke of Islandreagh

  11 August 1992

  3 November 1992

  Lord Barber of Tewkesbury

  12 August 1992

  2 November 1992

  Lord Hayhoe

  21 August 1992

  3 November 1992

  Lord Gilmour of Craigmillar

  25 August 1992

  4 November 1992

  Lord Elis-Thomas

  18 September 1992

  27 October 1992

  Lord Woolf (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1992

  11 November 1992

  Baroness Williams of Crosby

  1 February 1993

  17 February 1993

  Lord Kingsdown

  14 July 1993

  21 July 1993

  Lord Dahrendorf

  15 July 1993

  21 July 1993

  Lord Menuhin

  19 July 1993

  20 July 1993

  Lord Attenborough

  30 July 1993

  25 October 1993

  Lord Lloyd of Berwick (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1993

  12 October 1993

  Lord Haskel

  4 October 1993

  12 October 1993

  324

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Lord Dean of Harptree

  5 October 1993

  13 October 1993

  Baroness Gould of Potternewton

  6 October 1993

  13 October 1993

  Lord Dixon-Smith

  11 October 1993

  19 October 1993

  Baroness Dean of Thornton Le Fylde

  12 October 1993

  19 October 1993

  Lord Lester of Herne Hill

  13 October 1993

  3 November 1993

  Baroness Miller of Hendon

  14 October 1993

  20 October 1993

  Lord Tugendhat

  15 October 1993

  27 October 1993

  Lord Nolan (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  11 January 1994

  18 January 1994

  Lord Wright of Richmond

  14 February 1994

  16 February 1994

  Lord Nickson

  22 March 1994

  4 May 1994

  Lord Quirk

  12 July 1994

  20 July 1994

  Lord Phillips of Ellesmere

  14 July 1994

  12 October 1994

  Lord Sheppard of Didgemere

  6 September 1994

  26 October 1994

  Lord Hambro

  26 September 1994

  26 October 1994

  Lord Dubs

  27 September 1994

  19 October 1994

  Lord Gladwin of Clee

  28 September 1994

  18 October 1994

  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton

  29 September 1994

  11 October 1994

  Lord Shaw of Northstead

  30 September 1994

  11 October 1994

  Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  3 October 1994

  19 October 1994

  Lord Tope

  4 October 1994

  12 October 1994

  Baroness Rawlings

  5 October 1994

  18 October 1994

  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

  6 October 1994

  2 November 1994

  Lord Kingsland

  7 October 1994

  2 November 1994

  Lord Blaker

  10 October 1994

  25 October 1994

  Lord Steyn (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  11 January 1995

  18 January 1995

  Baroness Hogg

  3 February 1995

  14 February 1995

  Lord McConnell

  10 February 1995

  15 February 1995

  Baroness Smith of Gilmorehill

  17 February 1995

  22 February 1995

  Lord Hoffman (a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  21 February 1995

  1 March 1995

  Lord Hope of Craighead

  28 February 1995

  28 March 1995

  Lord Blyth of Rowington

  24 July 1995

  18 October 1995

  Lord Cuckney

  25 July 1995

  18 October 1995

  Lord Eames

  25 August 1995

  1 November 1995

  Lord Habgood

  8 September 1995

  25 October 1995

  Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

  13 December 1995

  13 December 1995

  Lord Winston

  18 December 1995

  20 December 1995

  Lord Wallace of Saltaire

  19 December 1995

  20 December 1995

  Lord McNally

  20 December 1995

  9 January 1996

  Lord Borrie

  21 December 1995

  16 January 1996

  Baroness Hayman

  2 January 1996

  10 January 1996

  Lord Sewel

  10 January 1996

  10 January 1996

  Lord Harris of Peckham

  11 January 1996

  7 February 1996

  Lord Pilkington of Oxenford

  12 January 1996

  7 February 1996

  Lord Feldman

  15 January 1996

  14 February 1996

  Baroness Wilcox

  16 January 1996

  13 February 1996

  Lord Taverne

  5 February 1996

  14 February 1996

  Lord Kilpatrick of Kincraig

  16 February 1996

  28 February 1996

  Lord Gilmore of Thamesfield

  21 February 1996

  28 February 1996

  Lord Cooke of Thorndon

  3 April 1996

  8 May 1996

  Lord Bingham of Cornhill

  4 June 1996

  26 June 1996

  Baroness Lloyd of Highbury

  19 August 1996

  —

  Lord Vincent of Coleshill

  3 September 1996

  30 October 1996

  Lord Hussey of North Bradley

  11 September 1996

  6 November 1996

  Lord Thomas of Gresford

  30 September 1996

  29 October 1996

  Lord Clyde (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  1 October 1996 am

  16 October 1996

  Lord Currie of Marylebone

  1 October 1996 am

  29 October 1996

  Lord Taylor of Warwick

  2 October 1996

  30 October 1996

  Lord Saatchi

  4 October 1996

  20 November 1996

  325

  Title

  Created

  Introduced

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

  7 October 1996

  27 November 1996

  Lord Alderdice

  8 October 1996

  5 November 1996

  Lord Paul

  9 October 1996

  12 November 1996

  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale

  11 October 1996

  12 November 1996

  Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

  14 October 1996

  5 November 1996

  Baroness Byford

  15 October 1996

  19 November 1996

  Lord Chadlington

  16 October 1996

  6 November 1996

  Lord Rogers of Riverside

  17 October 1996

  3 December 1996

  Lord Maclaurin of Knebworth

  18 October 1996

  27 November 1996

  Lord Whitty

  21 October 1996

  19 November 1996

  Lord Hutton (A Lord of Appeal in Ordinary)

  6 January 1997

  14 January 1997

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Prohibited Weapons (Exports)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many weapons prohibited under the terms of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill have been exported since the publication of the Bill. [11217]

  Mr. Nelson
  The information requested is not available from the United Kingdom overseas trade statistics because the system of classification under which trade is recorded does not separately identify the relevant categories of weapons. Export licencing procedures cannot provide the information since the Department does not hold details of deliveries against licences.

  Gallaher Ltd.
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what Government assistance will be made available to alleviate the effects of the loss of jobs resulting from the relocation of the Gallaher Ltd. factory from Hyde, Tameside. [11161]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government office for the north-west will first assess with local partners the type and level of needs to be met arising from Gallaher's recent announcement, and will then consider the appropriate resources to meet those needs.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when(a) he and (b) officials from his Department last met representatives of Gallaher Ltd., what was discussed; and if he will make a statement. [11163]

  Mr. Taylor
  I have not met with representatives of Gallaher Ltd. nor have officials from my Department.

  Postal Services Directive
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what progress was made on the draft directive on postal services at the European Council of Ministers meeting on 18 December; and if he will make a statement. [10996]

  Mr. Page
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson),Official Report, column 238.

  Co-operatives
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make an assessment of the(a) number, (b) distribution and (c) benefits of (i) food co-operatives, (ii) co-operatively owned wind farms and (iii) community land trusts in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [10535]

  Mr. Page
  To my knowledge there is one wind cooperative in the UK, Baywind Energy Co-operative, which has recently raised £620,000 to buy one of the five wind turbines of the Harlock Hill wind farm near Ulverston, in Cumbria. The aim of the co-operative is gradually to buy further wind turbines as money becomes available. About 650 people subscribed to its first share offer, spending an average of over £1,000. The majority of the subscribers come from the surrounding district.

  Developing co-operatively owned wind farms encourages a community to accept responsibility for providing its energy requirements in an environmentally acceptable way.

  It is for the market to decide which forms of ownership are the most successful.

  My right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has responsibility for food co-operatives but it is not clear what the hon. Member means by community land trusts.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if a school is permitted as a component part of a local authority to purchase serial shells, aerial maroons, shell-in-mortar, maroon-in-mortar and combinations for the purposes of a firework display. [11043]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the view of my Department, the reference to local authorities in the regulations refers to the elected members of a council and officers of the council acting in their official capacity. It does not extend to establishments such as schools under the control of local authorities.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the competence of armed forces establishments to safely operate aerial shells, aerial maroons, shells-in-mortar, maroons-in-mortar and combinations; and if such establishments will be authorised under the Firework Safety Regulations 1996 to acquire such fireworks. [11042]

  Mr. Taylor
  No assessment of the ability of the armed forces establishments to operate such fireworks safely has been undertaken. However, in the view of my Department such establishments would come within the exemption in regulation 4(a) because of the exceptionally high level of skill and expertise in handling similar devices possessed by those who will be responsible for operating displays at such establishments, and have the formal management structures which enable displays to be operated safely and professionally.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what mechanisms he intends to introduce to ensure that regulation 4(b) of the Firework Safety Regulations 1996 applies only to those who have the skills and

  327
  experience to assess compliance safely to operate aerial shells, aerial maroons, shells-in-mortar, maroons-in-mortar and combinations. [11044]

  Mr. Taylor
  The exemption for any person whose trade or business, or part of whose trade or business, is the supply of fireworks has been included in the regulations to allow those in the distribution chain—such as manufacturers and importers—to supply other persons in the supply chain who may not themselves be in the business of operating firework displays. All those in the business of supplying fireworks are subject to separate legislation covering the safety and storage of fireworks. No other mechanisms are therefore necessary.

  Channel 5
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many homes will be able to receive Channel 5 through the extra frequency Channel 35; what assessment he has made of the length of time for which the service will be available under the present arrangement; and if he will make a statement. [10431]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Channel 5 Broadcasting estimates that access to channel 35 could mean that an extra 1.8 million homes an estimated 4 million people will be able to receive the service.

  Channel 5 Broadcasting will have access to the frequency for a period of five years. Towards the end of this period, the Government will review the position on the development of more spectrum efficient digital services and will make a judgment whether, and if so for what period of time, Channel 5 may continue to use the channel.

  Channel 5 is responsible for notifying viewers affected that these arrangements exist, and for investigating means of migrating services to other methods of delivery.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the reliability of the data set incorporated into the computerised records of the radioactive and toxic wastes contained in(a) the shaft and (b) the intermediate level waste silo at the Nuclear Power Development Establishment at Dounreay; and what recent meetings he has held with (i) the director of Dounreay and (ii) the chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority over waste management at the plant. [10799]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: As this is a management matter for the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority I have made no assessment of these records.

  I have held no meetings with the UKAEA to discuss waste management at the plant.

HEALTH

  Organophosphate Poisoning
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many cases in each of the last 10 years 328
  organophosphate poisoning has been listed on death certificates as (a) the main cause of death and (b) a contributory cause of death. [10531]

  Mr. Horam
  Between 1986 and 1995 there was one death in England and Wales certified as due to accidental poisoning by organophosphates, in 1986. There were, however, the following deaths certified as due to non-accidental poisoning by organophosphates which were either due to suicide or where there was an open verdict, (undetermined):

  Year

  Suicide

  Undetermined

  1986

  2

  0

  1987

  1

  0

  1988

  0

  0

  1989

  0

  1

  1990

  1

  2

  1991

  0

  0

  1992

  0

  0

  1993

  0

  0

  1994

  1

  0

  1995

  0

  0

  It would involve disproportionate cost to obtain figures for the number of deaths where poisoning by organophosphates was mentioned on the death certificate but was not the underlying cause of death for the period 1986 to 1992. However, this information is available for the period 1993–95 and is nil for each of the three years.

  London Ambulance Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paramedics were employed by the London ambulance service during each of the last five years; and how many are currently employed. [10763]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of paramedics currently employed by the London ambulance service is 775. The historical figures are:

  Date

  Paramedic numbers

  December 1991

  228

  December 1992

  303

  December 1993

  351

  December 1994

  474

  December 1995

  641

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the trend in response rates by the London ambulance service in the London borough of Barnet during the last three years. [10775]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of emergency calls answered by the London ambulance service in the London borough of Barnet within 14 minutes, rose from 66 per cent. in June 1995 to 89 per cent. in December 1996. Demand rose from 1,495 in June 1995 to over 2,000 in December 1996. Infonnation on earlier years is not available.

  Alcohol Concern
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department has given to Alcohol Concern in each of the last five years. [10869]
  329
  Mr. Burns
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Core grant £

  Grants programme £

  Local councils on alcohol £

  1992–93

  412,000

  2,065,000

  200,000

  1993–94

  412,000

  1,930,000

  200,000

  1994–95

  370,800

  968,000

  200,000

  1995–96

  370,800

  555,000

  —

  1996–97

  370,800

  1,055,000

  —

  Dental Caries
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on trends in the incidence of dental caries among schoolchildren in Barnet since 1979. [10776]

  Mr. Malone
  The British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry conducts annual surveys of dental caries prevalence in different aged children within a four-yearly cycle comprising those aged five, 12, five, and 14, throughout Great Britain. BASCD began these surveys in 1985–86 in England and Wales. Tables showing the mean number of decayed, missing and filled in the deciduous teeth only of five-year-old children, and in the permanent teeth only of 12 and 14 year old children in Barnet are:

  Mean number of decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) of five-year-olds1 in Barnet since 1985–86

  Tables

  1985–86

  2.08

  1987–88

  1.70

  1989–90

  1.90

  1991–92

  1.70

  1993–94

  1.91

  1 Deciduous teeth only.

  Mean number of DMFT of 12-year olds1 in Barnet since 1988–89

  Number

  1988–89

  1.93

  1992–93

  1.24

  1 Permanent teeth only.

  Mean number of DMFT of 14-year-olds1 in Barnet since 1990–91

  Number

  1990–91

  1.99

  1992–93

  1.24

  1 Permanent teeth only.

  No figures for 14-year-olds are available for 1986–87.

  St. George's Hospital NHS Trust
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the St. George's Hospital NHS 330
  trust; where they reside; what are their professions; and if he will make a statement. [10889]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is:

  Postal town

  Occupation

  Chairman

  Dr. Elizabeth Vallance

  London

  Academic

  Non-executive directors

  Mr. Bernard Asher

  London

  Banking

  Mrs. Kay Sonneborn

  London

  Not categorised

  Miss Fiona Colquhoun

  London

  Personnel management

  Mr. Peter Mumford

  London

  Health management

  Professor Robert Boyd

  London

  Academic

  Shellfish
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what dates since 1990 public warning notices have been issued on the consumption of shellfish from the North sea between Amble and Marske. [10902]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested is not held centrally. The responsibility for posting warning notices lies with local authorities.

  Motor Neurone Disease
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what drug treatments are available on the NHS for those suffering from motor neurone disease; and what assessment he has made of the differences in availability between health authorities in this respect; [11244]

  (2) what treatment is available on the NHS for those who suffer from motor neurone disease. [11256]

  Mr. Horam
  A wide range of treatment, including drug treatment, is available on the national health service for those who suffer from motor neurone disease.

  No assessment has been made of the differences in availability between health authorities in respect of treatment for motor neurone disease. It is for health authorities to determine the local needs of their populations and then purchase services to meet those needs within their available resources.

  Xenotransplantation
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the report of the advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation will be published. [11764]

  Mr. Dorrell
  "Animal Tissue into Humans", the report of the advisory group on the ethics of xenotransplantation, was published today. The Government response to the report was also published for a three-month consultation period. Copies of the report and response are available in the Library.

  I also announce the establishment of the UK Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority which will regulate this area until a suitable opportunity for primary legislation arises. I am very pleased that Lord Habgood of Calverton has agreed to chair this interim authority.

  Community Care (Residential Charges)Bill
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place a copy of the current draft of the Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill in the Library. [11765]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Copies of the preliminary draft of the Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill have been placed in the Library. This draft has served as a basis for informal discussions with the financial services industry, local authority associations and other interested bodies. The Government will be publishing a final draft together with a policy statement in the near future: the current draft is purely a working draft and policy details will be given in the statement.

  Deaf-blind People
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners are able to provide communication support to deaf-blind patients. [9472]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what training ambulance paramedics receive in communicating and making contact with deaf-blind people. [9473]

  Mr. Malone
  Ambulance paramedics do not receive specific training in communicating with deaf-blind people but are trained in communicating with, and handling, deaf people and blind people. They are trained to have good communication skills with all types of patients and trained in how to deal with patients sensitively.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community care assessments have been made by local authorities in England and Wales under the Carers Recognition and Services Act 1995 for carers of deaf-blind children and adults since 1 April 1995. [9475]

  Mr. Burns
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to develop and expand the communicator guide service within local authorities for deaf-blind people. [9480]

  Mr. Burns
  Many local authorities are developing communicator guide services for deaf-blind people, often in partnership with deaf-blind organisations. The Department of Health has sought to promote the development of these services by raising awareness of the needs of deaf-blind people, and by making grants to voluntary organisations under the section 64 general scheme.

  In 1996–97, the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People received a further award for the "Touch and Go" project, which has successfully developed accredited training courses for the communicator guides, and Sense and the Royal National Institute for the Blind are receiving project grants to develop communicator guide schemes. Deaf-blind United Kingdom and Sense—the National Deaf-blind and Rubella Association—both receive core funding under the section 64 scheme.
  332
  In seeking to promote awareness of deaf-blindness, the Department of Health works closely with the Association of Directors of Social Services. Particularly significant are the "Think Dual Sensory" draft good practice guidelines for social services and health professionals who provide or commission services for the increasing number of older people with dual sensory loss. The guidelines are currently being piloted in several local authorities.

  Blood Stocks
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the current levels of blood stocks; and what recent representations he has received about their adequacy. [11228]

  Mr. Horam
  No representations have been received recently about the levels of blood stocks.

  Blood stocks are often low over the Christmas and new year period, because of seasonal and other fluctuations in supply and demand and this winter has been no exception. Current levels of donations are encouraging, but the National Blood Authority has appealed for more donors to come forward in two out of its three zones, and in keeping the position under review.

  Paediatric Services (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the role of the NHS executive, north-west will be in the public consultation process regarding paediatric services in Greater Manchester. [11094]

  Mr. Horam
  The regional offices of the Department of Health have an important role in facilitating discussions between key players locally and then to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, where decisions have to be referred to him.

  Psychological Injuries (Ex-service Personnel)
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health at what sites medical provision is available to assist ex-service personnel who have suffered psychological and stress-related injuries from conflicts since 1982. [11037]

  Mr. Burns
  Assistance for suffers from post traumatic stress is available from general practitioners, who can make referrals to specialist psychiatric services as necessary.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

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

  Mr. Baldry
  The disposal of cattle carcases by direct incineration costs around £160 per tonne. Landfill, where this is an appropriate means of disposal, costs around £40 per tonne. Rendering followed by incineration of the resultant meat and bonemeal and tallow costs around £315 per tonne.

  Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many successful prosecutions have been brought for infringements of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986. [10409]

  Mrs. Browning
  Responsibility for enforcement of the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986 is shared between the Health and Safety Executive, local authorities and the agriculture departments in Great Britain.

  A total of 265 successful prosecutions have been brought under COPR since their introduction in 1986 by the HSE and the agriculture departments. Information on the number of prosecutions by local authorities is not available.

  Community-supported Agriculture Projects
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make an assessment of the(a) number, (b) distribution and (c) benefits of community-supported agriculture projects in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [10536]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has no information on agriculture projects supported by local communities. However, where local projects contribute to the Department's overall policy aims and objectives these are to be welcomed.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Foreign Nationals (Work Permits)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average time taken for foreign nationals employed in the United Kingdom to secure extensions to their permission to stay, for each year since 1992. [11226]

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Acklington

  5.3

  4.8

  5.5

  6.7

  5.4

  4.4

  Albany

  7.4

  7.4

  7.5

  7.4

  7.1

  7.4

  Aldington

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ashwell

  9.1

  9.7

  10.4

  11.3

  10.2

  10.5

  Askham Grange

  10.3

  9.7

  11.0

  10.1

  9.4

  10.4

  Aylesbury

  12.1

  12.6

  11.8

  11.9

  8.9

  11.6

  Bedford

  5.2

  6.0

  6.4

  6.4

  5.7

  6.0

  Belmarsh

  3.7

  3.6

  3.8

  4.2

  4.0

  4.2

  Birmingham

  3.7

  4.0

  4.5

  4.8

  4.4

  3.4

  Blakenhurst

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Blantyre House

  11.0

  11.6

  12.4

  12.1

  11.9

  13.0

  Blundeston

  6.0

  6.4

  6.4

  6.3

  6.0

  6.6

  Brinsford

  9.2

  9.7

  8.9

  9.2

  9.3

  9.0

  Bristol

  2.6

  3.5

  3.1

  3.3

  2.8

  2.6

  Brixton

  2.5

  3.0

  2.6

  2.7

  3.4

  2.6

  Brockhill

  8.3

  9.1

  10.8

  10.6

  9.8

  11.0

  Buckley Hall

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bullingdon

  7.7

  8.8

  9.0

  8.7

  7.2

  6.8

  Bullwood Hall

  12.5

  14.2

  14.6

  14.3

  12.8

  14.5

  Camp Hill

  10.2

  10.9

  11.1

  11.7

  11.2

  11.0

  Canterbury

  7.7

  8.1

  8.5

  9.2

  7.8

  9.6

  Cardiff

  3.7

  3.6

  4.2

  3.6

  4.6

  4.7

  334
  Mr. Kirkhope
  About one third of applications for further leave to remain made by work permit holders are decided in the public inquiry offices on the same day. The average time to decide the remainder was as follows:

  Average number of days

  Category of decision

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  19961

  Work-permit to holders

  76

  78

  77

  62

  73

  All decisions2

  70

  77

  93

  88

  99

  1 Provisional.

  2 Excluding asylum-related decisions.

  Prisoners (Education)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average amount of time prisoners spent in education in each month of the financial year 1995–96 and each available month so far during 1996–97(a) in each prison, (b) by prison type and (c) in the whole Prison Service. [9675]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for the average amount of time prisoners spent in education in each month of the financial year 1995–6 and each month so far during 1996–7 (a) in each prison, (b) by prison type and (c) in the whole Prison Service.
  The attached tables summarise the average number of hours per week that prisoners spent in education from April 1995 to September 1996, by prison, by prison type and in the whole Prison Service. I have arranged for copies of the tables to be placed in the Library.
  The following categories have been included when calculating average education hours: daytime education, evening education, vocational training courses, construction and industrial training courses and physical education. Contracted-out prisons are not required to provide this detail of information therefore no figures are available.
  335

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Castington

  9.3

  9.9

  10.0

  10.8

  11.4

  11.1

  Channings Wood

  5.4

  8.4

  9.3

  9.4

  9.5

  9.4

  Chelmsford

  4.3

  3.6

  3.8

  4.5

  4.9

  4.6

  Coldingley

  5.3

  6.9

  6.9

  7.1

  6.3

  4.9

  Cookham Wood

  5.5

  6.0

  6.0

  6.1

  6.7

  5.4

  Dartmoor

  6.3

  6.8

  6.5

  6.4

  6.1

  6.2

  Deerbolt

  10.7

  12.0

  12.7

  13.3

  12.2

  12.5

  Doncaster

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dorchester

  5.2

  5.9

  6.0

  6.4

  5.8

  5.9

  Dover

  9.4

  11.3

  10.4

  9.8

  9.7

  9.5

  Downview

  7.7

  9.2

  9.9

  9.5

  9.3

  8.8

  Drake Hall

  7.6

  8.6

  8.6

  9.7

  8.2

  8.6

  Durham

  2.9

  3.9

  3.8

  4.2

  4.0

  4.2

  East Sutton Park

  10.4

  13.4

  11.7

  13.5

  13.2

  12.5

  Eastwood Park

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Elmley

  8.5

  9.7

  9.5

  9.7

  9.2

  8.9

  Erlestoke

  8.5

  10.6

  11.6

  11.1

  12.0

  10.7

  Everthorpe

  12.8

  13.2

  12.7

  12.5

  12.5

  14.2

  Exeter

  3.8

  4.7

  4.9

  4.0

  4.0

  4.1

  Featherstone

  6.8

  6.7

  6.5

  5.8

  6.6

  6.2

  Feltham

  5.2

  6.0

  5.7

  5.6

  5.5

  5.1

  Ford

  7.7

  11.0

  12.8

  11.1

  7.7

  9.2

  Frankland

  6.8

  7.5

  7.1

  7.4

  6.1

  6.7

  Full Sutton

  7.3

  7.3

  7.9

  8.0

  6.4

  6.8

  Garth

  6.5

  7.0

  6.1

  6.3

  5.4

  5.9

  Gartree

  9.2

  8.6

  9.6

  8.6

  10.6

  10.5

  Glen Parva

  5.9

  6.8

  6.9

  7.5

  7.2

  6.7

  Gloucester

  3.6

  4.7

  5.2

  5.4

  6.3

  4.2

  Grendon

  5.7

  6.0

  5.3

  6.2

  5.9

  5.6

  Guys Marsh

  15.9

  16.0

  14.0

  12.9

  12.9

  12.5

  Haslar

  11.8

  16.4

  15.3

  14.5

  10.7

  14.2

  Hatfield

  13.1

  14.6

  14.7

  15.1

  14.9

  15.2

  Haverigg

  7.4

  9.5

  9.5

  8.9

  9.2

  8.3

  Hewell Grange

  9.6

  12.9

  12.7

  13.7

  13.7

  13.8

  Highdown

  8.2

  8.1

  8.9

  8.7

  9.4

  8.3

  Highpoint

  7.6

  8.9

  8.6

  9.1

  8.8

  8.3

  Hindley

  11.3

  11.0

  10.1

  10.7

  10.9

  11.1

  Hollesley Bay

  10.7

  13.2

  13.4

  13.4

  12.5

  12.5

  Holloway

  5.9

  6.2

  6.5

  5.4

  4.2

  5.7

  Holme House

  6.4

  6.8

  7.1

  6.6

  7.4

  7.4

  Hull

  4.9

  7.5

  7.2

  7.8

  7.5

  7.0

  Huntercombe

  8.7

  10.7

  11.0

  11.5

  11.2

  10.4

  Kingston

  7.1

  9.8

  7.9

  7.8

  7.8

  8.5

  Kirkham

  8.2

  7.6

  9.3

  8.9

  8.4

  8.0

  Kirklevington

  13.1

  12.3

  11.9

  8.7

  7.0

  6.3

  Lancaster

  8.7

  11.0

  10.9

  10.1

  8.4

  8.9

  Lancaster Farms

  12.1

  11.1

  13.5

  13.4

  13.1

  13.0

  Latchmere House

  2.5

  3.1

  4.7

  8.9

  8.3

  6.9

  Leeds

  2.5

  2.7

  2.6

  2.8

  2.3

  2.7

  Leicester

  3.7

  4.5

  4.8

  4.9

  5.1

  4.5

  Lewes

  5.5

  5.3

  5.6

  6.0

  5.0

  5.8

  Leyhill

  6.7

  7.0

  7.1

  7.8

  7.4

  6.6

  Lincoln

  3.6

  3.7

  3.3

  3.9

  3.0

  3.8

  Lindholme

  9.6

  10.4

  10.5

  10.4

  11.2

  10.4

  Littlehey

  9.5

  11.4

  10.6

  10.7

  9.8

  9.9

  Liverpool

  1.7

  2.1

  2.3

  2.5

  2.7

  2.3

  Long Lartin

  9.0

  7.5

  8.4

  8.4

  8.9

  8.8

  Low Newton

  9.3

  9.4

  10.3

  9.1

  9.6

  10.8

  Maidstone

  7.0

  8.5

  7.9

  9.5

  5.9

  6.9

  Manchester

  4.8

  4.9

  4.8

  5.0

  5.3

  5.1

  Moorland

  9.1

  10.1

  9.9

  9.6

  9.7

  8.9

  Morton Hall

  15.0

  15.9

  16.7

  17.8

  18.6

  17.5

  Mount

  8.6

  10.6

  10.2

  8.6

  10.7

  10.4

  New Hall

  7.2

  6.7

  11.2

  12.3

  11.2

  10.3

  North Sea Camp

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Northallerton

  5.8

  7.2

  6.4

  6.9

  6.5

  7.3

  Norwich

  8.5

  9.7

  9.3

  8.1

  6.0

  7.3

  Nottingham

  5.8

  8.7

  9.3

  10.0

  8.7

  9.3

  Onley

  8.0

  7.8

  8.6

  9.4

  8.2

  8.7

  Parkhurst

  4.4

  4.0

  4.9

  4.9

  5.0

  4.4

  Pentonville

  12.3

  1.2

  2.3

  2.0

  1.5

  2.0

  Portland

  9.0

  11.6

  12.4

  12.9

  11.7

  12.2

  Prescoed

  17.8

  17.5

  18.2

  17.7

  17.7

  17.7

  336 337

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Preston

  2.5

  2.8

  2.7

  3.0

  3.0

  2.9

  Ranby

  7.9

  9.1

  9.6

  10.6

  10.6

  9.0

  Reading

  12.9

  13.6

  12.5

  11.6

  9.7

  11.1

  Risley

  8.4

  9.9

  9.9

  9.5

  9.8

  9.0

  Rochester

  6.6

  8.3

  8.2

  9.8

  8.8

  8.3

  Send

  7.5

  7.4

  6.9

  8.0

  7.1

  7.6

  Shepton Mallet

  8.1

  8.9

  10.0

  10.3

  8.3

  7.3

  Shrewsbury

  3.9

  5.1

  4.0

  4.4

  3.2

  4.9

  Spring Hill

  7.3

  8.5

  7.4

  7.2

  6.2

  7.3

  Stafford

  7.0

  7.7

  7.2

  7.3

  6.9

  5.5

  Standford Hill

  7.9

  8.7

  9.3

  8.8

  8.3

  7.4

  Stocken

  11.0

  11.3

  11.1

  10.5

  9.9

  10.4

  Stoke Heath

  8.9

  8.7

  8.7

  8.6

  9.8

  9.0

  Styal

  7.2

  10.4

  9.1

  8.6

  9.3

  11.3

  Sudbury

  19.6

  21.2

  22.8

  23.0

  23.1

  21.5

  Swaleside

  6.5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Swansea

  4.7

  4.8

  4.5

  4.5

  3.7

  4.1

  Swinfen Hall

  14.5

  14.3

  14.5

  11.9

  14.1

  14.3

  Thorn Cross

  18.4

  17.6

  18.3

  19.6

  18.1

  20.1

  Usk

  11.7

  12.8

  11.5

  12.4

  13.1

  12.1

  Verne

  9.2

  9.9

  10.4

  10.6

  10.0

  9.4

  Wakefield

  5.2

  6.3

  6.2

  5.9

  12.5

  6.0

  Wandsworth

  3.9

  4.0

  3.9

  3.4

  3.1

  3.4

  Warren Hill

  6.5

  8.0

  7.8

  8.9

  5.1

  7.5

  Wayland

  10.2

  11.9

  12.0

  12.1

  11.8

  11.4

  Wealstun Closed

  11.3

  10.0

  13.1

  15.1

  12.8

  10.6

  Wealstun Open

  8.3

  9.7

  10.3

  9.2

  7.0

  9.1

  Wellingborough

  12.2

  16.2

  14.3

  16.6

  14.9

  13.3

  Werrington

  18.2

  20.8

  18.1

  20.2

  19.5

  17.3

  Wetherby

  15.7

  18.1

  17.7

  17.4

  17.1

  16.5

  Whatton

  11.9

  12.6

  12.8

  12.6

  12.1

  13.7

  Whitemoor

  7.6

  8.0

  8.0

  8.9

  8.4

  8.1

  Winchester

  4.2

  4.4

  4.7

  5.0

  4.5

  4.6

  Wolds

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Woodhill

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6.4

  6.4

  n/a

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  4.3

  5.1

  4.6

  4.2

  2.6

  2.6

  Prison name

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Acklington

  5.3

  5.7

  3.9

  4.5

  5.6

  5.6

  Albany

  7.3

  7.2

  6.0

  6.2

  5.8

  6.3

  Aldington

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ashwell

  10.3

  11.3

  9.1

  11.6

  10.9

  10.6

  Askham Grange

  10.4

  9.8

  6.6

  12.2

  11.7

  10.1

  Aylesbury

  12.7

  13.1

  10.3

  11.5

  11.1

  10.7

  Bedford

  6.7

  6.9

  6.4

  7.5

  7.6

  7.4

  Belmarsh

  4.2

  3.5

  3.5

  4.3

  4.6

  4.9

  Birmingham

  3.1

  1.9

  2.2

  2.9

  3.0

  2.9

  Blakenhurst

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Blantyre House

  15.2

  14.3

  11.1

  13.0

  12.8

  13.8

  Blundeston

  6.3

  7.3

  6.6

  7.4

  8.1

  7.7

  Brinsford

  9.3

  8.6

  8.3

  8.8

  8.0

  8.9

  Bristol

  3.2

  3.2

  2.6

  2.2

  2.5

  2.8

  Brixton

  4.1

  4.6

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Brockhill

  13.2

  12.3

  9.2

  10.9

  11.4

  12.3

  Buckley Hall

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bullingdon

  7.5

  7.9

  5.3

  6.7

  7.3

  8.3

  Bullwood Hall

  13.9

  14.5

  11.4

  10.9

  12.0

  14.8

  Camp Hill

  10.5

  10.7

  10.6

  9.4

  11.2

  10.4

  Canterbury

  9.4

  7.9

  8.1

  9.6

  8.3

  9.7

  Cardiff

  3.4

  3.2

  3.2

  3.6

  3.4

  3.8

  Castington

  11.0

  11.5

  8.3

  9.3

  9.3

  9.1

  Channings Wood

  9.7

  9.6

  7.1

  7.7

  9.5

  7.8

  Chelmsford

  3.8

  3.5

  3.4

  3.9

  4.7

  5.3

  Coldingley

  6.6

  6.5

  5.6

  6.1

  7.2

  6.8

  Cookham Wood

  4.7

  5.4

  4.5

  4.6

  5.2

  5.7

  Dartmoor

  5.9

  6.8

  5.1

  5.7

  5.6

  4.9

  Deerbolt

  10.9

  12.1

  10.5

  12.6

  12.6

  11.6

  Doncaster

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dorchester

  5.8

  5.9

  5.7

  5.7

  5.8

  5.3

  338 339

  Prison name

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Dover

  11.3

  11.8

  10.8

  13.2

  11.9

  12.0

  Downview

  9.2

  8.8

  8.1

  8.5

  10.1

  9.2

  Drake Hall

  9.7

  9.3

  6.7

  9.2

  10.6

  8.6

  Durham

  4.6

  4.1

  3.6

  4.3

  4.5

  4.3

  East Sutton Park

  13.8

  13.7

  11.9

  12.3

  14.0

  12.7

  Eastwood Park

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Elmley

  8.8

  8.1

  6.0

  7.4

  6.8

  6.2

  Erlestoke

  11.2

  11.8

  8.6

  10.8

  12.4

  12.4

  Everthorpe

  14.3

  14.8

  11.2

  12.4

  12.9

  11.5

  Exeter

  4.5

  4.6

  3.7

  4.1

  4.5

  4.6

  Featherstone

  6.8

  7.8

  6.8

  7.6

  7.1

  6.9

  Feltham

  6.3

  6.1

  5.0

  5.5

  6.1

  5.8

  Ford

  11.0

  11.4

  8.0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Frankland

  6.5

  6.8

  4.4

  4.4

  6.5

  5.8

  Full Sutton

  7.8

  5.8

  6.8

  9.1

  8.7

  7.6

  Garth

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gartree

  10.4

  10.1

  8.8

  9.7

  9.9

  10.3

  Glen Parva

  6.8

  6.5

  5.6

  6.7

  6.6

  6.2

  Gloucester

  6.3

  6.5

  6.2

  4.1

  5.3

  4.7

  Grendon

  6.9

  6.8

  5.1

  6.0

  n/a

  n/a

  Guys Marsh

  13.0

  11.7

  11.3

  13.5

  12.9

  14.4

  Haslar

  14.2

  15.0

  12.5

  13.8

  14.7

  16.1

  Hatfield

  14.5

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Haverigg

  9.3

  8.2

  7.3

  7.8

  7.2

  7.9

  Hewell Grange

  14.3

  13.8

  11.5

  13.3

  12.4

  15.3

  Highdown

  9.2

  8.9

  6.7

  8.0

  8.7

  9.4

  Highpoint

  8.3

  8.8

  6.8

  7.7

  8.0

  7.3

  Hindley

  10.7

  9.4

  7.9

  9.2

  8.5

  8.6

  Hollesley Bay

  14.0

  13.6

  10.2

  10.8

  12.1

  12.2

  Holloway

  5.3

  4.0

  4.2

  6.2

  6.4

  6.5

  Holme House

  6.8

  6.2

  7.0

  6.7

  6.8

  6.6

  Hull

  7.3

  7.6

  6.3

  6.8

  7.7

  8.0

  Huntercombe

  11.6

  10.4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Kingston

  10.2

  9.4

  6.9

  9.6

  10.1

  10.4

  Kirkham

  10.2

  9.0

  7.8

  8.6

  9.8

  9.4

  Kirklevington

  6.8

  7.2

  8.7

  7.9

  9.4

  8.3

  Lancaster

  10.8

  11.6

  7.6

  11.1

  10.6

  11.5

  Lancaster Farms

  11.9

  12.6

  10.3

  11.6

  11.5

  13.2

  Latchmere House

  7.7

  7.0

  7.0

  8.4

  8.3

  8.1

  Leeds

  2.7

  2.6

  2.4

  2.7

  2.6

  2.4

  Leicester

  4.2

  4.5

  4.0

  4.5

  4.9

  5.0

  Lewes

  6.1

  6.1

  5.7

  5.8

  5.9

  6.3

  Leyhill

  6.7

  6.7

  5.8

  5.3

  5.8

  5.1

  Lincoln

  3.6

  3.7

  4.4

  3.8

  4.5

  3.8

  Lindholme

  10.7

  10.5

  9.4

  9.6

  10.6

  10.8

  Littlehey

  10.1

  10.7

  8.6

  9.5

  10.5

  11.0

  Liverpool

  3.0

  3.3

  2.4

  3.0

  3.1

  3.2

  Long Lartin

  8.1

  7.5

  5.7

  7.3

  8.6

  8.3

  Low Newton

  10.6

  10.3

  6.9

  8.4

  8.5

  9.3

  Maidstone

  6.3

  7.0

  5.4

  6.6

  5.7

  6.9

  Manchester

  6.1

  6.1

  5.4

  6.1

  4.1

  3.6

  Moorland

  8.0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Morton Hall

  17.7

  16.9

  14.5

  18.8

  16.4

  17.3

  Mount

  9.8

  9.9

  8.2

  9.1

  7.8

  8.6

  New Hall

  10.6

  10.1

  8.8

  8.9

  9.6

  n/a

  North Sea Camp

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Northallerton

  7.2

  7.0

  6.7

  7.7

  8.1

  7.8

  Norwich

  8.6

  8.1

  6.6

  7.5

  7.6

  9.2

  Nottingham

  9.4

  8.5

  8.3

  11.4

  11.3

  13.0

  Onley

  8.6

  9.9

  7.3

  8.9

  9.3

  8.7

  Parkhurst

  5.3

  5.7

  5.5

  5.4

  5.5

  5.8

  Pentonville

  2.5

  2.8

  2.3

  2.6

  2.8

  2.8

  Portland

  13.3

  13.5

  10.8

  12.6

  13.9

  12.4

  Prescoed

  16.9

  16.5

  13.6

  15.6

  14.3

  15.8

  Preston

  2.9

  2.9

  2.6

  2.5

  2.9

  3.2

  Ranby

  9.3

  9.2

  7.2

  8.3

  8.9

  7.6

  Reading

  10.5

  10.4

  9.0

  10.7

  10.4

  10.0

  Risley

  9.8

  9.5

  7.2

  9.8

  10.1

  9.9

  Rochester

  6.6

  6.7

  7.2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Send

  8.7

  9.1

  6.5

  7.9

  8.6

  9.5

  Shepton Mallet

  8.5

  8.7

  7.2

  8.3

  8.1

  9.2

  Shrewsbury

  5.9

  5.9

  5.5

  5.6

  5.8

  6.6

  Spring Hill

  8.9

  8.7

  6.3

  8.6

  n/a

  n/a

  340 341

  Prison name

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Stafford

  6.0

  6.8

  5.8

  6.8

  7.1

  7.6

  Standford Hill

  8.1

  8.0

  5.9

  7.9

  8.1

  8.0

  Stocken

  11.2

  11.5

  11.2

  7.7

  12.4

  n/a

  Stoke Heath

  8.3

  9.2

  9.0

  8.9

  8.8

  10.9

  Styal

  9.2

  9.6

  7.2

  7.4

  8.8

  8.2

  Sudbury

  21.4

  21.0

  20.4

  21.9

  20.3

  19.6

  Swaleside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Swansea

  4.2

  3.5

  3.2

  3.9

  4.2

  4.3

  Swinfen Hall

  14.8

  14.6

  11.6

  10.6

  13.1

  13.1

  Thorn Cross

  19.4

  19.5

  20.5

  21.9

  20.5

  20.1

  Usk

  12.0

  12.0

  10.7

  11.1

  10.9

  11.6

  Verne

  10.5

  9.9

  9.2

  9.2

  10.1

  n/a

  Wakefield

  6.2

  6.1

  4.6

  5.8

  6.0

  5.7

  Wandsworth

  3.0

  3.0

  2.6

  3.7

  4.2

  3.6

  Warren Hill

  9.4

  8.2

  6.6

  6.4

  8.1

  8.2

  Wayland

  11.9

  12.0

  9.2

  11.6

  11.3

  12.1

  Wealstun Closed

  16.2

  15.6

  11.5

  14.4

  14.7

  12.6

  Wealstun Open

  8.8

  9.3

  6.7

  8.5

  8.8

  8.6

  Wellingborough

  15.3

  14.4

  12.6

  14.8

  14.3

  14.0

  Werrington

  20.1

  20.3

  18.6

  19.1

  17.9

  17.9

  Wetherby

  17.7

  18.8

  15.2

  18.9

  19.5

  18.3

  Whatton

  13.0

  14.8

  11.9

  14.7

  14.5

  15.1

  Whitemoor

  8.1

  7.9

  6.7

  8.4

  6.7

  8.3

  Winchester

  4.8

  4.7

  4.0

  4.7

  4.7

  4.6

  Wolds

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Woodhill

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  6.4

  7.1

  6.6

  Wormwood Scrubs

  4.0

  3.5

  0.8

  3.2

  2.7

  n/a

  Wymott

  7.3

  7.5

  6.4

  6.6

  7.3

  8.1

  n/a = not available

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison name

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Acklington

  4.4

  5.4

  5.4

  5.4

  4.8

  4.8

  Albany

  3.9

  2.8

  2.2

  3.6

  3.7

  2.5

  Aldington

  5.3

  5.2

  5.6

  6.1

  6.0

  5.7

  Ashwell

  8.2

  9.7

  9.6

  9.1

  10.0

  9.8

  Askham Grange

  9.6

  9.6

  11.1

  10.2

  8.7

  10.1

  Aylesbury

  9.6

  11.2

  11.7

  10.7

  8.8

  11.2

  Bedford

  5.6

  6.0

  6.0

  6.5

  6.1

  5.9

  Belmarsh

  3.7

  4.6

  4.0

  3.6

  3.9

  3.4

  Birmingham

  2.5

  2.6

  2.8

  2.6

  2.2

  2.0

  Blakenhurst

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Blantyre House

  10.1

  11.4

  10.9

  12.3

  13.4

  13.5

  Blundeston

  7.3

  7.8

  7.4

  8.3

  7.2

  8.3

  Brinsford

  7.3

  7.5

  6.9

  6.8

  6.8

  5.6

  Bristol

  1.4

  2.0

  2.0

  2.0

  1.8

  1.7

  Brixton

  3.0

  2.0

  3.0

  2.7

  2.0

  2.9

  Brockhill

  9.0

  10.3

  7.5

  9.4

  9.9

  6.9

  Buckley Hall

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bullingdon

  6.0

  7.6

  7.6

  7.8

  7.1

  7.1

  Bullwood Hall

  14.1

  14.0

  13.6

  14.3

  9.6

  11.4

  Camp Hill

  9.7

  9.9

  10.3

  11.2

  10.4

  10.1

  Canterbury

  9.4

  8.8

  8.2

  7.9

  6.9

  7.3

  Cardiff

  3.3

  3.7

  3.6

  3.7

  2.9

  3.1

  Castington

  7.2

  8.4

  7.9

  8.2

  7.8

  8.4

  Channings Wood

  5.8

  8.0

  8.3

  8.1

  8.6

  7.5

  Chelmsford

  4.5

  4.4

  4.6

  4.5

  4.2

  3.5

  Coldingley

  7.3

  6.7

  6.6

  6.1

  5.5

  5.5

  Cookham Wood

  8.6

  8.9

  8.9

  7.8

  7.7

  6.7

  Dartmoor

  4.2

  5.4

  5.0

  5.4

  5.4

  5.3

  Deerbolt

  9.0

  9.9

  12.0

  12.0

  12.8

  12.0

  Doncaster

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dorchester

  5.3

  5.8

  6.1

  4.4

  6.3

  5.3

  Dover

  10.2

  11.6

  9.2

  9.6

  9.8

  11.0

  Downview

  7.1

  9.0

  8.7

  7.2

  8.5

  8.2

  Drake Hall

  6.9

  8.8

  7.2

  7.7

  7.4

  7.0

  Durham

  3.9

  3.9

  3.5

  3.3

  3.6

  3.7

  East Sutton Park

  10.4

  13.5

  11.9

  10.7

  10.7

  12.3

  Eastwood Park

  10.4

  9.5

  9.5

  10.0

  9.0

  10.5

  342 343

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison name

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Elmley

  4.9

  6.4

  6.7

  7.5

  7.3

  7.3

  Erlestoke

  9.6

  11.0

  11.3

  12.7

  10.2

  9.7

  Everthorpe

  8.7

  10.2

  10.0

  10.9

  11.9

  10.4

  Exeter

  3.4

  3.5

  3.8

  3.8

  4.0

  4.0

  Featherstone

  5.9

  6.6

  6.7

  6.6

  6.2

  6.3

  Feltham

  5.7

  5.1

  4.5

  4.6

  4.6

  4.0

  Ford

  8.9

  11.4

  11.4

  12.1

  10.7

  11.6

  Frankland

  5.4

  5.9

  6.4

  6.5

  5.2

  6.0

  Full Sutton

  7.9

  7.8

  7.8

  7.7

  8.8

  7.9

  Garth

  6.1

  6.3

  6.0

  6.9

  6.3

  5.3

  Gartree

  n/a

  n/a

  8.5

  7.5

  9.1

  9.8

  Glen Parva

  5.9

  6.1

  6.2

  6.0

  6.0

  5.7

  Gloucester

  5.5

  5.5

  5.6

  5.6

  5.0

  5.5

  Grendon

  5.6

  5.9

  6.4

  4.8

  4.3

  4.8

  Guys Marsh

  10.9

  13.5

  14.0

  13.6

  8.3

  11.7

  Haslar

  12.4

  14.5

  11.3

  12.2

  9.5

  13.5

  Hatfield

  16.4

  15.1

  16.0

  18.3

  15.6

  13.8

  Haverigg

  7.3

  8.4

  7.8

  7.7

  7.9

  7.1

  Hewell Grange

  13.4

  15.6

  14.6

  4.9

  14.1

  12.4

  Highdown

  7.5

  7.2

  7.7

  7.1

  7.8

  7.2

  Highpoint

  5.7

  6.4

  6.2

  6.5

  3.9

  3.7

  Hindley

  8.0

  5.1

  4.5

  8.6

  10.3

  9.3

  Hollesley Bay

  6.8

  7.0

  8.1

  5.8

  5.7

  6.1

  Holloway

  6.6

  6.8

  6.1

  5.4

  6.5

  7.0

  Holme House

  6.5

  6.4

  6.1

  5.1

  6.0

  6.4

  Hull

  6.7

  7.6

  6.4

  8.0

  7.7

  7.1

  Huntercombe

  10.3

  13.5

  13.0

  13.1

  13.7

  11.5

  Kingston

  8.0

  8.1

  8.9

  8.8

  6.7

  8.8

  Kirkham

  7.5

  9.5

  10.2

  9.7

  8.8

  8.3

  Kirklevington

  7.6

  8.2

  7.4

  6.5

  6.9

  7.6

  Lancaster

  9.7

  10.0

  6.8

  11.4

  7.4

  10.3

  Lancaster Farms

  10.9

  12.0

  11.3

  11.6

  12.4

  10.6

  Latchmere House

  6.2

  7.2

  8.1

  6.5

  6.2

  6.0

  Leeds

  2.2

  2.6

  2.9

  2.0

  1.5

  2.4

  Leicester

  3.1

  3.9

  4.4

  4.5

  3.5

  4.8

  Lewes

  6.2

  6.9

  6.9

  6.6

  5.8

  6.0

  Leyhill

  5.5

  6.3

  6.4

  6.9

  7.5

  7.6

  Lincoln

  3.6

  3.7

  3.8

  4.0

  3.6

  2.6

  Lindholm

  9.5

  10.0

  10.3

  10.5

  10.9

  9.9

  Littlehey

  8.6

  9.9

  10.9

  10.3

  10.6

  10.0

  Liverpool

  2.7

  3.1

  2.6

  3.0

  2.7

  2.5

  Long Lartin

  7.6

  7.6

  8.3

  6.2

  5.5

  6.9

  Low Newton

  8.8

  9.1

  10.0

  10.2

  9.6

  9.1

  Maidstone

  6.7

  6.9

  7.9

  8.2

  7.4

  7.8

  Manchester

  1.2

  1.6

  1.7

  1.9

  1.8

  2.2

  Moorland

  7.0

  6.4

  7.3

  8.8

  6.8

  10.4

  Morton Hall

  14.2

  14.5

  14.3

  14.4

  15.5

  15.1

  Mount

  7.5

  8.2

  7.6

  8.0

  7.3

  6.4

  New Hall

  9.1

  8.8

  7.3

  7.6

  9.0

  6.9

  North Sea Camp

  11.2

  11.4

  11.5

  10.4

  10.5

  10.1

  Northallerton

  5.7

  6.9

  7.3

  6.6

  6.9

  7.1

  Norwich

  8.3

  8.4

  6.5

  5.4

  5.5

  4.5

  Nottingham

  9.7

  9.4

  9.7

  8.3

  9.2

  10.0

  Onley

  n/a

  7.6

  8.6

  9.4

  8.4

  8.5

  Parkhurst

  5.4

  5.1

  5.0

  5.8

  5.8

  5.8

  Pentonville

  2.3

  2.7

  2.3

  2.6

  2.4

  3.0

  Portland

  10.5

  12.4

  11.4

  12.3

  10.1

  10.6

  Prescoed

  15.6

  15.4

  15.6

  16.5

  13.5

  13.5

  Preston

  2.1

  3.0

  3.1

  3.0

  2.9

  2.8

  Ranby

  4.6

  6.6

  7.4

  7.7

  6.6

  7.3

  Reading

  9.2

  9.2

  8.5

  7.7

  8.4

  7.4

  Risley

  7.8

  8.6

  6.2

  8.0

  7.2

  6.5

  Rochester

  6.0

  6.0

  5.5

  7.7

  8.0

  6.6

  Send

  9.1

  10.7

  10.0

  9.5

  9.4

  8.5

  Shepton Mallet

  6.9

  8.9

  8.3

  9.0

  8.8

  9.2

  Shrewsbury

  7.0

  6.6

  5.9

  5.7

  3.6

  5.7

  Spring Hill

  6.9

  8.6

  8.3

  8.3

  6.3

  5.7

  Stafford

  7.1

  8.1

  7.2

  7.5

  7.4

  7.1

  Standford Hill

  7.3

  7.3

  8.4

  8.2

  6.7

  8.1

  Stocken

  10.0

  11.6

  10.0

  9.6

  9.7

  8.5

  Stoke Heath

  7.2

  7.6

  8.0

  8.7

  8.1

  7.5

  Styal

  4.3

  7.5

  7.8

  8.5

  7.4

  7.7

  Sudbury

  17.9

  19.9

  19.5

  20.6

  20.1

  18.1

  344 345

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison name

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Swaleside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Swansea

  3.8

  3.8

  3.9

  6.1

  3.7

  3.6

  Swinfen Hall

  8.6

  11.9

  12.4

  12.0

  9.9

  12.3

  Thorn Cross

  19.2

  20.1

  20.3

  19.6

  20.8

  19.5

  Usk

  10.9

  10.5

  11.2

  13.2

  11.9

  11.0

  Verne

  7.3

  8.5

  8.6

  8.4

  8.8

  8.8

  Wakefield

  6.0

  5.5

  6.1

  5.2

  3.8

  5.3

  Wandsworth

  2.8

  3.1

  2.0

  2.9

  3.0

  3.0

  Warren Hill

  9.8

  10.0

  11.1

  10.6

  8.8

  8.0

  Wayland

  9.3

  11.0

  11.2

  11.4

  10.8

  10.2

  Wealstun Closed

  11.1

  11.0

  11.5

  11.7

  10.3

  8.8

  Wealstun Open

  6.5

  8.0

  7.9

  8.4

  8.2

  9.0

  Wellingborough

  13.3

  14.3

  14.6

  14.2

  12.5

  11.7

  Werrington

  17.9

  15.5

  16.8

  16.7

  15.5

  17.9

  Wetherby

  15.5

  15.8

  17.2

  19.2

  18.9

  18.5

  Whatton

  14.3

  13.0

  13.8

  11.3

  12.5

  14.2

  Whitemoor

  7.7

  7.3

  7.5

  6.9

  5.8

  6.1

  Winchester

  3.0

  4.5

  4.1

  3.2

  4.9

  3.5

  Wolds

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Woodhill

  5.2

  5.6

  6.1

  6.3

  6.2

  5.8

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  1.6

  2.3

  2.3

  2.4

  1.2

  2.4

  Wymott

  6.4

  6.9

  7.2

  7.4

  7.1

  7.7

  (b) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner by type for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison type

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Category B

  6.6

  7.2

  7.1

  7.3

  6.6

  6.9

  Category C

  8.5

  9.6

  9.7

  9.8

  9.6

  9.1

  Dispersal

  6.9

  7.2

  7.4

  7.5

  8.8

  7.1

  Female closed

  7.4

  9.2

  9.2

  8.8

  9.0

  9.5

  Female local

  6.3

  6.4

  7.8

  7.3

  6.1

  6.9

  Female open

  8.9

  10.1

  10.0

  10.8

  9.7

  10.0

  Male closed young offender

  9.5

  10.4

  10.7

  10.7

  10.2

  10.3

  Male juvenile institution

  18.2

  20.8

  18.1

  20.2

  19.5

  17.3

  Male local

  4.8

  4.8

  4.9

  5.0

  4.6

  4.6

  Male open

  10.0

  11.4

  12.2

  11.8

  10.9

  10.9

  Male open young offender

  16.2

  16.5

  16.9

  17.3

  16.6

  17.5

  Male remand centre

  8.6

  9.0

  8.9

  8.7

  8.6

  8.8

  Prison type

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Category B

  7.1

  7.4

  6.2

  7.2

  7.1

  7.2

  Category C

  9.6

  9.8

  8.1

  9.0

  9.6

  9.4

  Dispersal

  7.3

  6.8

  5.6

  7.0

  7.2

  7.0

  Female closed

  8.2

  8.8

  6.9

  7.0

  8.0

  8.5

  Female local

  6.8

  5.7

  5.5

  6.6

  6.7

  6.5

  Female open

  10.9

  10.5

  7.8

  10.7

  11.7

  10.0

  Male closed young offender

  10.7

  10.9

  9.1

  10.5

  10.6

  10.5

  Male juvenile institution

  20.1

  20.3

  18.6

  19.1

  17.9

  17.9

  Male local

  4.8

  4.7

  3.9

  4.7

  4.8

  4.8

  Male open

  11.8

  11.6

  9.6

  11.7

  11.6

  11.9

  Male open young offender

  16.2

  18.6

  17.0

  19.4

  18.7

  19.0

  Male remand centre

  9.0

  8.7

  7.3

  8.3

  8.2

  8.8

  Prison Type

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Category B

  6.0

  6.1

  6.3

  6.6

  6.3

  6.2

  Category C

  7.8

  8.7

  8.5

  8.8

  8.3

  8.2

  Dispersal

  6.9

  6.7

  7.1

  6.5

  5.8

  6.4

  Female closed

  7.9

  9.5

  9.5

  9.7

  8.0

  8.3

  Female local

  7.7

  7.6

  6.8

  6.5

  7.5

  7.5

  Female open

  8.4

  10.0

  9.1

  9.0

  8.4

  8.9

  Male closed young offender

  8.8

  9.8

  10.0

  10.2

  9.3

  9.5

  Male juvenile institution

  17.9

  15.5

  16.8

  16.7

  15.5

  17.9

  346 347

  Prison Type

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Male local

  4.0

  4.3

  4.2

  4.2

  4.0

  4.0

  Male open

  9.6

  11.0

  11.2

  10.7

  10.7

  10.4

  Male open young offender

  17.5

  17.4

  17.7

  18.6

  18.0

  16.5

  Male remand centre

  7.6

  7.4

  7.0

  7.5

  7.8

  7.0

  (c) Average weekly hours spent in education per prisoner for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97

  Month

  Education hours per inmate

  April 1995

  7.2

  May 1995

  7.7

  June 1995

  7.8

  July 1995

  7.9

  August 1995

  7.6

  September 1995

  7.4

  October 1995

  7.7

  November 1995

  7.7

  December 1995

  6.4

  January 1996

  7.4

  February 1996

  7.6

  March 1996

  7.7

  April 1996

  6.6

  May 1996

  7.1

  June 1996

  7.1

  July 1996

  7.1

  August 1996

  6.7

  September 1996

  6.7

  Prison Behaviour Programmes
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the average number of prisoners(a) taking part in and (b) completing offending behaviour programmes in each month of the financial year 1995–96 and each available month so far during 1996–97 (i) in each prison, (ii) by prison type and (iii) in the whole Prison Service; [9677]

  (2) if he will list the average number of prisoners (a) taking part in and (b) completing sex offender treatment programmes in each month of the financial year 1995–96 and each available month so far during 1996–97 (i) in each prison, (ii) by prison type and (iii) in the whole Prison Service; [9679]

  (3) if he will list the average amount of time prisoners on such programmes spent in sex offender treatment programmes in each month of the financial year 1995–96 and each available month so far during 1996–97 (a) in each prison, (b) by prison type and (c) in the whole Prison Service; [9678]

  (4) if he will list the average amount of time prisoners on such programmes spent in offending behaviour programmes in each month of the financial year 1995–96 and each available month so far during 1996–97 (a) in each prison, (b) by prison type and (c) in the whole Prison Service. [9676]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  348
  Letter from A.J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your Questions about how many prisoners have completed (a) offending behaviour programmes, (b) sex offender programmes for each month in 1995–96 and for this financial year so far and the average amount of time spent on these programmes.
  You asked for this information for each prison, by prison type and for the whole of the Prison Service. I am afraid this information is not available in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
  However for the year ending 31 March 1996, 406 prisoners completed the core module 3 of the sex offender treatment programme (SOTP). A further 33 completed the SOTP booster programme (designed for men about to be released from very long sentences).
  746 prisoners completed cognitive skills programmes, 115 of these completed the reasoning and rehabilitation programme and 631 the in-house thinking skills.
  In order to meet the criteria set for programmes to be accredited the standards of existing programmes have had to be improved. The Sex Offender Core Programme was revised during 1995 from 70 to 180 hours and the length of the Thinking Skills programme was increased from 28 hours to 40 hours from April 1996.
  I attach two tables containing information received from establishments which indicate the number of prisoners completing each of the accredited programmes so far this financial year, the programme length and the type of establishments running these programmes. There are a number of courses in progress which are not included in these figures.
  There are other offending behaviour programmes run in prisons according to prisoners need and the skills of staff available to deliver them. These are not recorded centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Completions of the SOTP core programme from April to November 1996 by establishment and establishment type

  Number

  Young offenders institution

  Castington

  7

  Feltham

  16

  Total

  23

  Category C

  Acklington

  15

  Channings Wood

  16

  Littlehey

  21

  Risley

  8

  Rochester

  5

  Usk

  21

  Wayland

  24

  Whatton

  36

  Wymott

  13

  Total

  159

  Local

  Wandsworth

  21

  Woodhill

  7

  Total

  28

  349

  Completions of the SOTP core programme from April to November 1996 by establishment and establishment type

  Number

  Category B/dispersal

  Albany

  14

  Dartmoor

  20

  Frankland

  7

  Maidstone

  14

  Wakefield

  12

  Whitemoor

  11

  Total

  78

  Grand total

  288

  The Core programme consists, on average, of 180 hours session time.

  Completions of the SOTP booster (replapse prevention) programme from April to November 1996 by establishment and establishment type

  Number

  Category D

  Leyhill

  20

  Total

  20

  Category C

  Channings Wood

  8

  Wymott

  7

  Total

  15

  Grand total

  35

  The Booster programme consists, on average, of 60 hours session time.

  Completions of the enhanced thinking skills programme from April to Novembr 1996 by establishment and establishment type

  Number

  Young offenders institution

  Feltham

  9

  Lancaster Farms

  43

  Moorland

  15

  Thorn Cross

  43

  Total

  110

  Category C

  Blantyre House

  18

  Total

  18

  Local

  Bedford

  7

  Brixton

  40

  High Down

  33

  Pentonville

  6

  Wandsworth

  20

  350

  Completions of the enhanced thinking skills programme from April to Novembr 1996 by establishment and establishment type

  Number

  Wormwood Scrubs

  30

  Total

  136

  Category B/dispersal

  Albany

  15

  Dartmoor

  17

  Long Lartin

  7

  Wakefield

  15

  Whitemoor

  25

  Total

  79

  Grand total

  343

  The enhanced thinking skills programme consists, on average, of 40 hours session time.

  Completions of the reasoning and reasoning and rehabilitation programme from April to November 1996 by establishmentand establishment type

  Number

  Young offenders institution

  Aylesbury

  16

  Brinsford

  9

  Swinfen Hall

  12

  Total

  37

  Female

  Holloway

  12

  Total

  12

  Category D

  Spring Hill

  7

  Total

  7

  Category C

  Featherstone

  11

  Wymott

  10

  Total

  21

  Local

  Wolds

  26

  Total

  26

  Category B/Dispersal

  Full Sutton

  21

  Total

  21

  Grand total

  124

  The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Programme consists, on average, of 70 hours session time.

  Sex Offences
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the current maximum penalties for sex offences. [11766]

  Mr. Howard
  I have decided, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to undertake a review of the existing maximum penalties for sex offenders. The object of the review will be to identify any anomalies in existing penalties, and to ensure that penalties properly reflect the comparative gravity of different offences.

  Prison Medical Service
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the merits of privatising the prison medical service. [10450]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to privatise the prison health care service. We are committed to pursuing a policy where health care for prisoners will be purchased from the national health service or the private sector, rather than be provided directly, where this makes sense in terms of a better level of service and better value for money.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the estimated(a) set up and (b) monthly and annual running costs of the helpline to be introduced for employers regarding the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. [10667]

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Acklington

  24.0

  26.3

  26.0

  26.0

  23.4

  21.4

  Albany

  24.7

  25.7

  26.5

  26.1

  25.1

  20.8

  Aldington

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ashwell

  31.6

  33.4

  33.4

  34.9

  33.8

  32.6

  Askham Grange

  40.4

  38.1

  40.8

  40.6

  41.7

  38.9

  Aylesbury

  26.2

  26.5

  24.9

  26.9

  24.1

  26.8

  Bedford

  24.6

  25.3

  25.7

  26.2

  26.7

  26.3

  Belmarsh

  15.9

  15.7

  15.6

  16.2

  15.6

  16.2

  Birmingham

  17.6

  18.7

  19.6

  19.6

  18.3

  16.1

  Blakenhurst

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Blantyre House

  30.8

  31.2

  33.2

  35.5

  33.8

  33.2

  Blundeston

  21.8

  22.4

  21.2

  22.5

  21.1

  20.4

  Brinsford

  23.6

  23.1

  22.1

  22.6

  22.0

  21.4

  Bristol

  21.2

  23.7

  21.9

  22.7

  20.6

  21.0

  Brixton

  7.8

  8.3

  7.1

  7.3

  7.9

  7.8

  Brockhill

  33.4

  34.6

  35.2

  34.4

  35.1

  34.9

  Buckley Hall

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bullingdon

  27.4

  30.5

  29.4

  30.1

  27.3

  25.7

  Bullwood Hall

  28.6

  30.6

  30.2

  31.2

  29.3

  29.0

  Camp Hill

  27.4

  28.6

  27.6

  29.0

  29.4

  29.1

  Canterbury

  25.6

  24.7

  24.8

  26.0

  23.3

  24.9

  Cardiff

  19.2

  21.0

  23.3

  17.3

  20.0

  22.1

  Castington

  23.6

  24.9

  24.4

  24.5

  25.1

  24.6

  Channings Wood

  24.3

  27.3

  29.3

  30.6

  30.1

  29.7

  Chelmsford

  15.9

  14.7

  15.5

  16.1

  16.7

  17.2

  Coldingley

  22.9

  26.3

  27.0

  27.8

  27.6

  26.8

  Cookham Wood

  14.9

  15.2

  15.7

  16.1

  15.6

  13.6

  Dartmoor

  21.7

  23.0

  22.6

  22.5

  22.6

  21.9

  Deerbolt

  20.9

  21.5

  24.7

  25.4

  24.1

  22.6

  Doncaster

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  352
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The cost of setting up the helpline for employers about section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 was approximately £23,000. The annual running costs would be approximately £3,500.

  Prisoners (Purposeful Activity)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the average amount of time prisoners spent in purposeful activity in each month of the financial year 1995–96 and each available month so far during 1996–97(a) in each prison, (b) by prison type and (c) in the whole Prison Service. [9674]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. George Howarth, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question asking for the average amount of time prisoners spent in purposeful activity in each month of the financial year 1995–96 and each month so far during 1996–97 (a) in each prison, (b) by prison type and (c) in the whole Prison Service.
  The attached tables summarise the average number of hours per week that prisoners spent in purposeful activity from April 1995 to September 1996, by prison, by prison type and in the whole Prison Service. I have arranged for copies of the tables to be placed in the Library.
  353

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Dorchester

  19.1

  22.4

  22.1

  22.4

  21.1

  21.0

  Dover

  22.5

  23.9

  24.5

  23.1

  23.5

  24.5

  Downview

  26.8

  30.2

  30.2

  30.5

  30.8

  30.3

  Drake Hall

  34.5

  36.1

  38.0

  39.8

  40.2

  37.9

  Durham

  14.2

  18.5

  19.2

  20.1

  18.9

  20.0

  East Sutton Park

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Eastwood Park

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Elmley

  21.1

  23.0

  23.0

  23.2

  23.4

  24.8

  Erlestoke

  28.7

  32.1

  33.0

  32.6

  33.5

  33.1

  Everthorpe

  29.4

  32.8

  30.2

  30.2

  29.8

  31.1

  Exeter

  22.7

  24.3

  23.9

  23.0

  22.8

  21.41

  Featherstone

  26.6

  27.5

  27.7

  27.8

  27.5

  27.1

  Feltham

  26.1

  26.3

  25.7

  24.3

  23.0

  22.6

  Ford

  32.1

  35.4

  39.3

  39.8

  36.9

  36.4

  Frankland

  19.3

  21.1

  20.5

  20.2

  19.2

  20.3

  Full Sutton

  25.1

  24.3

  26.3

  26.4

  25.0

  24.5

  Garth

  21.0

  21.2

  19.4

  22.3

  18.0

  19.7

  Gartree

  26.1

  25.7

  26.9

  26.0

  27.5

  27.9

  Glen Parva

  20.1

  22.4

  21.8

  22.4

  21.1

  20.6

  Gloucester

  20.1

  20.0

  21.5

  22.4

  23.6

  20.7

  Grendon

  30.3

  29.5

  28.9

  29.7

  29.8

  31.5

  Guys Marsh

  40.6

  37.9

  37.7

  37.1

  37.3

  35.2

  Haslar

  26.4

  32.9

  30.2

  30.3

  27.2

  31.4

  Hatfield

  36.7

  38.2

  38.8

  40.3

  39.2

  38.9

  Haverigg

  31.1

  36.2

  35.0

  36.9

  36.5

  35.3

  Hewell Grange

  42.6

  43.3

  43.3

  44.7

  45.8

  43.4

  Highdown

  17.9

  18.1

  20.6

  20.2

  21.2

  20.5

  Highpoint

  24.6

  26.0

  25.1

  26.1

  26.9

  25.4

  Hindley

  23.0

  23.8

  22.4

  22.9

  23.3

  23.9

  Hollesley Bay

  25.1

  25.9

  26.6

  25.6

  25.4

  25.7

  Holloway

  18.2

  18.1

  19.3

  18.4

  17.1

  17.1

  Holme House

  15.0

  15.4

  16.2

  15.4

  16.4

  16.3

  Hull

  21.1

  24.3

  23.8

  25.1

  24,.4

  23.8

  Huntercombe

  21.7

  23.9

  25.5

  25.9

  26.2

  24.6

  Kingston

  28.0

  32.5

  30.7

  27.8

  34.6

  32.8

  Kirkham

  46.0

  46.8

  50.5

  49.8

  51.4

  48.1

  Kirklevington

  45.6

  47.1

  45.4

  45.2

  47.3

  44.8

  Lancaster

  23.9

  27.3

  27.0

  26.5

  25.2

  25.9

  Lancaster Farms

  22.4

  23.2

  26.6

  25.8

  25.5

  26.2

  Latchmere House

  55.6

  57.4

  56.7

  59.1

  58.8

  56.0

  Leeds

  14.2

  14.8

  14.6

  14.6

  13.9

  14.0

  Leicester

  22.9

  22.8

  24.7

  23.8

  24.6

  22.8

  Lewes

  21.6

  21.6

  21.8

  22.8

  21.6

  21.8

  Leyhill

  36.8

  38.0

  39.4

  39.9

  39.6

  38.4

  Lincoln

  18.1

  20.5

  19.0

  21.0

  20.5

  20.9

  Lindholme

  27.3

  28.2

  29.8

  27.8

  28.8

  28.3

  Littlehey

  29.7

  33.3

  32.8

  33.5

  31.9

  31.5

  Liverpool

  14.4

  16.2

  16.0

  16.7

  17.2

  17.5

  Long Lartin

  22.5

  20.3

  21.1

  21.3

  22.6

  22.9

  Low Newton

  21.2

  21.1

  22.7

  21.0

  21.3

  23.1

  Maidstone

  22.4

  24.2

  24.1

  26.0

  22.0

  22.1

  Manchester

  21.5

  22.4

  21.8

  22.9

  21.8

  22.2

  Moorland

  24.1

  26.3

  26.5

  26.1

  25.6

  24.6

  Morton Hall

  39.6

  43.3

  41.2

  43.7

  43.8

  44.2

  Mount

  24.0

  26.9

  26.4

  24.9

  27.5

  27.8

  New Hall

  25.9

  25.3

  32.2

  33.0

  31.4

  30.7

  North Sea Camp

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Northallerton

  22.2

  23.9

  21.9

  21.7

  21.6

  22.6

  Norwich

  24.4

  25.4

  24.2

  21.6

  19.4

  21.2

  Nottingham

  20.9

  24.0

  25.1

  24.8

  24.6

  25.4

  Onley

  21.6

  20.5

  23.1

  23.5

  21.8

  21.9

  Parkhurst

  13.4

  13.2

  16.5

  16.0

  16.3

  15.9

  Pentonville

  25.4

  10.8

  15.0

  13.9

  13.6

  13.0

  Portland

  23.8

  27.5

  28.7

  30.3

  29.2

  28.5

  Prescoed

  43.5

  47.1

  47.4

  44.6

  45.7

  44.5

  Preston

  18.7

  19.7

  20.3

  20.6

  20.7

  20.8

  Ranby

  31.2

  33.6

  33.7

  34.4

  34.1

  31.4

  Reading

  31.9

  34.0

  30.7

  30.5

  27.9

  29.5

  Risley

  26.8

  29.4

  29.3

  29.4

  29.9

  28.2

  Rochester

  23.2

  25.3

  25.1

  27.0

  25.1

  26.8

  354 355

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Send

  31.4

  31.6

  32.7

  33.9

  34.5

  32.8

  Shepton Mallet

  24.4

  25.3

  28.3

  29.1

  27.5

  25.1

  Shewsbury

  19.0

  20.5

  20.3

  21.4

  19.3

  21.9

  Spring Hill

  36.2

  35.2

  37.0

  37.0

  37.6

  36.8

  Stafford

  27.5

  30.4

  29.5

  29.7

  28.3

  24.8

  Standford Hill

  41.2

  41.6

  45.0

  46.0

  44.7

  44.8

  Stocken

  32.7

  33.4

  33.0

  32.8

  31.6

  32.9

  Stoke Heath

  26.2

  27.5

  26.5

  26.7

  27.0

  27.6

  Styal

  33.1

  34.9

  34.2

  34.7

  33.5

  37.4

  Sudbury

  49.0

  47.0

  50.4

  49.3

  52.8

  49.0

  Swaleside

  18.8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Swansea

  21.2

  21.9

  21.2

  19.0

  18.7

  19.8

  Swinfen Hall

  30.0

  30.0

  30.7

  27.4

  31.7

  30.1

  Thorn Cross

  43.5

  39.5

  47.6

  49.7

  49.6

  47.3

  Usk

  30.6

  33.5

  31.8

  32.9

  34.1

  32.2

  Verne

  30.0

  30.3

  31.4

  31.5

  31.9

  32.3

  Wakefield

  18.8

  21.6

  21.3

  21.4

  27.1

  19.6

  Wandsworth

  23.4

  22.1

  23.9

  24.7

  22.9

  21.8

  Warren Hill

  37.2

  38.3

  41.4

  40.0

  36.0

  37.2

  Wayland

  23.8

  24.8

  27.1

  27.7

  27.2

  25.4

  Wealstun Closed

  31.8

  31.6

  30.9

  33.5

  32.2

  28.4

  Wealstun Open

  42.9

  36.0

  42.4

  42.0

  41.7

  43.7

  Wellingborough

  26.6

  31.6

  29.9

  32.4

  29.8

  27.2

  Werrington

  39.6

  44.8

  41.5

  43.9

  43.2

  41.8

  Wetherby

  36.4

  38.0

  39.0

  37.0

  38.3

  37.0

  Whatton

  30.3

  32.3

  33.1

  31.1

  32.1

  32.8

  Whitemoor

  19.1

  19.9

  20.5

  22.5

  22.0

  21.2

  Winchester

  21.8

  22.0

  21.9

  22.8

  21.5

  18.7

  Wolds

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Woodhill

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23.2

  23.6

  n/a

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  21.5

  22.3

  20.3

  21.7

  18.3

  17.2

  Wymott

  34.6

  37.0

  37.5

  37.7

  39.1

  38.0

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Acklington

  27.6

  28.8

  23.7

  26.5

  27.6

  29.0

  Albany

  26.1

  26.8

  23.7

  22.0

  22.4

  24.9

  Aldington

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Ashwell

  33.5

  34.1

  30.4

  34.4

  33.8

  33.4

  Askham Grange

  40.3

  39.2

  29.1

  37.4

  32.4

  36.3

  Aylesbury

  26.7

  27.9

  24.4

  26.6

  27.1

  25.8

  Bedford

  26.9

  26.8

  26.6

  29.5

  28.7

  28.1

  Belmarsh

  16.1

  15.4

  15.2

  15.6

  16.1

  16.6

  Birmingham

  16.4

  14.2

  13.3

  15.6

  15.7

  13.4

  Blakenhurst

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Blantyre House

  34.5

  34.6

  29.1

  33.9

  34.6

  36.2

  Blundeston

  20.5

  21.2

  19.9

  21.8

  22.2

  22.1

  Brinsford

  21.5

  20.6

  20.2

  21.5

  20.0

  21.2

  Bristol

  20.4

  20.5

  19.9

  19.6

  20.0

  20.9

  Brixton

  8.3

  8.4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Brockhill

  36.1

  35.9

  32.2

  35.3

  35.0

  35.0

  Buckley Hall

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Bullingdon

  27.7

  28.4

  24.9

  24.7

  27.8

  29.9

  Bullwood Hall

  30.2

  29.2

  25.1

  25.6

  26.4

  30.0

  Camp Hill

  27.7

  29.7

  28.4

  26.7

  30.4

  27.9

  Canterbury

  25.0

  21.1

  22.1

  24.8

  22.4

  24.2

  Cardiff

  25.3

  25.6

  24.8

  25.9

  26.3

  27.3

  Castington

  25.7

  26.9

  21.5

  23.7

  24.6

  24.0

  Channings Wood

  30.8

  30.5

  24.8

  27.6

  28.8

  28.1

  Chelmsford

  15.2

  14.8

  14.6

  16.0

  17.1

  18.7

  Coldingley

  30.1

  29.2

  27.8

  28.2

  33.0

  31.7

  Cookham Wood

  13.3

  14.5

  12.4

  14.0

  14.5

  14.4

  Dartmoor

  21.1

  23.4

  19.4

  20.9

  20.6

  18.7

  Deerbolt

  20.8

  22.2

  19.3

  24.2

  24.2

  23.2

  Doncaster

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Dorchester

  21.5

  21.6

  19.9

  23.2

  20.1

  20.6

  Dover

  26.4

  28.5

  26.5

  28.5

  28.0

  27.8

  356 357

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Downview

  30.3

  26.8

  25.6

  26.6

  28.6

  29.4

  Drake Hall

  40.2

  39.3

  35.7

  37.1

  39.0

  39.1

  Durham

  20.4

  19.1

  18.7

  19.9

  20.4

  20.4

  East Sutton Park

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Eastwood Park

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Elmley

  22.1

  20.6

  18.2

  19.9

  19.4

  19.1

  Erlestoke

  31.5

  31.8

  26.7

  28.9

  31.5

  31.0

  Everthorpe

  31.6

  31.0

  27.3

  28.9

  30.0

  27.3

  Exeter

  21.3

  21.9

  20.0

  20.2

  20.1

  21.0

  Featherstone

  29.5

  29.8

  26.7

  27.8

  27.5

  26.7

  Feltham

  23.5

  23.9

  21.6

  22.4

  22.6

  21.6

  Ford

  36.8

  35.9

  30.8

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Frankland

  19.6

  18.9

  16.2

  13.9

  19.4

  17.3

  Full Sutton

  26.2

  22.8

  21.5

  24.4

  23.9

  24.2

  Garth

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Gartree

  28.4

  27.9

  25.3

  26.0

  26.3

  26.6

  Glen Parva

  22.1

  21.1

  20.7

  22.5

  21.9

  20.7

  Gloucester

  22.8

  22.6

  23.3

  23.0

  23.2

  21.7

  Grendon

  32.4

  32.7

  29.5

  31.1

  n/a

  n/a

  Guys Marsh

  35.1

  33.8

  33.0

  32.4

  35.6

  34.3

  Haslar

  34.6

  34.2

  28.7

  27.9

  30.3

  30.9

  Hatfield

  38.7

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Haverigg

  37.2

  36.3

  33.1

  35.1

  34.3

  35.8

  Hewell Grange

  44.6

  45.3

  38.9

  40.7

  42.9

  46.9

  Highdown

  22.4

  21.8

  17.3

  19.5

  20.4

  21.2

  Highpoint

  19.8

  20.1

  17.6

  19.1

  19.4

  19.5

  Hindley

  22.8

  21.5

  18.9

  21.8

  21.5

  21.9

  Hollesley Bay

  28.2

  26.6

  24.3

  24.6

  25.8

  27.7

  Holloway

  15.7

  14.4

  15.4

  19.0

  20.1

  20.5

  Holme House

  14.9

  14.1

  15.3

  15.6

  15.7

  15.5

  Hull

  23.6

  24.2

  21.9

  23.7

  24.3

  24.5

  Huntercombe

  26.0

  24.0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Kingston

  35.6

  33.4

  30.2

  32.0

  33.4

  33.6

  Kirkham

  52.3

  50.3

  46.8

  49.3

  50.7

  48.7

  Kirklevington

  45.1

  44.4

  42.1

  42.7

  45.2

  45.0

  Lancaster

  27.3

  28.6

  23.5

  26.0

  22.8

  25.7

  Lancaster Farms

  25.2

  25.9

  22.9

  23.8

  23.8

  26.4

  Latchmere House

  58.1

  61.3

  66.8

  66.3

  70.0

  73.2

  Leeds

  14.3

  14.9

  16.5

  16.2

  15.5

  15.9

  Leicester

  23.0

  24.2

  24.5

  24.9

  26.8

  23.7

  Lewes

  22.4

  22.2

  21.7

  21.2

  21.9

  22.6

  Leyhill

  39.7

  39.7

  37.0

  35.1

  39.9

  40.5

  Lincoln

  21.9

  21.2

  20.8

  20.8

  21.4

  20.9

  Lindholme

  29.1

  28.2

  25.2

  26.5

  27.8

  27.8

  Littlehey

  32.7

  33.5

  30.7

  30.1

  33.0

  34.1

  Liverpool

  19.0

  19.8

  16.7

  18.6

  20.0

  20.8

  Long Lartin

  22.2

  20.3

  18.9

  20.2

  21.7

  21.6

  Low Newton

  23.0

  23.2

  18.7

  21.3

  22.2

  23.8

  Maidstone

  22.0

  22.7

  20.2

  22.0

  22.0

  22.6

  Manchester

  23.8

  21.7

  21.5

  21.8

  20.1

  20.3

  Moorland

  25.0

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Morton Hall

  44.6

  45.1

  34.4

  44.7

  40.5

  44.1

  Mount

  29.3

  29.3

  27.4

  28.0

  25.6

  27.0

  New Hall

  29.8

  33.2

  29.6

  28.9

  30.2

  n/a

  North Sea Camp

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Northallerton

  24.5

  24.2

  22.2

  22.8

  22.0

  21.2

  Norwich

  21.8

  20.9

  20.1

  23.0

  19.5

  20.9

  Nottingham

  25.7

  24.1

  23.8

  27.8

  26.9

  29.2

  Onley

  21.9

  23.9

  19.2

  21.9

  22.8

  21.3

  Parkhurst

  16.1

  17.0

  15.5

  16.8

  17.0

  17.4

  Pentonville

  13.5

  13.7

  12.9

  13.1

  13.0

  14.1

  Portland

  28.9

  29.8

  25.8

  27.1

  28.6

  26.3

  Prescoed

  44.5

  46.6

  40.2

  43.6

  41.9

  42.8

  Preston

  20.2

  20.6

  20.6

  20.8

  20.4

  20.9

  Ranby

  32.7

  33.6

  31.3

  12.7

  33.7

  29.8

  Reading

  29.3

  30.8

  29.8

  32.6

  33.2

  31.0

  Risley

  29.7

  29.4

  26.8

  29.4

  29.8

  29.0

  Rochester

  23.6

  22.6

  23.4

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Send

  34.7

  33.5

  28.9

  31.2

  34.3

  34.1

  Shepton Mallet

  27.2

  26.5

  24.9

  26.4

  24.5

  25.3

  Shrewsbury

  20.0

  21.6

  19.8

  20.6

  20.5

  23.2

  Spring Hill

  40.0

  39.4

  32.8

  39.3

  n/a

  n/a

  Stafford

  24.6

  27.3

  22.5

  27.3

  27.5

  28.8

  358 359

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1995–96

  Prison name

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Standford Hill

  46.8

  43.2

  42.6

  43.0

  43.2

  45.9

  Stocken

  34.3

  33.9

  34.7

  24.6

  33.4

  n/a

  Stoke Heath

  28.6

  27.1

  26.1

  27.1

  27.2

  29.3

  Styal

  34.9

  36.2

  31.1

  31.2

  34.5

  31.5

  Sudbury

  50.6

  49.2

  47.8

  47.9

  48.8

  50.7

  Swaleside

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Swansea

  17.5

  16.1

  15.6

  17.2

  18.1

  19.4

  Swinfen Hall

  30.9

  31.0

  24.9

  25.0

  28.3

  29.0

  Thorn Cross

  47.2

  45.0

  45.2

  49.6

  46.9

  47.2

  Usk

  33.6

  33.4

  30.9

  31.0

  31.0

  31.4

  Verne

  33.1

  31.4

  28.4

  29.0

  31.0

  n/a

  Wakefield

  21.1

  21.4

  18.1

  19.5

  18.7

  19.5

  Wandsworth

  21.7

  22.7

  21.9

  23.9

  25.1

  26.0

  Warren Hill

  36.9

  35.2

  34.7

  35.0

  37.6

  36.4

  Wayland

  27.6

  27.3

  24.2

  26.6

  25.7

  27.4

  Wealstun Closed

  37.7

  37.2

  33.8

  35.7

  36.6

  35.3

  Wealstun Open

  43.9

  44.9

  41.8

  46.7

  44.8

  45.7

  Wellingborough

  29.6

  29.5

  26.0

  28.1

  27.3

  27.1

  Werrington

  40.8

  41.7

  37.9

  40.0

  42.2

  40.6

  Wetherby

  37.7

  38.2

  33.8

  37.7

  39.8

  37.6

  Whatton

  33.8

  34.5

  27.5

  31.2

  33.9

  34.8

  Whitemoor

  21.1

  19.5

  17.9

  20.7

  17.2

  21.8

  Winchester

  19.6

  19.4

  18.2

  19.2

  19.5

  19.7

  Wolds

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Woodhill

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  23.4

  25.0

  26.4

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  20.4

  20.1

  6.8

  20.5

  19.6

  n/a

  Wymott

  37.7

  37.7

  36.0

  36.7

  37.8

  38.6

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison name

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Acklington

  25.7

  27.0

  27.8

  28.5

  26.2

  25.8

  Albany

  18.0

  18.0

  14.6

  20.8

  20.1

  18.9

  Aldington

  29.8

  28.9

  25.3

  32.1

  30.8

  29.4

  Ashwell

  30.3

  32.5

  33.3

  33.0

  34.3

  33.1

  Askham Grange

  40.2

  38.9

  40.4

  39.2

  39.9

  44.0

  Aylesbury

  25.6

  26.7

  26.3

  25.8

  25.5

  26.6

  Bedford

  25.7

  26.4

  26.9

  27.5

  26.4

  26.8

  Belmarsh

  14.8

  16.1

  14.6

  14.1

  13.2

  12.6

  Birmingham

  16.0

  14.1

  12.6

  11.9

  12.8

  12.1

  Blakenhurst

  24.4

  24.5

  24.2

  24.2

  24.1

  23.1

  Blantyre House

  33.5

  34.0

  34.2

  36.0

  34.8

  34.8

  Blundeston

  20.2

  21.1

  21.3

  21.7

  22.7

  22.4

  Brinsford

  18.9

  18.7

  18.0

  18.1

  17.6

  15.8

  Bristol

  18.6

  20.1

  18.8

  19.5

  18.4

  17.7

  Brixton

  17.1

  11.6

  16.1

  15.6

  14.7

  15.2

  Brockhill

  33.6

  35.4

  35.6

  37.4

  36.0

  27.2

  Buckley Hall

  25.8

  28.4

  28.4

  29.0

  29.6

  28.1

  Bullingdon

  24.2

  26.2

  26.1

  28.0

  25.3

  22.6

  Bullwood Hall

  29.0

  29.0

  28.4

  28.2

  21.6

  26.3

  Camp Hill

  26.6

  27.7

  27.3

  29.2

  26.6

  26.4

  Canterbury

  24.2

  23.3

  23.3

  23.1

  19.0

  20.3

  Cardiff

  24.3

  25.4

  23.4

  26.0

  23.4

  22.4

  Castington

  20.5

  23.3

  22.8

  21.8

  21.7

  21.8

  Channings Wood

  24.0

  26.0

  27.4

  27.6

  27.4

  25.5

  Chelmsford

  17.5

  18.0

  20.5

  21.3

  20.1

  19.3

  Cordingley

  32.4

  32.7

  35.7

  34.8

  31.9

  33.9

  Cookham Wood

  26.3

  28.4

  28.2

  27.8

  26.9

  23.9

  Dartmoor

  18.8

  20.1

  19.6

  20.9

  20.8

  19.7

  Deerbolt

  20.5

  19.0

  21.8

  22.4

  23.5

  23.0

  Doncaster

  27.3

  28.5

  28.1

  28.6

  30.4

  22.9

  Dorchester

  20.3

  21.6

  21.4

  15.6

  22.0

  21.1

  Dover

  24.5

  26.6

  23.4

  24.5

  24.7

  25.1

  Downview

  26.3

  29.5

  32.0

  30.4

  31.3

  30.0

  Drake Hall

  36.3

  37.3

  37.2

  36.7

  36.8

  35.7

  Durham

  15.8

  21.3

  20.1

  18.6

  18.6

  18.2

  East Sutton Park

  32.8

  35.9

  37.6

  37.5

  39.3

  35.8

  Eastwood Park

  22.5

  22.8

  23.4

  23.1

  21.3

  23.5

  Elmley

  16.6

  18.8

  18.4

  21.0

  21.0

  21.0

  Erlestoke

  27.5

  29.7

  29.4

  31.7

  28.6

  28.9

  360 361

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison name

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Everthorpe

  21.5

  23.9

  23.2

  24.1

  24.9

  23.1

  Exeter

  18.6

  19.9

  19.5

  19.2

  19.9

  20.1

  Featherstone

  24.9

  25.7

  25.7

  26.3

  25.1

  23.6

  Feltham

  22.7

  21.4

  19.9

  14.8

  14.9

  18.2

  Ford

  32.9

  37.3

  36.6

  38.6

  36.1

  36.4

  Frankland

  15.7

  18.9

  19.3

  20.7

  18.9

  18.5

  Full Sutton

  21.2

  24.7

  23.9

  23.9

  23.9

  23.5

  Garth

  19.6

  20.7

  20.5

  21.2

  19.8

  16.5

  Gartree

  n/a

  n/a

  21.8

  22.1

  25.9

  26.9

  Glen Parva

  20.3

  20.6

  20.0

  19.2

  18.9

  18.4

  Gloucester

  24.4

  23.7

  24.1

  22.4

  22.3

  23.3

  Grendon

  28.9

  30.2

  30.9

  28.3

  24.0

  28.1

  Guys Marsh

  31.2

  32.6

  33.4

  34.6

  19.9

  30.5

  Haslar

  28.8

  29.0

  26.6

  28.1

  23.8

  28.0

  Hatfield

  37.8

  38.7

  39.6

  42.3

  40.3

  38.7

  Haverigg

  33.8

  36.1

  36.4

  37.9

  38.3

  35.5

  Hewell Grange

  41.5

  44.0

  42.5

  14.7

  43.3

  41.3

  Highdown

  19.7

  19.9

  19.9

  19.3

  19.9

  19.3

  Highpoint

  18.4

  18.7

  18.0

  18.1

  16.6

  12.3

  Hindley

  20.1

  18.4

  17.2

  19.7

  21.6

  20.8

  Hollesley Bay

  36.0

  34.2

  34.2

  34.2

  32.7

  36.2

  Holloway

  19.3

  19.1

  17.4

  17.7

  21.1

  21.5

  Holme House

  15.0

  15.8

  15.0

  14.0

  16.0

  16.5

  Hull

  21.5

  23.6

  19.6

  24.2

  23.7

  22.5

  Huntercombe

  23.5

  28.9

  27.2

  27.7

  26.3

  24.1

  Kingston

  31.4

  29.8

  30.5

  29.9

  27.4

  29.3

  Kirkham

  45.5

  46.8

  47.7

  49.6

  49.1

  48.4

  Kirklevington

  45.0

  45.4

  45.2

  44.8

  44.2

  45.0

  Lancaster

  23.9

  24.7

  17.6

  25.0

  21.2

  24.3

  Lancaster Farms

  24.9

  27.4

  27.2

  27.1

  26.2

  24.9

  Latchmere House

  72.3

  69.7

  73.9

  78.5

  76.3

  73.3

  Leeds

  17.3

  17.0

  17.2

  17.1

  16.2

  17.7

  Leicester

  20.4

  21.1

  21.1

  21.4

  20.4

  21.5

  Lewes

  22.6

  23.4

  23.4

  23.7

  22.3

  21.9

  Leyhill

  33.9

  35.9

  37.2

  40.4

  41.2

  40.3

  Lincoln

  15.6

  20.5

  20.7

  20.2

  18.9

  15.0

  Lindholme

  24.8

  25.4

  26.5

  26.3

  27.4

  25.7

  Littlehey

  30.7

  32.4

  33.3

  34.0

  32.8

  28.9

  Liverpool

  18.9

  20.6

  18.7

  19.0

  18.8

  17.3

  Long Lartin

  20.9

  20.2

  21.5

  16.2

  17.9

  19.7

  Low Newton

  23.9

  23.5

  24.9

  25.1

  24.8

  25.0

  Maidstone

  20.7

  22.1

  23.1

  23.5

  21.9

  22.4

  Manchester

  19.7

  20.2

  19.8

  20.9

  20.2

  24.3

  Moorland

  21.6

  21.5

  23.0

  23.7

  20.9

  25.6

  Morton Hall

  41.0

  39.8

  40.5

  41.3

  41.1

  40.4

  Mount

  20.1

  20.7

  19.8

  21.1

  19.8

  19.0

  New Hall

  28.6

  28.9

  28.0

  27.1

  28.5

  24.4

  North Sea Camp

  46.5

  44.5

  47.7

  43.6

  43.2

  38.8

  Northallerton

  18.7

  19.5

  20.2

  19.7

  18.8

  18.7

  Norwich

  19.9

  19.7

  17.4

  14.9

  13.5

  11.5

  Nottingham

  24.4

  24.8

  25.4

  23.1

  25.2

  26.2

  Onley

  n/a

  20.6

  23.0

  24.1

  20.1

  21.3

  Parkhurst

  17.2

  16.5

  17.1

  18.2

  19.0

  19.1

  Pentonville

  13.5

  15.5

  13.9

  17.7

  18.4

  18.7

  Portland

  23.7

  25.4

  25.2

  27.1

  25.0

  24.7

  Prescoed

  43.2

  44.3

  42.5

  46.0

  41.5

  43.1

  Preston

  19.4

  22.3

  22.1

  21.2

  21.6

  19.9

  Ranby

  25.8

  30.1

  30.4

  30.1

  29.4

  31.1

  Reading

  30.5

  30.5

  28.7

  27.7

  29.0

  26.4

  Risley

  26.1

  27.1

  20.5

  24.5

  24.3

  22.6

  Rochester

  22.3

  21.0

  18.9

  23.5

  24.2

  22.2

  Send

  33.9

  36.1

  36.8

  38.0

  39.2

  36.3

  Shepton Mallet

  23.9

  25.8

  24.7

  25.8

  25.3

  25.6

  Shrewsbury

  21.5

  21.4

  19.7

  20.0

  17.7

  20.5

  Spring Hill

  34.1

  37.9

  38.4

  40.2

  39.8

  39.8

  Stafford

  26.5

  28.5

  28.4

  28.3

  27.7

  25.6

  Standford Hill

  43.7

  43.2

  45.1

  45.5

  45.8

  45.9

  Stocken

  28.4

  30.7

  28.8

  29.4

  28.2

  26.4

  Stoke Heath

  28.0

  28.9

  27.4

  30.2

  28.2

  27.9

  Styal

  26.0

  29.1

  29.2

  30.8

  31.0

  30.9

  Sudbury

  46.9

  49.0

  48.3

  48.7

  51.0

  48.0

  Swaleside

  22.6

  22.6

  23.5

  22.1

  23.0

  23.8

  Swansea

  19.5

  18.6

  17.0

  16.0

  17.9

  18.4

  362 363

  (a) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by prison for the financial year 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison name

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Swinfen Hall

  21.3

  28.3

  28.5

  27.2

  23.8

  25.7

  Thorn Cross

  43.1

  44.7

  48.3

  46.2

  49.1

  50.2

  Usk

  31.7

  32.5

  33.5

  36.2

  31.6

  32.4

  Verne

  27.8

  30.6

  31.2

  30.5

  31.7

  31.0

  Wakefield

  18.5

  18.5

  17.7

  18.0

  13.0

  16.4

  Wandsworth

  23.3

  22.1

  17.4

  26.8

  25.3

  25.6

  Warren Hill

  24.1

  20.4

  24.9

  25.5

  22.1

  19.8

  Wayland

  24.6

  27.2

  27.1

  27.5

  27.9

  25.7

  Wealstun Closed

  29.9

  33.2

  33.5

  32.3

  32.2

  26.4

  Wealstun Open

  40.5

  44.4

  43.4

  45.6

  44.4

  36.9

  Wellingborough

  26.2

  27.4

  28.0

  27.8

  27.2

  24.9

  Werrington

  40.1

  40.8

  38.1

  40.2

  35.1

  37.6

  Wetherhy

  33.7

  36.4

  37.7

  39.4

  39.4

  37.6

  Whatton

  32.2

  31.4

  32.8

  31.0

  30.6

  32.1

  Whitemoor

  21.2

  20.8

  21.7

  20.6

  16.7

  19.1

  Winchester

  14.3

  19.2

  18.6

  18.4

  19.1

  17.1

  Wolds

  31.0

  31.2

  32.8

  31.7

  31.3

  31.3

  Woodhill

  22.1

  26.0

  24.0

  25.0

  27.7

  23.9

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  15.7

  17.8

  17.8

  16.7

  15.7

  15.3

  Wymott

  34.2

  35.4

  34.6

  33.2

  34.5

  33.0

  (b) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by type for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison type

  April 1995

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  September 1995

  Male local

  19.5

  19.9

  20.1

  20.4

  19.8

  19.5

  Dispersal

  20.9

  21.6

  22.1

  22.5

  23.8

  21.6

  Category B

  22.1

  23.6

  23.5

  24.1

  22.9

  22.6

  Category C

  27.9

  30.1

  30.2

  30.6

  30.3

  29.3

  Male Open

  40.1

  40.2

  42.9

  43.1

  43.4

  42.0

  Male remand centre

  24.3

  24.7

  24.6

  23.9

  23.3

  23.6

  Male closed young offender institution

  24.9

  26.0

  26.8

  27.0

  26.4

  25.9

  Male open young offender institution

  40.9

  40.4

  44.1

  44.6

  44.3

  43.2

  Male juvenile institution

  39.6

  44.8

  41.5

  43.9

  43.2

  41.8

  Female local

  20.3

  20.0

  22.8

  22.5

  20.9

  20.9

  Female closed

  24.5

  25.7

  25.7

  26.4

  25.3

  25.5

  Female open

  36.4

  36.8

  39.0

  40.1

  40.6

  38.2

  (b) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by type for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison type

  October 1995

  November 1995

  December 1995

  January 1996

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Male local

  20.0

  19.7

  18.2

  20.0

  20.3

  20.7

  Dispersal

  22.1

  20.8

  18.6

  20.1

  20.1

  20.9

  Category B

  24.0

  24.6

  21.9

  23.2

  22.6

  22.9

  Category C

  30.4

  30.8

  27.7

  29.1

  30.1

  30.0

  Male open

  43.9

  43.0

  39.3

  42.6

  44.2

  45.3

  Male remand centre

  23.7

  23.7

  21.5

  23.0

  22.8

  23.1

  Male closed young offender institution

  26.5

  26.8

  24.2

  26.0

  26.8

  25.9

  Male open young offender institution

  43.0

  45.4

  43.8

  47.6

  45.5

  46.0

  Male juvenile institution

  40.8

  41.7

  37.9

  40.0

  42.2

  40.6

  Female local

  19.6

  19.6

  19.4

  21.7

  22.9

  20.5

  Female closed

  24.8

  25.8

  22.2

  23.2

  24.8

  24.2

  Female open

  40.2

  39.3

  33.6

  37.2

  36.5

  38.1

  (b) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by type for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison type

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Male local

  19.6

  20.6

  19.8

  20.4

  20.2

  19.4

  Dispersal

  19.5

  20.6

  20.7

  20.0

  18.0

  19.4

  Category B

  20.8

  21.5

  21.5

  22.1

  22.1

  21.9

  364 365

  (b) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner by type for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97 (April to September)

  Prison type

  April 1996

  May 1996

  June 1996

  July 1996

  August 1996

  September 1996

  Category C

  27.0

  28.6

  28.5

  29.1

  28.5

  27.4

  Male open

  40.8

  42.4

  42.7

  42.3

  43.6

  42.3

  Male remand centre

  22.4

  22.1

  21.4

  19.9

  20.2

  20.5

  Male closed young offender institution

  23.7

  24.5

  24.8

  25.3

  23.2

  23.7

  Male open young offender institution

  41.2

  42.5

  43.8

  44.8

  44.8

  45.2

  Male juvenile institution

  40.1

  40.8

  38.1

  40.2

  35.1

  37.6

  Female local

  22.0

  22.0

  20.8

  20.7

  22.9

  22.5

  Female closed

  26.8

  28.9

  28.8

  29.3

  27.6

  27.9

  Female open

  36.6

  37.4

  38.1

  37.5

  38.1

  37.9

  (c) Average weekly hours spent in purposeful activity per prisoner for the financial years 1995–96 and 1996–97

  Month

  Purposeful activity hours

  April 1995

  24.4

  May 1995

  25.4

  June 1995

  25.7

  July 1995

  26.0

  August 1995

  25.5

  September 1995

  25.0

  October 1995

  25.7

  November 1995

  25.6

  December 1995

  23.2

  January 1996

  24.8

  February 1996

  25.3

  March 1996

  25.7

  April 1996

  23.9

  May 1996

  25.0

  June 1996

  24.6

  July 1996

  25.0

  August 1996

  24.5

  September 1996

  24.0

  Imprisonment Statistics
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the male population has experienced imprisonment. [10632]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the proportion of the male population who experienced imprisonment.
  The most recent available information was published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Criminal careers of those born between 1953 and 1973" (14/95). A copy of this bulletin has been placed in the Library.
  This bulletin gives estimates of the proportion those born in 1953, 1958, 1963, 1968 and 1973 who had been convicted for at least one standard list offence (standard list offences consist of all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences-see Appendix 5 of "Criminal statistics, England and Wales, 1995" (Cm. 3421) for further details). Table 4 in this bulletin contains estimates of the cumulative percentage of the population with a custodial sentence for a standard list offence by gender and age.
  366
  Before the age of 40 (the highest age for which figures based on complete conviction histories are currently available) it is estimated that just under 7 per cent. of males born in 1953 had been sentenced to custody.

  Roisin McAliskey
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the number of strip searches undergone by Miss Roisin McAliskey on her journey from HM prison Holloway to the magistrates court on 13 December. [10638]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 16 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 strip searches undergone by Miss Roisin McAliskey on her journey to court on 13 December.
  Miss McAliskey was subject to two strip searches in connection with her journey to court. In accordance with normal practice, she was strip searched on her departure for court and again on her arrival back at the prison. Both searches were conducted in the reception area at Holloway.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the number of daily strip searches undergone by Miss Roisin McAliskey since her transfer from Northern Ireland to HMPs Belmarsh and Holloway; what were the intervals between each search; what(a) contraband goods and (b) other materials were found on her body; and if such searches included the bodily orifices. [10639]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Hugh Taylor to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 16 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 strip searches undergone by Miss Roisin McAliskey.
  Miss McAliskey has not been subject to daily strip searches. She has been strip searched whenever she has moved in or out of the prison to court, hospital or transfer. She has also been strip searched before and after every visit. This is the normal practice for a prisoner of her security category. At Belmarsh, Miss McAliskey was strip searched four times in connection with visits and four times in the

  367
  course of movements in or out of the prison. Up to 20 December, she had been strip searched 31 times at Holloway, 24 in connection with visits and seven in the course of movements.
  No contraband or other items have been found. Her mouth and ears have been searched, but she has not been subject to any internal body searches.

  Strip Searches
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason it is necessary for remand prisoners to be strip searched before receiving closed visits. [10651]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Kevin McNamara, dated 16 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 strip searching of remand prisoners prior to closed visits.
  Governors have discretion under Prison Standing Order 5 to impose closed visits on any prisoner where security or control considerations so require. Under normal circumstances, prisoners who are subject to closed visits are not given a strip search prior to receiving such a visit.
  A policy of mandatory closed visits for all exceptional risk category A prisoners held in special secure units (including those held on remand) was introduced in June 1995. Special secure units (SSUs) operate in accordance with national operating standards. The standards state that prisoners in the SSUs at Full Sutton and Whitemoor must be subjected to a rub down search before a closed visit. The standards also state that prisoners in the SSU at Belmarsh must be strip searched before and after all visits.
  In the SSUs at Full Sutton and Whitemoor exceptional risk prisoners do not come into contact with prisoners from outside the unit. Prisoners in the Belmarsh SSU are held in the same building as high risk prisoners who are not subject to the restrictions imposed on exceptional risk prisoners. Exceptional risk prisoners at Belmarsh (whether convicted or on remand) are therefore strip searched to ensure that illicit items are not passed between prisoners on the way to or from visits.

  High Intensity Regimes
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what research has been undertaken by the Prison Service on(a) high intensity regimes and (b) boot camps; when it will be published; and if he will make a statement; [10783]

  (2) from what areas the high intensity regime to be based at Colchester will draw inmates; and if he will make a statement; [10785]

  (3) when the high intensity regime at Colchester will open; and if he will make a statement; [10784]

  (4) what are the reasons for the delay in opening the high intensity regime at Colchester; and if he will make a statement. [10786]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Colchester young offender institution and the high intensity training programme at Thorn Cross young offender institution are both pilots. They will be the source of evidence of the effectiveness of the new
  368
  approaches adopted. There are no directly parallel initiatives to provide evidence at present on likely reconviction rates.

  In 1994, Prison Service officials prepared a report on American boot camps as advice to Ministers. Following the long established convention this advice was not published, nor will it be. Copies of readily available published research into American boot camps were placed in the Library in 1995. I must stress, however, that our two initiatives are not copies of American boot camps.

  We intend the young offenders at Colchester to come predominantly from East Anglia and the south-east of England.

  As I explained in the answer which I gave the hon. Member on 14 November, Official Report, column 299, this is a unique initiative requiring careful preliminary work and much progress has already been made. Since then, we have proceeded with the staff appointments to which I referred on that occasion, and I hope shortly that we will agree the final details of the regime. When we have done so we will set an opening date.

  High Security Prisons
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for changes in the high security prison estate. [11767]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The director general of the Prison Service announced yesterday that the following eight prisons will be released from the high security category A estate:Birmingham, Bullingdon, Elmley, Leeds, Liverpool, Swaleside, Winchester and Wormwood Scrubs.

  The high security category A estate will comprise the following 13 prisons:
  Belmarsh, Frankland, Full Sutton, Long Lartin, Wakefield, Whitemoor, Altcourse, Bristol, Doncaster, Durham, High Down, Manchester and Woodhill.

  In addition, Hull prison will be available on occasion to take category A prisoners in its control review committee unit for disruptive prisoners but only until alternative accommodation can be provided elsewhere. There will also be some other occasions when individual category A prisoners will have to be held temporarily outside the category A estate for reasons of operational necessity.

  Funding has been made available to complete the upgrading of physical and procedural security at the 13 prisons, in accordance with the recommendations in the Woodcock report. The work will be completed at 11 of the 13 prisons by May 1997, in accordance with the timetable published in February 1995, at Doncaster by September 1997 and at Altcourse when the prison opens in spring 1998.

  The director general is also announcing the implementation of a further 11 recommendations of the Learmont report, in addition to the 100 recommendations set out in the implementation progress report published in July 1996.

  Details are set out in a further implementation progress report which has been placed in the Library.

  "Custody Care and Justice"
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made on the implementation of paragraph 4.12 concerning staff development in the document, "Custody Care and Justice", published in 1991 (Cm. 1647); and if he will make a statement. [10787]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the implementation of paragraph 4.12 concerning staff development in the document Custody, Care and Justice, published in 1991. Addressing the 11 points under their respective headings the points on each is as follows:
  1. Pursue a Better Jobs initiative
  The Better Jobs initiative continued as a method of improving staff motivation and achieving high quality work by means of collecting and publishing information on good practices in these areas. An evaluation in 1994 gave satisfactory results.
  Last year saw a gradual change of focus to Investors in People support. This scheme shares many of the Better Jobs aims, but leads to accreditation to a National Standard. Achieving Investors status has been made a government requirement for the Civil Service. Most prisons now have some involvement with work on the Standard and five are already accredited.
  2. Increase the opportunities for providing more fulfilling work for prison officers with prisoners
  A revised sentence planning model is being launched across the Service during 1997. This will enhance the assessment of risk in prisoners and identify aspects of offending behaviour which should be addressed during the course of their sentence. Prison Officers have a key role in this in partnership with the Probation Service. A review of the Personal Officer Schemes is currently underway with a view to better equipping Prison Officers to meet the demands of advising and challenging prisoners' offending behaviour. Together with the Incentives and Privileges Scheme, this will provide a means by which staff gain constructive authority over prisoners as well as enhancing the Prisoner Officer role, providing a worthwhile service to prisoners.
  3. Continue to encourage Governors to identify jobs which can be undertaken by staff other than prison officers
  The Service has continued to identify jobs, where appropriate, that can be undertaken by staff other than prison officers. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 enabled the widening of duties of such staff. Proposals have been put to the Prison Officers Association for the introduction of an Operational Support Grade to further help free prison officers for the work requiring their particular skills.
  4. Consider the position of staff working in prisons who were not included in the initial "Fresh Start" arrangements
  Following negotiation with unions representing industrial staff, the Service has introduced a new pay structure for those staff. Discussion with unions representing non-industrial staff have not been able to identify the necessary efficiency savings along the principles of Fresh Start.
  The Prison Service pay and grading review is continuing to develop proposals which might go some way to improving the position of Heads of Management Services (which posts were specifically mentioned in the Woolf report).
  5. Produce a new handbook for all staff setting out standards for the treatment and care of prisoners
  The work of providing staff with guidance about the practical implementation of standards has been taken forward in the following ways.
  370
  (a) Suicide prevention strategies were extensively reviewed between 1991 and 1994. New research was commissioned from the Institute of Criminology, Cambridge and best practice was drawn upon. A revised strategy was launched in 1994 which focuses upon a multi-disciplinary approach to identifying those prisoners at risk and providing support. A new modular staff training programme in suicide awareness was drawn up which includes identification or risk factors; high risk stages in custody; and signs and symptoms of suicidal behaviour. Training and instructions are re-inforced by a detailed guidance pack on Caring for the Suicidal in Custody.
  It is the responsibility of all staff to be alert to the risk of self-harm and suicide. The process of providing support through a multi-disciplinary approach centres around the use of the Form F2052SH which activates a case-conference approach. Where appropriate, external agencies such as the Samaritans are involved either as individual befrienders or in training and supporting prisoners as Listeners.
  (b) Since 1993, the Directorate of Health Care in collaboration with operational colleagues has produced and promulgated Health Care Standards on the following 9 topics:

  Health Assessment at First Reception

  Mental Health Services in local prisons and remand centres

  Primary and Out-patient Care

  In-patient Care

  Reception, Transfer and Discharge

  Clinical and related Services for Promoting Health

  Clinical AIDS/HIV Service

  The Use of Medicines
  Two further standards, on Forensic Psychiatry and Throughcare are planned.
  (c) The Prison Service has also developed a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ), Level Two, in Custodial Care. 700 staff in 40 establishments are working towards this award. A further 400 applications have been made by staff in 1997–98. The award provides operating standards for staff to achieve eg in challenging aggressive and abusive behaviour while maintaining control.
  It is expected that an NVQ Level Three award will be accredited by Spring 1997. This award will offer a flexible approach and cover other aspects of Prison Officer duties such as personal officer, reception and gate duties as well as imparting some units from other NVQ Lead Bodies, in the Care Sector Consortium eg units in Criminal Justice, Management and Supervision, Training and Development.
  6. Issue shortly a new Guide for Line Managers on Service Induction with a clearer and more readable Guide for New Staff
  A welcome to the Prison Service Pack was introduced comprising a series of 10 small brochures entitled:

  Introduction to the Service

  Caring for staff

  Matching Prisoners to Places

  Working for the Prison Service

  Running Prisons

  Industrial Relations

  Caring for Prisoners

  Information

  Your Career

  Glossary of Terms

  Prison Service Internal communications is presently looking at the redrafting and redesign of the Welcome Pack.
  In the event, it was decided to incorporate the Guide for Line Managers into the Staff Handbook. A new version is due to be published early this year. Where items are not covered, reference will be made in the Handbook to particular pieces of guidance in existence.

  371
  7. Provide staff in prisons with a statement of the facilities for and the standards expected of them
  The Realising our Potential project of the Pay Grading and Performance Review identified a number of areas to be developed into "Standards" for delivery to staff. Work is well advanced on one of these, Communications, and the Communications Standard will be audited by the Standards Audit Unit.
  8. Continue to improve the performance of all staff in treating prisoners fairly and without discrimination on grounds of race or religion
  The Prison Service is committed to equality of opportunity and the elimination of discrimination on improper grounds. Comprehensive structures are in place to implement the Service's race relations policies. Prisons are required to have a Race Relations Management Team to develop and monitor progress and a Race Relations Liaison Officer to offer advice and support. The Service continues to up date procedures and develop mew initiatives, including revised guidance on the handling of racial incidents.
  9. Introduce a Prison Officer Development Scheme
  The Prison Service is piloting a Developing Managers Programme which is open to all Prison Service staff up to Governor 5 and equivalent. The programme aims to provide meaningful, high quality development opportunities for staff identified as having sufficient potential to progress to higher ranks. Subject to the outcome of the pilot and sufficient resources being available the programme will be launched during 1997.
  10. Increase the posting of female staff to male establishments and vice versa
  Opposite sex postings have been governed by a management/trade union agreement since 1988. On 9 May 1988 there were 101 female staff in the prison officer grades employed in male establishments (9% of all female officers), and 67 male officers posted to female establishments (0.4% of all male staff). The corresponding opposite sex postings figures as at 7 February 1996 (the latest available) are 1–579 (73% of all female officers) and 216 (1% of all male officers). Opposite sex postings have thus increased substantially over the last 8–9 years and are now well established within the Prison Service.
  11. Broaden the experience of Prison Service staff
  To facilitate this initiative, provision was made within the Personnel Directorate salaries budget to finance secondments of senior staff to other organisations. This has included placements with Kingfisher PLC, Newcastle NHS Trust, NACRO, The Church of England, The Prince's Trust, Thames Valley Safer Communities Partnership, Birmingham Institute for the Deaf, Action in the Community and The Lord Chancellor's Department.
  In addition, the Prison Service has continued to work closely with other Government Departments and Agencies Personnel Sections in order to maximise interchange.

  Prison Report
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish his response to the chief inspector of Her Majesty's prisons annual report; and if he will make a statement. [10789]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: It is not our practice to publish a response to the chief inspector's annual report. The Government are grateful to the chief inspector for producing this considered and informative annual report, and have noted its contents.

  Prison Cells
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those prisons in England and Wales with prison cells designed for one person and holding two inmates on 1 January 1997. [10773]
  372
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one on 1st January 1997.
  The information requested is given in the attached table. As the data is collected on the last Friday of each month the information is for 27 December 1996.

  Two inmates sharing a cell designed for one

  Establishment

  27 December 1996

  Bedford

  186

  Birmingham

  544

  Blakenhurst

  130

  Bristol

  88

  Brixton

  362

  Buckley Hall

  20

  Camp Hill

  80

  Canterbury

  218

  Cardiff

  458

  Channings Wood

  208

  Chelmsford

  78

  Cookham Wood

  40

  Doncaster

  416

  Dorchester

  172

  Down View

  12

  Durham

  698

  Everthorpe

  58

  Exeter

  338

  Glen Parva

  232

  Gloucester

  130

  Guys Marsh

  32

  Highpoint

  14

  Hull

  200

  Lancaster Farms

  42

  Leeds

  214

  Leciester

  224

  Lewes

  26

  Lincoln

  480

  Littlehey

  28

  Liverpool

  220

  Low Newton

  188

  Maidstone

  30

  Manchester

  478

  Moorland

  60

  Northallerton

  262

  Nottingham

  4

  Pentonville

  708

  Portland young offenders

  institution

  68

  Preston

  362

  Reading

  112

  Risley

  18

  Rochester

  8

  Shepton Mallet

  100

  Shrewsbury

  278

  Stocken

  52

  Swaleside

  30

  Swansea

  202

  The Mount

  78

  Usk

  104

  Verne

  32

  Wakefield

  110

  Wandsworth

  180

  Wayland

  32

  Wealstun

  6

  Winchester

  276

  Woodhill

  72

  Wormwood Scrubs

  260

  Asylum
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications were received for asylum in October 1996 and November 1996; and what were the equivalent figures for 1995. [10778]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A total of 2,150 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom were lodged in October 1996 and 1,920 were lodged in the following month. The equivalent figures for the same months in 1995 were 4,595 and 4,715 respectively.

  RAF Finningley
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards opening a prison on the site of RAF Finningley; and if he will make a statement. [10788]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 16 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 opening of a temporary prison on the RAF Finningley site.
  In order to respond to the increase in prisoner population currently being experienced, several options have been considered. As part of this approach the Home Secretary asked the Secretary of State for Defence about sites no longer needed by the Ministry of Defence. RAF Finningley was found to be suitable for conversion into a temporary prison, particularly in the light of the immense pressure on other prisons in the north.
  The planning application for part of the Finningley site to be converted into a temporary prison was lodged with Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council on 15 November 1996. The Council considered our proposal at a planning meeting on 23 December 1996 and has made clear its objections to our plans.
  We are now considering whether to pursue further out planning application for use of part of Finningley as a temporary prison.

  Air Weapons
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences involving air weapons were recorded in the last five years for which figures are available. [10255]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 January 1997]: The information requested is published in chapter 3 (table 3.3) of "Criminal Statistics, England and Wales 1995".

  A copy of this publication has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of air weapons held in the United Kingdom. [10256]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 January 1997]: No realistic estimate has been made centrally.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prescription and (b) over-the-counter medicinal drugs were consumed in
  374
  each of the past three years in (i) Cardiff prison, (ii) Downview prison, (iii) Everthorpe prison and (iv) Swansea prison. [9849]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from A. J. Pearson to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 16 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 medicines issued at Cardiff, Downview, Everthorpe and Swansea prisons.
  The information is not available in the form requested. However we are able to provide figures for the number of prescription sheets issued in 1996 for each of the prisons listed. Each prescription sheet may cover one or more medicines.

  Cardiff: 12,168

  Downview: 3,900

  Everthorpe: 2,080

  Swansea: 11,960.

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison officers have taken retirement under the new voluntary early retirement and severance scheme; and if he will indicate the numbers for each prison in England and Wales and the officers that have left that prison under this system. [10772]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 16 January 1997:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the numbers of prison officers who have taken retirement under the VERSE scheme.
  The total number of prison officers who have left to date under VERSE is 727. This is broken down as follows:

  Number

  Prison Auxiliary

  5

  Prison Officer

  404

  Prison Officer (Works)

  25

  Prison Officer Instructor

  8

  Senior Officer

  139

  Senior Officer (Works)

  14

  Senior Officer Instructor

  3

  Principal Officer

  129

  The information by establishment that you requested is given in the attached tables and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.
  375

  Grade ESTAB

  Total

  Prison auxiliary

  Prison officer

  Prison officer (works)

  Prison officer instructor

  Senior officer

  Senior officer (works)

  Senior officer instructor

  Principal officer

  Acklington

  6

  2

  2

  2

  Albany

  7

  2

  1

  3

  1

  Aldington

  2

  2

  Ashwell

  3

  2

  1

  Askham

  Grange

  5

  4

  1

  Aylesbury

  2

  1

  1

  Bedford

  8

  1

  1

  5

  1

  Belmarsh

  2

  1

  1

  Birmingham

  31

  1

  20

  1

  6

  3

  Blantyre House

  3

  2

  1

  Blundeston

  1

  1

  Brinsford

  9

  3

  5

  1

  Bristol

  2

  1

  1

  Brixton

  29

  22

  3

  1

  3

  Bullingdon

  9

  5

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Bullwood Hall

  2

  1

  1

  Camp Hill

  8

  3

  1

  1

  3

  Canterbury

  7

  4

  1

  1

  1

  Cardiff

  3

  2

  1

  Castington

  1

  1

  Channings

  Wood

  1

  1

  Chelmsford

  12

  8

  2

  2

  Coldingley

  2

  1

  1

  Dartmoor

  8

  5

  1

  1

  1

  Deerbolt

  2

  1

  1

  Dorchester

  6

  4

  1

  1

  Dover

  7

  5

  2

  Downview

  1

  1

  Drake Hall

  4

  2

  1

  1

  Durham

  11

  7

  1

  3

  Eastwood Park

  1

  1

  Erlestoke

  2

  1

  1

  Everthorpe

  5

  2

  1

  1

  1

  Exeter

  14

  7

  2

  3

  2

  Featherstone

  2

  1

  1

  Feltham

  2

  1

  1

  Finnamore wood

  4

  2

  1

  1

  Ford

  14

  9

  3

  1

  1

  Frankland

  19

  12

  2

  1

  4

  Full Sutton

  21

  15

  4

  2

  Garth

  6

  1

  4

  1

  Gartree

  5

  2

  1

  2

  Glen Parva

  17

  7

  1

  5

  4

  Gloucester

  5

  4

  1

  Grendon

  6

  3

  2

  1

  Guys Marsh

  5

  2

  1

  2

  Haslar

  4

  4

  Hatfield

  3

  1

  2

  Haverigg

  10

  4

  1

  2

  3

  Hewell Grange

  1

  1

  Highpoint

  4

  1

  1

  2

  Hindley

  4

  2

  2

  Hollesley Bay

  1

  1

  Holloway

  2

  1

  1

  Holme House

  3

  1

  1

  I

  Hull

  10

  6

  1

  2

  1

  Huntercombe

  3

  2

  1

  Kingston

  7

  3

  3

  Kirkham

  2

  1

  1

  Kirklevington

  2

  2

  Lancaster

  Castle

  2

  1

  1

  Lancaster

  Farms

  6

  2

  2

  1

  1

  Latchmere

  House

  5

  3

  1

  1

  Leeds

  24

  15

  1

  1

  1

  6

  Leicester

  5

  2

  2

  1

  Lewes

  9

  5

  2

  2

  376 377

  Grade ESTAB

  Total

  Prison auxiliary

  Prison officer

  Prison officer (works)

  Prison officer instructor

  Senior officer

  Senior officer (works)

  Senior officer instructor

  Principal officer

  Leyhill

  1

  1

  Lilleshall (PE)

  2

  2

  Lincoln

  17

  10

  4

  3

  Lindholme

  12

  8

  3

  1

  Littlehey

  8

  4

  4

  Liverpool

  1

  1

  Long Lartin

  6

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Low Newton

  11

  5

  4

  1

  1

  Maidstone

  4

  3

  1

  Moorland

  13

  9

  1

  2

  1

  The Mount

  2

  1

  1

  New Hall

  1

  1

  North Sea

  Camp

  2

  2

  Northallerton

  6

  3

  1

  2

  Norwich

  14

  13

  1

  Nottingham

  6

  5

  1

  Parkhurst

  13

  8

  3

  1

  1

  Pentonville

  1

  1

  Portland

  3

  1

  2

  Preston

  1

  1

  Ranby

  4

  2

  1

  1

  Reading

  2

  1

  1

  Risley

  3

  3

  Rochester

  5

  3

  1

  1

  Send

  1

  1

  Shepton Mallet

  2

  1

  1

  Shrewsbury

  6

  5

  1

  Stafford

  8

  5

  1

  2

  Standford Hill

  5

  2

  2

  1

  Stocken

  3

  2

  1

  Stoke Heath

  1

  1

  Styal

  1

  1

  Sudbury

  7

  1

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Swaleside

  1

  1

  Swansea

  3

  1

  2

  Swinfen Hall

  5

  2

  3

  Thorn Cross

  3

  3

  Usk

  2

  2

  The Verne

  1

  1

  Wakefield

  28

  15

  9

  4

  Wandsworth

  28

  18

  2

  1

  7

  Wayland

  5

  2

  1

  2

  Wealstun

  6

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Wellingboro'

  2

  1

  1

  Wetherby

  1

  1

  Whatton

  2

  2

  Whitemoor

  1

  1

  Winchester

  15

  9

  4

  2

  Wormwood

  Scrubs

  19

  10

  3

  6

  Wymott

  4

  2

  1

  1

  Totals

  727

  5

  404

  25

  8

  139

  14

  3

  129

WALES

  St. David's Health Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 17 December,Official Report, column 587, if he will list for each of the parties concerned and their legal representatives the date on which his officials first made contact with them to propose a date for the oral hearing into the Triocare application. [10473]
  378
  Mr. Hague
  The procedures for setting up an oral hearing require that dates are canvassed with panel members in advance. The parties to this hearing were advised of the date which had been set on 18 December 1996.

  Welsh Development Agency (Redundancy Policy)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he approved a redundancy policy for the Welsh Development Agency. [11175]

  Mr. Hague
  The Welsh Office approved the policy on 20 September 1994.

TREASURY

  Tax Revenue
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total tax revenue generated by those taxes which have been introduced since 1992. [9528]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Some £2.9 billion. However, of this, £1 billion was lottery duty, the rate of which was set to offset broadly the indirect tax lost from consumer spending diverted to the lottery.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Britain's working age population are in employment; and what is the figure in other European countries. [9529]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Total employment in autumn 1996 was almost 300,000 up on a year earlier, 900,000 million higher than at the end of 1992, and 1.5 million higher than at the end of 1979. Our impressive record on job creation means that, at 69 per cent., we have a higher proportion of our working age population in work, and a lower unemployment rate than any other major EU country.

  Earnings
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the real take-home pay of a family on average earnings in 1978–79; and what he estimates it will be in 1997–98. [9530]

  Mr. Jack
  In today's prices, real take-home pay for a family on average earnings was £220 a week in 1978–79 and should rise to £318 a week in 1997–98. That is an increase of nearly £100 a week, over £5,000 a year.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much better off he estimates a family on average earnings will be in April 1997 compared with May 1992. [9531]

  Mr. Jack
  In 1997–98, a family on average earnings should be £1,100 better off than in 1991–92 after earnings growth, tax and inflation.

  Illegal Imports
  Mr. Tony banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what seizures Customs and Excise made of illegally imported(a) alcohol and (b) tobacco in the last available month. [9532]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In October 1996, Customs and Excise detected smuggled alcohol with a revenue value of £258,599 and tobacco products with a revenue value of £267,463.

  Private Shareholders
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the current number of private shareholders in the privatised utilities. [9533]
  380
  Mr. Jack
  The most recent Government survey suggested that the number of individual shareholders was around 10 million, three times higher than the figure in 1979. Well over half of this number owned shares in privatised companies.

  European Single Currency
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the criteria for joining the European single currency. [9534]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Maastricht convergence criteria are fully consistent with the Government's economic policy of achieving permanently low inflation and sound public finances. An assessment of which countries meet the conditions for joining the single currency on 1 January 1999 will be made by the Council of Ministers in early 1998. At present, there are considerable uncertainties surrounding this and other issues relating to the single currency.

  Mr. Pope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the benefits of a European single currency to the United Kingdom economy. [9543]

  Mr. Oppeneheim
  We cannot properly assess whether to join economic and monetary union until we know the key facts, including when it will begin, who will take part, and how strictly the economic criteria governing membership will be applied. This demonstrates the value of preserving our opt-out. It allows us to influence the negotiations to help ensure that the single currency proceeds only on a sustainable basis and that the UK's interests are protected, but it also allows us to reach our own decision at an appropriate time.

  Airport Passenger Duty
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield from airport passenger duty in the last two years; and what he expects the yield to be in 1997. [9535]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Receipts of air passenger duty were £343 million in 1995–96 and are expected to reach £0.4 billion in 1996–97. I expect the yield in 1997–98 to be £0.5 billion. This corrects the earlier estimate of £0.8 billion, published in the November 1996 "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  I am also taking this opportunity to inform the House of a correction to the forecast of insurance premium tax receipts in 1997–98. I now expect the yield to be £1.1 billion, compared to £1.2 billion in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report".

  Value Added Tax (Fuel)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received relating to value added tax on fuel. [9536]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have received a number of representations on this subject.

  Investment
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on investment in the United Kingdom economy. [9537]

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

  Petrol Duty
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what account his assessment of the Budget's impact on the overall level of taxation has taken of the increase in the duty on petrol. [9538]

  Mr. Jack
  The impact of the Budget on the overall level of taxation is set out in table 6.1 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" 1997–98.

  Computer Systems
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with his European Union counterparts about achieving single currency compliance and millennium compliance of computer systems before 2000; and if he will make a statement. [9539]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave him on 13 January, column 19.

  Inland Revenue (Local Offices)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what changes he plans to make to the network of local offices of the Inland Revenue. [9541]

  Mr. Jack
  Since 1993, the Inland Revenue has been carrying out a 10-year programme to reorganise its whole network of local offices. Firm plans exist for the period up to April 1998 and initial planning for the period from April 1998 is currently taking place.

  Fixed Exchange Rates
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy in respect of fixed exchange rates. [9542]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government recognise the value of a stable exchange rate but do not have a target for sterling. The exchange rate is only one of many factors that has to be taken account of in policy decisions. Monetary policy is, and will continue to be, aimed at achieving the Government's inflation target of 22 per cent. or less.

  Retail Sales (Brent Cross)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to visit Brent Cross to discuss the level of retail sales. [9544]
  382
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no plans to visit Brent Cross at present, but I am always happy to discuss the buoyant state of the British economy with my hon. Friend.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the timetable for EMU. [9525]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The EC Treaty sets out the timetable for EMU. As I have said before—to the House of Lords Select Committee on 28 March 1996—it is too soon to say whether EMU will start on 1 January 1999, but member states will continue to prepare on that basis.

  Take-home Pay
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about changes in real take-home pay since April 1992. [9540]

  Mr. Jack
  Next year, real take-home pay for a family on average earnings should be £1,100 a year higher than in 1991–92.

  Treasury Building
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the project to redevelop the Treasury building. [11768]

  Mr. Jack
  The Treasury has now taken another step forward in this project by agreeing commercial heads of terms with Exchequer Partnership plc. This completes a significant milestone in the negotiation process, and enables both parties to proceed with the project in principle, subject to final contract. That contract, known as the development framework agreement, is now being drafted.

  The Treasury is likely to occupy around a third of the redeveloped building. The intention is that all essential building works will be completed in advance of occupation, and that the Treasury will pay as and when its accommodation needs are delivered to specified standards. The accommodation will all be towards the western end of the building which will enable the Treasury to occupy purpose-built, modern accommodation within the existing facade. It is for Exchequer Partnership plc to decide how best to utilise the non-Treasury space in the redeveloped building.

  It is presently looking at various options including flats at the western end, and a hotel and/or additional offices at the eastern end. Other issues will necessitate satisfying the authorities on a wide variety of matters, including planning permission and listed building consent, and will be subject to security considerations. Further details will be available at DFA stage.

  The present timetable, subject to planning permission and therefore necessarily tentative, remains for the Treasury temporarily to vacate the building towards the end of 1998, and to re-occupy part of it in the middle of 2001.

  EU Contributions
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie the discrepancies between his Department's assessment of the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Union for 1994 and that of the European Court of Auditors. [10226]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 13 January 1997]: The main reasons for the differences between the Government's estimate of the United Kingdom's net contribution in 1994 and the figures of the European Court of Auditors are as follows:
  the European Commission introduced a supplementary and amending budget so late in 1993 that member states paid their contributions to this budget in early January 1994—in the UK's case £530 million. It would appear the Court of Auditors scored member states' contributions to the 1993 budgetary year. The Treasury scored these contributions to 1994;
  the Court of Auditors 1994 figures would appear to include the bulk of the receipts which the UK received in January 1995—£245 million. Treasury estimates scored these receipts to 1995;
  the Court of Auditors figures include payments by the Community direct to the UK private sector (£450 million). These were not taken into account in the Treasury's estimate which relates only to UK public sector transactions.

  Mr. Radice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the net payments made by each EU member state to the European Union budget in 1995. [10516]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer to the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on 11 December,Official Report, column 203.

  EU VAT Committee
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the composition of the VAT committee of the European Community; what representatives it has from the United Kingdom; what are(a) its terms of reference and (b) the matters currently under consideration; and who has access to its minutes. [10808]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Article 29 of the sixth VAT directive provides for an advisory committee on value added tax. Its members are representatives of the member states and the Commission, which also chairs the committee. The United Kingdom is represented by officials of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. The committee has no formal terms of reference. In practice, it examines matters concerning the application of EC VAT provisions referred for consideration by the chairman or at the request of a member state. Matters under consideration are generally technical questions on the correct application or interpretation of the sixth VAT directive. Minutes of the committee's proceedings are available only to the members of the committee.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenues to the Exchequer arising from recent changes in the application of VAT regulations. [9517]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) earlier today.
  384
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to circulate to all interested statutory and non-statutory bodies the proposals of the European Commission contained in its document COM 96/328 relating to plans for completion of full harmonisation of VAT, together with its proposals for implementation of a system of centralised Community-wide collection; and if he will request observations on these proposals from the organisations concerned. [10879]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 15 January 1997]: In August 1996, HM Customs and Excise issued an information paper covering a copy of the Commission's outline programme for a "common system" of VAT—COM 328/96—and invited observations on the Commission's ideas. The Commission's programme contains no legislative proposals. The information paper was issued to all members of Customs' Joint VAT Consultative Committee and Joint Customs Consultative Committee. These twin committees comprise a wide range of interests including representatives of large and small businesses, trade associations, lawyers and tax advisers. Customs is also engaged in a continuing dialogue with business and other interested parties about the Commission's ideas to ensure that the widest range of opinion is canvassed.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants there are currently of(a) attendance allowance and (b) disability living allowance; and how many in each case also receive (i) income support, (ii) housing benefit and (iii) council tax benefit. [6733]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the table.

  Recipients of attendance allowance and disability living allowance who are beneficiaries of income support, housing benefit, council tax benefit: May 1995

  Recipients: August 1996

  Income support2

  Housing benefit3

  Council tax benefit

  Attendance allowance1

  1,194,000

  418,000

  306,000

  445,000

  Disability living allowance1

  1,768,000

  506,000

  390,000

  499,000

  Notes:

  15 per cent. sample for August 1996.

  2Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry: 5 per cent. sample as at May 1995.

  3Housing Benefit Management Information System: 1 per cent. as at May 1995.

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  2. Beneficiaries are those adults and children who receive disability living allowance who are also a claimant, partner or child dependant in receipt of the means tested benefits shown.

  3. There are overlaps between recipients of disability living allowance who receive either one or both components.

  4. Not all housing benefit/council tax benefit dependants can be identified. Figures do not include second adult rebate cases.

  5. There is considerable overlap between benefits shown.

  Source:

  Analytical services division.
  385
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many deaf-blind people have applied for the disability living allowance; [9476]

  (2) how many deaf-blind people have been awarded the disability living allowance; and at what levels; [9477]

  (3) how many deaf-blind people have appealed against a disability living allowance decision; and how many of these appellants have been successful in reversing the original decision. [9478]

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

  Awards of disability living allowance to people whose main disabling condition is deafness and blindness1

  Components awarded

  Number

  Higher rate care and higher rate mobility

  46

  Higher rate care and lower rate mobility

  2

  Higher rate care only

  9

  Middle rate care and higher rate mobility

  73

  Middle rate care and lower rate mobility

  11

  Middle rate care only

  19

  Lower rate care and higher rate mobility

  75

  Lower rate care and lower rate mobility

  23

  Lower rate care only

  9

  Higher rate mobility

  47

  Lower rate mobility

  24

  All awards

  338

  Notes:

  1 People with deafness and blindness, but for whom another condition was the main disabling condition, are not included.

  Figures are for the period from 6 April 1992 up to 30 November 1996.

  Source:

  Analytical Services Division: 100 per cent. data.

  Mr. Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people with Usher syndrome have applied for the care component of the disability living allowance; and how many have been refused. [9479]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information requested is not available.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of carers who are no longer entitled to sign on as unemployed as a result of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance and are also unable to obtain national insurance credits due to the cared-for person not being in receipt of disability living allowance at the middle rate. [8896]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No such estimate has been made. Carers who care for someone who is in receipt of the highest or middle rate of disability living allowance care component are not required to be available for work and may be able to claim income support. People who receive income support as carers can take advantage of home responsibilities protection which will protect their basic pension rights.

  All unemployed carers, whether caring for someone who is in receipt of disability living allowance or not, can choose to claim jobseeker's allowance and will receive either benefit and credits or credits alone, depending on their personal circumstances, so long as they fulfil the jobseeker's allowance conditions of being available for and actively seeking work. Under jobseeker's allowance,
  386
  carers are able to restrict the hours for which they are available for work in line with their caring responsibilities, so long as they retain reasonable prospects of securing employment and are available for a minimum of 16 hours per week. Additionally, carers are not required to take up employment immediately but are instead allowed 48 hours notice before taking up a job.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much benefit expenditure has been saved as a result of the introduction of jobseeker's allowance. [11039]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not yet available. However, we estimate that the new jobseeker's allowance will save £60 million in 1996–97 and £240 million in 1997–98.

  German War Pensions
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many German war pensions are paid to people resident in the United Kingdom; in what ways his Department acts as agent for those payments; what records his Department retains of the war service of those paid; and if he will make a statement. [9905]

  Mr. Heald
  The payment of German war pensions is a matter for the German authorities. However, I understand that, as at July 1996, 459 such pensions were in payment. The Department does not act in any way as agent for these pensions and consequently has no record of any sort of the individuals concerned.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which regulations cover the operation of the special payment unit of the Child Support Agency. [11177]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  None, as the Department's special payments scheme operates on an extra-statutory basis.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes there have been to the trigger points for cold climate payments in Scotland; for each new station what is the difference in recorded temperatures compared to the previous site for the last three months; how many payments have been triggered for the areas covered by new weather stations; and if he will make a statement. [10727]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  From November 1996, a number of changes were made to postcode links with weather stations in Scotland. Two additional weather stations were introduced at Aultbea and Loch Glascarnoch. Aultbea covers some postcodes formerly covered by Tiree weather station. Loch Glascarnoch covers some postcodes formerly linked to weather stations at Aviemore, Kinloss, Tiree and Wick airport.

  So far this winter, Loch Glascarnoch has triggered payments five times. Aultbea has not triggered.

  Based on the daily data used for the scheme, the mean monthly temperatures for the last three months are set out in the following table:

  387

  Mean temperatures Deg. C

  October 1996

  November 1996

  December 1996

  Aultbea

  11

  5.8

  4.7

  Tiree

  10.7

  6.3

  5.2

  Loch

  Glascarnoch

  9.0

  2.2

  1.0

  Aviemore

  9.4

  2.1

  0.4

  Kinloss

  10.8

  4.3

  2.4

  Tiree

  10.7

  6.3

  5.2

  Wick airport

  9.4

  3.7

  3.1

  This winter, the starting date for the cold weather payments scheme was 4 November.

  Visits to Pensioners
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what visits he made to pensioners on low incomes during the recent cold weather. [11092]

  Mr. Heald
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State sees pensioners throughout the year, but he has had no meetings in an official capacity with pensioners in the recent period.

  However, our commitment to help with periods of cold weather is reflected in the fact that more than 5 million cold weather payments, worth more than £43 million, have been made so far this winter.

  Apart from cold weather payments, the total extra help above normal upratings made available to pensioners on income-related benefits since 1988 is worth around 1.2 billion pounds a year.

  Expenditure on benefits for the elderly rose by almost 50 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1995–96.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Graffiti
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken to remove the sectarian graffiti on the subway between Cairnshill close and Newtonheights, Belfast; and if he will make a statement. [10803]

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

  Letter from W. J. McCoubrey to Mr. John D. Taylor, dated 15 January 1997:
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked the Chief Executive to reply to your question about graffiti on the subway between Cairnshill Close and Newton Heights, Belfast and in his absence I am replying on his behalf.
  388
  As you may be aware this subway is subject to recurring graffiti. Work to have the latest graffiti removed commenced on 13 January.

  Central Services Agency
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the overspend by the legal directorate of the central services agency against its contract income for the year 1996–97; what measures he proposes to address the overspend; and what funding he proposes to make available to the legal directorate of the Central Services Agency in order to cover its overspend. [10876]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not available.

  The level of expenditure of the legal services directorate of the Central Services Agency against contract income for 1996–97 will not be known until the end of the financial year at 31 March 1997.

  The legal services directorate is an integral part of the CSA and as such is required to live within its budget by breaking even on income and expenditure taking one year with another. Consequently, if an overspend were incurred, the legal services directorate would be required to identify and take the necessary measures to absorb the deficit. There are no plans at this stage to provide additional funding to the CSA's legal services directorate.

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will lay before Parliament the 1994–97 triennial review of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [11470]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  I have today arranged for the 1994–97 triennial review of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints to be laid before Parliament.

  This is the third triennial review by the commission since it was established in 1988 and, although it largely follows the approach of the other two, it also considers the vexed issue of who should investigate the police. A chapter setting out the strengths and weaknesses of four possible models is included.

  The commission makes seven recommendations for change, including on the nature of the disciplinary tribunal, the standard of proof, the commission's involvement in non-complaint cases and recording of complaints.

  The Government will be considering the recommendations in the light of the report of the review of the police complaints system in Northern Ireland by Dr. Hayes which is due to be published later this month.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
Lord Calverley— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Gulf Veterans
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have commissioned any clinical research on classic principles into the causes of illness in farmers and Gulf veterans which remains undiagnosed; and, if not, why not.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, there is a clinical aspect to the epidemiological study commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food into the possible long-term health effects of low-level exposure to organophosphorus sheep dips. On the best scientific and medical advice, my department has commissioned epidemiological studies, not clinical research, into the health problems of Gulf veterans and their families. If a particular pattern of symptoms emerges in the Gulf veteran group during the course of these epidemiological studies, the possibility of clinically-based research studies will be reviewed.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Does he accept that if the research is to be successful it should be concluded fairly quickly because that is what is wanted as these men are sick? Does he further accept that all the hypotheses should be explored—the vaccines, the pesticides, and the possibility of chemical warfare and the changing climate among other things? Does the Minister agree that the effects of these factors should be tested, presumably on animals first, and then against the symptoms that the Gulf veterans are showing? Is he further aware of recent research published in the Journal of American Medical Association yesterday, where three clinical studies were undertaken which irrefutably link organophosphate exposure with pyridostigmine bromide and the Gulf War illness? Will the noble Earl now consider that it is really worth doing clinical studies alongside the epidemiological studies in order to get this matter concluded quickly?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the firm advice of the Medical Research Council to the Ministry of Defence has been that it would be unscientific to conduct causal studies in advance of establishing, through the
272
epidemiological research, whether or not there is a higher prevalence of specific symptoms in Gulf veterans which can be related to specific exposures in the Gulf. I believe that we must accept its advice on that matter. I stress that the doors are not closed on commissioning causal studies if the MRC feels that there is a scientifically valid case for doing so. As regards the second part of the noble Countess's question, I was aware of these reports and I shall be looking at them.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Earl give an assurance that all general practitioners who have ex-servicemen and women among their patients are given the information that they should have for our soldiers, sailors and airmen who served in the Gulf?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, an absolute assurance that if information is requested by general practitioners we shall give it on a medical confidentiality basis in so far as we are able. Where the information is lacking we shall supply what are our best assumptions about any medical treatment given to Gulf veterans.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that the Gulf War syndrome, whatever that may mean, is appearing among Czech, Slovak, Danish, American and British soldiers, but not, apparently, among French soldiers. On the assumption that the French are not "loose cannons", to use the current expression, why is that so?
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are in close touch with the French authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, correctly said, they have not reported any undue incidence of ill health among their veterans. They do not recognise any medical syndrome connected with the Gulf War. The French authorities have advised that some soldiers returned from the Gulf with minor diseases endemic to the area, but they did not give their troops, as I understand it, any form of protective immunisation against either chemical or biological agents. Nerve agent pre-treatment sets were not taken by the French troops. The French authorities have also advised that their troops did not use organophosphate pesticides or insecticides during the Gulf War.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to confirm that the French contingent were the only body of troops in the Gulf to be veterans of that type of warfare and that the French alone were used to that type of terrain and were possibly, therefore, safer and more immune from any disease? At the same time, may I ask my noble friend whether he will permit me, and possibly other Members of your Lordships' House, to sympathise with him over the way in which he has been treated in the press today?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his latter comments. The point that he posed in his first question is extremely interesting.

273
I do not know the answer as to whether the French were unique in having had that kind of desert war experience. However, the point is worth investigating and I shall write to my noble friend with an answer.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the nature of his answers to the questions put to him this afternoon do not indicate the sense of urgency which is clearly required when dealing with such matters? Will he assure the House that he will not use the obvious desirability of making the widest possible inquiries (although they may take a considerable time) to affect in any way the obvious fact that we have to narrow down our inquiries to the specific points made by the noble Countess?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am sorry that my remarks this afternoon have not conveyed the sense of urgency which the Government do, indeed, feel about these matters. When one is considering scientific research, it is important to leave the matter in the hands of the scientists and the medics. That is what we have done. I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that we are determined to get to the bottom of the matter and that our minds are completely open on the whole question.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware of a draft report from a committee of the European Parliament criticising the European Commission for drawing scientific advice from too narrow a base? How confident are the Government that their scientific advice is not similarly drawn from too narrow a base?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I do not believe that one could do any better than go to the Medical Research Council, which is what we have done, to commission the research that is about to begin. I have every confidence in its advice.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to study closely the reports in the Journal of American Medical Association because they indicate that the standard handling of epidemiological results and standard neurological tests do not produce the answers that they found in their study? Will the Minister ask those members of the Medical Research Council who are responsible for this to consider the results of the Dallas reports carefully so that our soldiers may be given the same benefits as the American soldiers?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall certainly do that and write to the noble Countess. It is interesting to note that the Presidential Advisory Committee report, of which the noble Countess will be aware, which was published in the United States, endorsed the US Government's focus on epidemiological research. I believe that that is a clear vindication of the research programme we announced last December.

House of Lords: Maintenance of Equipment
3.17 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether he is satisfied with the standards of maintenance of the equipment of the House, and why the elevators fail so frequently.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I am satisfied that the standard of maintenance of the equipment in the House is very good and that ways to improve upon that still further are being sought constantly. The lifts on the parliamentary estate are maintained regularly by a contractor who has men here all the time the House is sitting; and there is a continuing programme to renew lift machinery as it reaches the end of its working life. Lift breakdowns are monitored, and the level of reliability is very high.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend for that Answer. But in the light of it can he explain why the lifts, and particularly the lift to the second floor office, continually suffer failures and breakdowns? Is my noble friend aware of the great inconvenience to a good many noble Lords which results from those failures?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I hope that I can give the noble Lord reassurance. There has been difficulty with the lift that he uses frequently, Lift No. 95. The machinery of that lift was entirely replaced during the last Summer Recess. I am told that, paradoxically—that is, paradoxically to one who, like me, is a layman in matters of engineering—when complex new machinery is installed, it often takes a little time for it to settle down. Here is the first piece of reassurance: that is the reason why the installers of the machinery give your Lordships' House a 12-month guarantee during that first period so that they can be on hand. But I am aware that there has been trouble with that lift, and I am very sorry about it. I can well understand the inconvenience and frustration that the noble Lord must have suffered. For example, between 16th and 24th October—which was a particularly awkward period because it included State Opening—there were four breakdowns. All went reasonably well until the middle of December. On the 12th of that month there was a further breakdown. Subject to anything that may have happened in the past few minutes, I am happy to say that since then all has been well, and I hope that that will remain the case.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that if in future someone is stuck in that lift, as I was last year, he should not find both the emergency

275
telephone disconnected and the alarm bell switched off on the grounds that they might otherwise create a disturbance outside the lift?
chairman of committees: My Lords, if had known about it I would have come to the aid of my noble friend. I will have the matter looked into. I hope that it will not recur.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that the annunciators have been checked, and will continue to be checked, given that the one in the Queen's Room came crashing down last month uncomfortably close to where I happened to be? Another foot or two and I should not have been asking this question.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, with the rest of your Lordships, I am very relieved that the noble Lord is able to ask his question. I will have the matter looked into. It is too late to do anything about that particular incident now, for obvious reasons. But the Parliamentary Works Department has been doing all it can to improve the general service through annunciators. Although inevitably there are difficulties from time to time, I believe that the Parliamentary Works Department, its director, Mr. Henry Webber, and his staff do an absolutely splendid job of work for us.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, considering the very slow movement of the lift which is labelled "Express", does my noble friend agree that it dates from the time when a motor car had to be preceded by someone carrying a red flag?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am not sure what one would do with a red flag or light in a lift. My engineering perspicacity does not go as far as to be able to conjecture whether one would stand on top of it while it was moving upwards. However, that lift too is perhaps a matter that should be looked into.

EC Fisheries Agreements: Third Countries
3.23 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the £30 million spent on European Community third country fishing agreements, for the benefit of Britain's Spanish and Portuguese competitors, is a sensible use of British taxpayers' money.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, some European Community fisheries agreements with third countries benefit mainly Spain and Portugal. Others benefit other member states, including the United Kingdom. Our distant water fleet, for example, is dependent on EC fisheries agreements
276
with Norway and other Atlantic countries. The Government are concerned to achieve value for money from the agreements as a whole.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply, but does he agree that to spend £30 million per annum—I believe the figure is about £90 million over four years—to sustain the Spanish fishing effort is a frightful waste of British taxpayers' money? If that amount of money is sloshing around in the coffers, would it not be better spent on sustaining the British Council or the World Service, which do some good for this country?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, although I confess to being a great fan of both the British Council and the World Service, I do not immediately see that to save money on the Spanish means that the Chancellor will allow us to spend it on them. My noble friend may wish to contemplate the effect of not spending that money on providing fishing opportunities to the Spanish. They will come to fish in our waters rather more than they do at the moment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, in his initial reply the Minister referred to the fact that certain areas of the United Kingdom had benefited from the settlement. Can he indicate which areas of the United Kingdom have benefited from it? Was Ulster one of them? Is that one of the reasons why the Members of Parliament for the Province of Ulster appear to be so dedicated to supporting the Government?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no. The main beneficiaries are our distant water fleets, which are based largely in the North East.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when these schemes were first devised soon after Spain and Portugal joined the Community (as it then was) they appeared to be a sensible way of enabling Spanish boats to fish at a distance from British shores and to be engaged in fisheries in African waters that were of little interest to British fishermen? They also served as a form of aid to developing countries. Do these considerations still apply?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that my noble friend is quite right. This situation originated when the European Community took on pre-existing fishing agreements. That seemed to us at the time, and now looking back on it, to be a sensible thing to do. To some extent, they have allowed themselves to be drawn away from that rather sensible position into overpaying and chasing round the world to search for new opportunities with little regard to cost. But I believe that that has now been reined in by the European Commission.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both Houses of Parliament were denied the opportunity to consider the 1997 provisions in this matter in their correct setting since the European Commission, in dereliction of its duty, failed to supply

277
the British Parliament with the budget documents until it was too late for them to be considered prior to their submission to the European Parliament?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am always happy to be educated in these matters by the noble Lord.
Lord Reay: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a report on this very subject is to be published shortly by the European Communities Committee of your Lordships' House and that one of the proposals it makes is that a greater share of the cost of these increasingly expensive agreements should be borne by the fishing interests which benefit from them or by the relevant member states on their behalf? As this is currently one of the options that the European Commission states it is considering, will Her Majesty's Government give every encouragement to the Commission to proceed down that path?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we will. Until recently we have found ourselves in a minority of one in urging this kind of budget discipline on the Fisheries Commissioner. There have been a number of agreements, one of which is that with Mauritania, by which the European Commission has bought out existing commercial arrangements and reissued licences free to people who were previously prepared to pay for them. We believe that fishermen who benefit from these agreements, often substantially, should pay their proper share of the cost.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Lord join with me in drawing to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, the Statement made by Mr. Baldry in another place last month that the British fishing industry had benefited from subsidies, mostly from the European Union but also from national sources, equal to £131 million in the past three years?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the fishing industry throughout the European Community is heavily subsidised.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the first duty of any government is to control public expenditure? Further, does he agree that it is a bit silly for British taxpayers to pay about £30 million to the UK's competitors to the detriment of their own fishing industry?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not believe that these payments can in any way be described as being to the detriment of our fishing industry. The European Community has entered into a large number of agreements, many of which benefit the United Kingdom and many of which benefit the Spanish. The fact is that some of the money that we pay goes to the Spanish and some of the money that the Spanish pay comes to us. Looking at the current state of affairs on a global basis, we have a reasonable arrangement at reasonable cost for our own fishermen.
Lord Carter: My Lords, do the Government share the concern of many people outside the House as to the effect
278
these agreements will have on the fishing industries in some of the poorest countries of the world? I am thinking of The Gambia, for example, which has had serious problems as a result of these agreements. Are the Government prepared to impress upon our European partners the need to take that into consideration?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, obviously that is an extremely important facet of those agreements. We must ensure that they do not amount to exploitation of third countries. Indeed, perhaps one of the helpful aspects of that is that Mrs. Bonino is the Fisheries Commissioner and the Overseas Aid Commissioner. I am sure that this is a matter which she bears closely in mind.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have some time. If the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is reasonably brief, as I am sure he will be, I am sure that your Lordships will allow my noble friend to come in.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Kempston, the first duty of any British Government is defence of the realm?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is fishing for an answer which is wide of the Question.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is not the problem here that we have foolishly given our fisheries over to the common resource of the Community, and that before we did so we had 85 per cent. of the value of fish in our waters and 80 per cent. of their volume? We now have 30 per cent. of the volume and 8 per cent. of their value. Has not that been a colossal financial disaster for this country?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that is an old question which has been answered at great length previously. All I can say is that my answer is no. As to why, I do not believe that I have time to go into that unless I am given another hour and a half or so. I have failed to convince my noble friend in the past and I am sure that I have now.

Ballistic Missile Defence Systems
3.31 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the written paper given to the United States periodical Defense News and reported in the Guardian of 13th January constitutes an announcement of a decision on United Kingdom participation in ballistic missile defences and, if so, why this announcement was not first made to Parliament.
Earl Howe: My Lords, no decision has been taken by Her Majesty's Government on our participation in

279
ballistic missile defence systems and no paper was given to Defense News. We are still assessing whether we have a national requirement for ballistic missile defence, taking into account risks posed by ballistic missiles from a national perspective and evaluating the options for responding to these risks.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply, which shows that we are dealing here with a leak and not with a decision which has been taken and withheld, even temporarily, from Parliament. Will the Minister confirm that these matters will be debated before the Government take a decision? Is not that a reasonable thing to ask? Perhaps I may explain that the system in question is a very small tip of a very large iceberg. Am I not right in saying that it is a programme favoured only by the US airforce, and is not even a tri-service proposal in the United States? Am I not right in saying that it consists of putting iodine lasers with a kill range of about 200 nautical miles on Boeing 747s, and then having those planes roam around the world, ready to zap anybody and anything, thus constituting a large new offensive capability?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the particular system mentioned in the article to which the noble Lord's Question refers is one of a number of systems that have been looked at during the course of the pre-feasibility study. We cannot make judgments about any BMD system until we have determined whether or not there is a national requirement. I cannot comment upon the view the United States takes of that particular system. As to the noble Lord's other question, we in the UK are nowhere near reaching a point where an announcement might be made on the way forward, but naturally we shall make an announcement to Parliament as and when there is something to announce.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no reasonable hope or expectation of any effective ballistic missile defence, and it is precisely that question which has led many senior military figures in recent times to take the view, which I have been expressing for some long time, that it is time to get rid of the nuclear weapon?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as to the technical feasibility of any system, again, I have to say that we are not yet at that stage. We need to do a great deal of work before we reach that point. It is of course a pertinent consideration, but the main one is whether there is a gap that needs to be filled.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we are content to wait for the Government's review and the result which no doubt will be reported to Parliament in the course of time? We recognise that this is an important and indeed vital matter which involves a great number of technical and difficult problems which have to be studied in a very clear way.
280
We are very happy to wait to see what the Government have to say and to make our judgment as and when the Government produce their own conclusions.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I find those remarks extremely helpful. I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is clear that we agree completely on this matter.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, has the Minister a moment to say anything about the possibility of a discussion in Parliament before the Government take their final decision?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I have tried to indicate, it is still early days. Advice has not yet been submitted to Ministers, let alone have any decisions been taken. However, I am sure that the noble Lord, with his interest in these matters, will not be slow in tabling a Motion at an appropriate moment. Of course I am more than happy to correspond with him on this question at appropriate intervals.

Crime (Sentences) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
3.36 p.m.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea rose to move, (a) That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they do report Clause 6 of the Bill without amendment; and (b) That, when the Bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole House, it be recommitted to a Select Committee in respect of Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to make it clear at the start that this is not a delaying tactic and still less a wrecking tactic. I have tabled the Motion because the point is complex. Referral of Clause 6 to a Select Committee would enable detailed study to take place with expert witnesses for and against the proposal for storage of pistols as laid down in the Bill.
The proposals in the Bill provide for expensive, secure storage, which will be far beyond the means of most clubs. Many clubs will be forced to close down. There is an alternative method which is described as disassembly; in other words, the removal of certain components from the pistol, which can be separately stored. That will take up far less room. Having been removed from the pistols, they are just lumps of metal. They would be useless for any purpose except to deter people. The pistol is therefore immobilised. That has the same effect as removing the distributor arm from the distributor of a motor vehicle.
The effect of the Motion is to refer to a Select Committee consideration of whether the disassembly of pistols should be used as a means of control. The Motion does not delay the rest of the Bill, and there is therefore no reason why the Government should oppose the move. As I said, I have no wish to delay the Bill's

281
progress. I know that the Government are worried about the time factor—about the Bill running out of time and being lost. I should be happy to accept a government Motion to fix a timetable for the Select Committee to report—let us say, four weeks or whatever period of time might seem right to the Government.
By confining the reference to Clause 6, it will be possible to consider the issue of disassembly in isolation, making any consequential amendments on Report. There are two powerful reasons why the House should proceed in that manner.
First, the issue is not a trivial one. Under the terms of the Bill handguns have to be stored and used at licensed clubs. The issue is whether they should be stored whole, or whether they should be dismantled and only their key components stored. Lord Cullen, in his report, said the option,
"which is open to least objection on the grounds of practicality is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components".
The dismantlement option is quicker and easier to implement and it will save money both to clubs which have to pay for increased security and to the Treasury in terms of fair compensation.
More important, it will enhance public safety. The storage of whole guns will create identified arsenals of weapons which can be a natural attraction to terrorists and criminals. Central storage of key components only, with the scattered storage in homes of the rest of the guns, will avoid that danger.
The second reason is that without the Select Committee procedure the House will not be able to make an informed judgment on which option is to be preferred. Lord Cullen acknowledged that the decision should be made on sound technical advice. This advice has not been forthcoming. The Select Committee can call expert witnesses for and against the proposals who can be examined.
In the first place, the Government acted with undue haste. They received Lord Cullen's report on 14th October 1996. They obtained a single letter from the Forensic Science Service on 16th October 1996. Their rejection of the dismantlement option was available to Parliament in printed form on 12th November 1996. It is very clear from the timetable that it was impossible for there to have been adequate consideration of so serious an issue.
Secondly, the Government began by rejecting dismantlement on the ground that it was not practical. Their response to Lord Cullen's report said:
"While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of gun, it is not a practical proposition for others".
At Second Reading the Home Secretary said:
"The Government took advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of disabling multi-shot guns. It concluded that the way forward was unworkable.".—[Offcial Report, Commons, 12/11/96; col. 175.]
Faced with overwhelming evidence that this was not so, the Government conceded that dismantlement was
282
practicable. At Committee stage the Home Secretary said that,
"we accept that there are many varieties of handgun that can readily be dismantled, but there are others for which it is a much more difficult operation".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/96; col. 784.]
In fact, about 95 per cent. of handguns can be easily dismantled. The Government therefore changed their ground to suggest that it is easy to obtain illicit spares, sidestepping the fact that it is easier to obtain illicit guns. So, at last, the Government abandoned any pretence of scientific clarity. At Third Reading the Home Secretary said:
"I accept at the outset that it is a matter of judgment and that it is not possible to prove conclusively that one argument is right and one argument is wrong".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/96; col. 1149.]
So there we are. It is a matter of judgment after all. But on what evidence are we to make the judgment? On the one hand we have the unanimous advice from experts outside the Home Office that dismantlement is practicable and safe. We have also the stated preference of Lord Cullen. On the other hand we have two letters from Mr. Warlow, of the Forensic Science Service, made available by the Home Office. The first of the letters, dated 16th October, has already been abandoned by the Government as an adequate explanation. The second, dated 18th November, contains Mr. Warlow's personal opinion quoted by Ministers:
"This procedure [dismantlement] would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined and motivated individual".
There is no evidence in the letter to substantiate that opinion other than the self-evident point that no measure of any kind can be a guarantee against possible misuse.
The Bill has been rushed through the Commons with no opportunity to get to the bottom of the matter. The only correct procedure for the House is therefore to interrogate Mr. Warlow and the other experts and make its own conclusion on the basis of the evidence. That is what the Select Committee procedure will provide.
Moved, (a) That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House that they do report Clause 6 of the Bill without amendment; and (b) That, when the Bill is reported from the Committee of the Whole House, it be recommitted to a Select Committee in respect of Clause 6.—(Lord Swansea.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, I dislike certain aspects of the Bill, but, with respect to my noble friend, I dislike even more his proposition in the Motion. I say that for two main reasons. First, I believe that a Bill of this character is best dealt with in its entirety on the Floor of the House in a Committee of the Whole House. Secondly, the proposed procedure could put in jeopardy the whole Bill, in view of the very short time which may well be available between now and the dissolution of this Parliament. I suggest that if that happened we should be in a position which was contrary to the spirit of the Salisbury Convention, which is well established and is long standing.

283
Whether we like it or not, the Bill was in the gracious Speech and it passed all its stages in another place with substantial majorities. To risk ditching it now would be very unwise. Indeed, I would go further and say that it would be sheer folly, in view of the policy of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, to interfere with the composition of this House. In saying that, I am not opposed to amending the Bill if your Lordships believe that to be appropriate. Indeed, we as a Chamber pride ourselves in revising Bills. We frequently amend Bills and send amendments to another place which it accepts as improvements. I very much hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept amendments dealing with certain aspects of the Bill which are causing most concern in particular to the law abiding shooting community.
My conclusion is amend the Bill, if your Lordships believe that to be appropriate, but do not risk ditching it through lack of time. That I say firmly now.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, might be persuaded to withdraw his Motion. He is inviting the House to defer its opinion to a Select Committee in respect of a matter on which the House, in terms of its total membership, is probably well qualified to make a judgment. In any event, he is promoting an amendment to the clause in respect of which he is trying to invite us to indulge in this procedure.
It is clear from the amendments that have been tabled that all sections of opinion in this House have varied views on the merits of the Bill. However, I hope that we shall get on with discussing those amendments and that that will be expedited if this Motion is withdrawn.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, before speaking to the Motion, I wish to declare an interest. I am a member of the Palace of Westminster Rifle Club, but I have no firearm or shotgun certificate of my own.
The purpose of the amendment is not to create delay. Indeed, I had hoped that we could have the report of the Select Committee in seven days on an emergency basis. However, I was told that that was completely impracticable but that perhaps two weeks might be possible. If the Select Committee determines that disassembly is satisfactory, small bore shooting might be viable, even full bore shooting could be all right, and that would save the country £150 million of public money.
The Government quote from papers from the Forensic Science Service, but they are only inter-office notes which appear to be an argument not for dismantling but rather for maintaining the status quo. What was the context of those papers?
Furthermore, those papers were not subject to peer review. They were certainly not considered advice to the Minister. They were definitely not sufficiently comprehensive to justify the expenditure of £150 million, which is £2.50 for every man, woman and child within the United Kingdom.
I repeat that this is not a Motion for time delay. I would not support any Motion made by the Leader of the House if it did not have upon it a severe time limit. We all understand that the Bill must be on the statute book well
284
before Easter. The Government want that so that they can be seen to have done something about the tragedy at Dunblane. The Opposition say that they are pushing the legislation in order to improve public safety. I support the Motion and I hope that the noble Lord will take it to a Division.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I support the Motion and I declare an interest as president of the Gun Trade Association. As I said on Second Reading, all those involved with handgun shooting, whether through sport or business, feel very let down by the rushed nature of this Bill. Many feel that Lord Cullen's report should have been considered in much greater detail than it has been. As I said also on Second Reading, I have a great deal of sympathy for the Government's position. Although I have grave doubts about the Bill, I supported it then and I still do.
However, the question of dismantlement is very important indeed. The outcome of your Lordships' deliberations on this matter will mean a great deal to all those involved with handgun shooting. Clearly, should we decide that dismantlement is the correct course of action and that is accepted in another place, that would have considerable cost savings not just for clubs through the reduction in security costs but also for members through their membership fees and for the Government in relation to compensation.
I have no intention of going into the pros and cons of dismantlement as an effective method of security; but having read the evidence, as I am sure have other noble Lords, it seems clear that the question is far from answered and needs very careful scrutiny. It would appear that the Government are basing their objection to dismantlement on one man's evidence—that of Mr. Warlow.
I do not suggest for one moment that his evidence is not of the very highest quality; but whether we like it or not, the fact remains that several others are also regarded as experts who take a contrary view. I do not believe that, as yet, their evidence has been taken fully into account. Therefore, I believe that the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Swansea to refer that issue to a Select Committee is the right course of action and would overcome that vital omission.
As I have said already, many people feel very badly let down by the rushed nature of this legislation and are looking to your Lordships to take a more balanced and rational approach. The issue of dismantlement is far too important not to be considered in great detail with the benefit of the advice of expert witnesses. The consequences of such a decision will be vital to many people.
The dismantlement argument is crucial and deserves special treatment. Furthermore, I hope that the Opposition parties, despite their general opposition to the ownership of all handguns, will acknowledge that if some guns are to remain in private hands—and if the Bill goes through as it stands at the moment, that will

285
happen—the need for security remains paramount but that those needs must be considered along with the practical needs of those who enjoy their sport.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make two procedural suggestions. They both lead in the direction of not agreeing to this Motion. The first is perhaps a small objection but I do not believe that the Motion achieves its purpose. It does not say that the Committee of the Whole House should not consider Clause 6. It says that the Bill should be reported to the House as amended but without Clause 6.
That does not make sense because it has not taken into account the consideration in Committee. What are we to do, if the Motion is agreed to, when we reach Clause 6? Is the Lord Chairman not to put the question that Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill and are amendments to Clause 6 not to be moved? The Motion does not deal with that.
The second point is that I agree entirely with the view expressed across the Floor of the House that it is much the most appropriate procedure for the Bill to be considered in Committee before it goes to a Select Committee. I say that not merely because of procedural reasons but because in that event, the Select Committee will not have the huge benefit of the expression of opinion in this House on that clause when it comes to consider it. I consider that that clinches the matter. I very much hope that the Motion will be withdrawn and that we can get on with consideration of the Bill in Committee in the usual fashion.
Lord Burnham:My Lords, personally, I am generally in agreement with my noble friend Lord Dean of Harptree; but is he right to say that the Bill was included in the gracious Speech? I read the gracious Speech with some care with that particular point in mind. I could be wrong but I could not find mention of it. If I am wrong, so be it. But if I am right, whether the Motion is desirable is a matter for your Lordships to determine, but it would not be a contravention of the Salisbury convention.
Lord Sewel: My Lords, opinion in Scotland is clear. There is a determined wish for control and greater control. The Motion that we are debating now, despite what may have been said, clearly has as its objective to put the Bill at risk.
Noble Lords: No, no.
Lord Sewel: Oh, yes it does. Those of us who are perhaps aware of the processes and procedures of this House know full well that this is a device, a mechanism, to imperil the legislation.
I ask your Lordships' House to reflect and reflect deeply on the way that support for this Motion would be interpreted in Scotland. The people of Scotland
286
would rightly not forget and would wish to take the first opportunity to pass judgment on this House and its future.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, I believe that the House would be extremely unwise to agree to the Motion. It seems to me that the noble Lord who has just spoken is right. This will be interpreted as a delaying mechanism. I believe that I am right to say that this device has not been used since before the war. I cannot believe that in the past 60 years matters more complicated than the question of disabling a gun have not arisen for consideration and they have not needed to be referred to a Select Committee. I believe that this device was last used and acceded to by the House for the Coal Act 1937.
If your Lordships agree to the Motion, the matter would be referred to a Select Committee. No real time limits could be imposed. We do not know what evidence would be called. We all know that a general election is pending in the next few months. How on earth would the public and Members of the other place interpret the accession of your Lordships to this Motion? It would be widely seen as a means of either delaying or destroying this measure. Of all the matters that have come before Parliament in recent times, this surely is a matter for the elected Members eventually to decide. They have to face the constituents.
4 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: My Lords, I should like to reassure previous speakers that, whatever impression may have been given, it is not the intention to delay or kill the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, have made that clear. I can only reiterate what they said.
I shall try to be brief, but I should like to make a general statement. On the wall of our village church there is a fine stone memorial to my grandfather who died in 1956. It refers to his long life of dedicated public service and concludes as follows:
"Lord Cottesloe was chairman of the National Rifle Association the most distinguished Rifleman and the foremost Authority on Firearms of his generation. (Do what is right—come what may)".
My father died in 1994 and was in his time an equally, if not perhaps more distinguished rifleman than his father. As some noble Lords will know, he too led a life of distinguished public service and was awarded the GBE for services to the arts. So he, too, was hardly an ignorant or irresponsible philistine.
The purpose of that rather tedious' piece of family history is to try to counter the anti-gun lobby and its public perception that anyone who enjoys shooting with a pistol, a rifle or a shotgun (as I do myself) is an ignorant, heartless, irresponsible—I understand that I am not allowed to use the word "yob", although it is much used outside this House—person.
I suggest that all the shooting community must speak with one voice and support each other, whether we use pistols, rifles or shotguns. After Hungerford, the people who were hardest hit by the 1988 amendment Act were the holders of shotgun certificates, although the principal weapon used by Michael Ryan in his dreadful

287
crime was a Kalashnikov self-loading rifle. Believe me, there is a very strong lobby, containing many otherwise sensible and well-informed people, which wishes to put an end to the legal ownership of any firearms by any private citizen in this country. Indeed, when I was on holiday in Wensleydale last summer, prayers were said in church to exactly that effect.
I shall not talk about points of detail, but perhaps I may mention one specific point. I have a long-standing, if somewhat tenuous, connection with the Wheel Chair Games which are held at Stoke Mandeville, not far from my home. I believe that pistol shooting is the only sport, with the possible exception of archery, in which able and disabled people and people of either sex can compete on absolutely equal terms. Unfortunately, it is not really a major spectator sport. Nevertheless, disabled people will be deprived of a sport—in many cases their only sport—by this Bill.
Can we plead, please, for less emotion and more objectivity? Nobody, but nobody, wants to see innocent little children slaughtered. But it is arguable, as I understand it, that if the speed limit in towns was reduced from 30 mph to 20 mph then the lives of 100 children would be saved each year. Of course, that cannot be proved beyond doubt and may be dismissed as speculative, but it is no more speculative than many of the arguments of the anti-gun lobby.
After Hillsborough there was really general agreement that the arrangements for the safety of spectators in sports stadiums needed radical revision—and this was done. An innocent, so to speak, victim of this legislation was the grandstand of the National Agricultural Centre at Stoneleigh in Warwickshire where the Royal Show is held each year, which was technically classified as a sports stadium. Although we had never had any trouble, and none was anticipated, the Royal Agricultural Society of England had to spend very large sums of money to comply. This seemed to be a case of an individual injustice in the interests of the common good. People who use guns are in general equally responsible and the recent hard weather wildfowl ban was generally accepted by sportsmen. But the current public vilification and wholesale legal victimisation of a responsible, law-abiding minority, albeit numbering many thousands, with the consequent destruction, inter alia, of livelihoods, leisure activities and heritage items is a gross infringement of civil liberty, in my view, and quite another matter.
I have to say that I believe this Bill to be ill-prepared and hastily drafted: as it stands it will be bad law. I support the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that we will not hear any more belated Second Reading speeches like that in the House today. Of course the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is not a breach of the procedure of the House; indeed, it would not have been allowed by the Clerks at the Table if it had been. But it is seriously an abuse of the spirit in which those procedures are conducted and it is seriously dangerous to the wish not only of the elected Chamber
288
but also of a very large number of people in this country to see this legislation concluded before the general election.
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the detailed arguments about disabling or not disabling guns made by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, and others. If those arguments had had any validity, they should have been put on Second Reading and a procedural Motion should have been tabled to attempt to achieve some other procedure other than a Committee of the Whole House. As it was, the House decided without dissent that the Bill should be read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House, which is what has happened. Therefore, to attempt at this stage, when the gap between Second Reading and Committee has elapsed, to defer one part of the Bill to a special Select Committee procedure—though it may be technically correct—is profoundly wrong.
I took careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said. He said that the suggested procedure would not delay the rest of the Bill. However, we cannot delay one part of the Bill without delaying the rest of the legislation. If we were to accede to the Motion and delay even one part of the Bill—or, indeed, one clause or even one line of it—rather than dealing with it in Committee as is proper, the whole of the Bill would be delayed. It is clearly inconceivable that we should then reach a Report stage on 4th February (as is now planned) and, given the situation regarding the numbers in the House of Commons, it is highly likely that the Bill would then fail to obtain Royal Assent before a general election.
On this Bill, as noble Lords know, my noble friends have freedom of conscience and they can vote as they wish. But my own intention would be to urge them most strongly to vote against this procedural Motion and to vote for the Bill to proceed in its entirety into Committee. I give the House the following warning. If as a result of this debate the Motion is carried and the Bill is delayed in such a way that it does not achieve Royal Assent before the general election and it subsequently comes before Parliament with a Labour Government, not only will this legislation be put through with the greatest urgency but the argument for the exclusion of the hereditary peerage from Parliament will be strongly increased. This Motion should be voted down.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, it has been stated that the Bill is relevant to all those involved in handgun shooting; namely, 60,000 people in this country. But this Bill is much more relevant to the rest of the country, despite what we may think from the contents of the huge postbags that we have all received. I believe that the legislation is far too important to be delayed. The Bill is very important to the population and we cannot legislate solely for 60,000 people and ignore the very widespread fear of handguns which has not only been brought about by the Dunblane and Hungerford incidents but is also an inherent factor.
I should like to make just two points. First, the inevitable procrastination will show us to be "out of touch" to an even greater extent than is currently

289
believed. Secondly, even if it is not the intention of the Motion to delay the Bill, that is exactly how it will be perceived.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I have no complaint at all about any of the speeches made in this short debate in support of the Motion of the noble Lord. Views are strongly felt in your Lordships' House. They are legitimately held. Sharply conflicting views were expressed on Second Reading and will be expressed again. I have no objection to this debate taking place, even if it were legitimate for me to have one. I regret very much any threats which appear to have been made about the consequences that might follow from any action the House might take.
I think we all recognise that this is a complex issue which deserves careful scrutiny. We can all be wise after the event. On reflection I, for one, believe that it might have been better to have had a Green Paper following Lord Cullen's report or, if it were possible, a pre-legislative committee to discuss many aspects of this complex question. However, that is a view I hold in retrospect. I do not blame anyone else for proceeding in the way that the Government chose to do in the light of public pressure at the time.
We now have a Bill before us. As noble Lords have said, it has passed through another place. We have a continuing duty of scrutiny but we certainly ought not to delay the Bill unreasonably. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, to discover whether there were any aspects of Clause 6 which were so fundamentally unusual to justify his singling it out as a clause which might go to a Select Committee. I did not hear those arguments. I do not see why, if that clause were to go to a Select Committee, the whole Bill might not also be sent to a Select Committee, However, that time is past. We have a Bill and we have the opportunity to discuss it today, and on at least one other occasion in Committee. I strongly urge your Lordships to conclude this debate and to proceed with the formal scrutiny of the Bill.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope I may put it to the Government that it is very much in their own interests to accept this Motion, which is not, of course, a wrecking Motion. As my noble friend Lord Attlee pointed out, if it is accepted it need not delay the Bill by more than 14 days at most. If the proposed Select Committee were to find that the Home Office firearms expert was right about disassembly, and that almost every other firearms expert was wrong, the Government would have won a significant victory, and much of the opposition to Part I of the Bill would collapse. If, on the other hand, the Select Committee should find that almost all the other experts were right, and by extension that Lord Cullen was right, the Government need not lose face. They could legitimately maintain that they were right to err on the side of extreme caution when making their initial speedy decision but that now that there had been time to investigate the disassembly question thoroughly it had become evident that the proposed draconian restrictions
290
were not after all necessary and that Lord Cullen's recommendations on disassembly could, after all, be adopted.
The prizes—assuming that the Select Committee were to find for Lord Cullen, so to speak—would be enormous all round. Tens of thousands of law abiding men and women would be able to continue practising their sport and their clubs would not go bankrupt in consequence of extremely expensive security precautions which would otherwise be necessary. Tens of thousands of natural Conservative supporters would return to the fold. Tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money could be better spent elsewhere and, above all, the general public would be much safer in that a dismantled gun has almost no value to a thief. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, replying to a supplementary question on the first Starred Question today, said, if I heard him right, that complicated scientific investigation should be left to scientists, or words to that effect. I believe it is sensible to follow that principle on the extremely important and complicated question of disassembly. I therefore urge your Lordships to support the Motion.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but having listened to it I have become a little concerned about some of the things that have been said. We need to appreciate that, as the second Chamber is constituted at the moment, and as it operates at the moment, there is a distinction between ourselves and the other House. Two problems that exist in the other House can be overcome in this House. First, amendments to Bills in the other House are selected. Not all amendments that are tabled are debated. The other problem the other House has is that quite often Bills are committed to Select Committees of the other House and not all Members of the other place can contribute to those committees. One of the glories of this House is that all amendments are considered and, in general, Committee stages are conducted before the whole House and every Member of your Lordships' House can contribute.
Bearing in mind the topic of the Bill, we can recognise that we have a significant number of experts in this field. We can also recognise that a whole range of Members of your Lordships' House right across the Chamber can express themselves articulately on this matter. I argue that in the situation we are now in it will not help the House and the consideration of the Bill if this Motion were agreed to. I hope that Clause 6, along with the rest of the Bill, will be considered by a Committee of the whole House, as this House has established a strong reputation for providing something that is different from the other place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this Motion until I heard the uncharacteristically immoderate speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench. I shall not speak for long, but I believe that we have been extremely unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, who has tried to be helpful. He, like myself, understands—as does every other

291
Member of this House—that the Government set up the Cullen inquiry which reported and recommended that disassembly was a possible way of dealing with this matter. The Government chose not to accept that report and indeed announced their intentions before the report had been published or properly assimilated. Therefore we have not had the opportunity we should have had to discuss properly in this House the course of action recommended in the report. In my view therefore there is a good reason why a less than normal procedure should be adopted to ensure that the experts give their views. After all, we in this House are not experts, nor can we act as an expert body when the House is in full Committee. There is a case for subjecting the matter to a quick examination—which was reported on by Lord Cullen—by experts, and for having a considered view, or perhaps more than one considered view, put before the House.
There is a great deal of feeling in the country on this matter. The Bill has come to this House after a guillotine procedure was introduced and enforced in the House of Commons. Therefore, as my noble friend has just said, it is right and proper that this House does its duty and ensures that the Bill is given proper consideration for as long as that takes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I have listened with great interest to all the points advanced during this debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swansea for spending time discussing his concerns about Clause 6 with me and I wish to put on record that I accept that my noble friend has no wish to delay the Bill unduly nor to thwart the passing of the Bill. As my noble friend has said it is his intention that by remitting Clause 6 to a Select Committee the House would have a greater opportunity to consider the issue of disassembly. I have naturally given serious thought to this proposal and discussed it at length with colleagues and officials. Therefore I hope that the House will recognise that what I have to say represents a careful and considered response.
This is an unusual Motion. Indeed it was as long ago as the 1930s that such a Motion was last put to this House. Not only is this Motion unusual; it also has a number of awkward, and perhaps unforeseen, consequences. I mention just one example. If this Motion were passed, the House during this Committee stage could debate amendments to Clause 6 but not in fact make any amendments to the clause. That would indeed be unusual.
Whatever effect my noble friend wishes this Motion to have, I have to tell the House that it would place this Bill in real peril and I am sure that I do not have to remind the House that this would be a most serious matter. One has only to consider the time that has to be set aside to establish a committee and for it to complete its work. Time would be needed to give public notice of the committee's intention to take evidence and to give interested parties the time to prepare to make their submissions. My noble friend has suggested that this process could be completed within one month from today but it may well take longer than that for an effective Select Committee to be selected, appointed,
292
and to complete its work. The whole House would then have to consider the report and resume the remaining stages of the Bill including the additional stage required after the Select Committee, namely recommittal of Clause 6. One does not need to dwell for long on the arithmetic of this particular equation to be clear that it delays the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. I am sure I do not need to remind the House that your Lordships' consideration must be followed by consideration in another place of Lords amendments. There is no doubt that this Motion would seriously jeopardise the completion of this Bill in this Parliament.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said in his statement in another place, the facts of the dreadful event at Dunblane committed with a gun that was legally bought and legally possessed,
"place an extremely onerous duty on the Government to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of guns."—[Official Report, Commons, 16/10/96; col. 831.]
This Bill seeks to give the public the protection they require by removing all handguns from circulation but recognising the legitimate interests of sportsmen by allowing the use and storage of lower calibre handguns—subject to stringent security requirements—in gun clubs.
Concern about Clause 6 is the subject of the Motion before the House. But there is only one amendment down to Clause 6. And neither my noble friend nor any other noble Lord has given notice of an intention to debate the question that the clause stand part of the Bill. This House has given consideration to matters of much greater complexity, with comparable concern and sensitivity of subject in many Bills, but has not needed to resort to such a procedure. I am therefore rather puzzled as to why my noble friend intends to vary our normal procedures in this way in respect of a clause that has generated so little interest by way of amendment.
The House has every opportunity to consider the question of disassembly, together with every other issue, in the normal way. This Bill was debated at great length during Second Reading. Noble Lords have now had a number of weeks to consider it further and we are about to embark upon two days of Committee. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree with me that your Lordships' procedure for consideration in Committee of the whole House is one of the great strengths of your Lordships' procedures allowing as it does all noble Lords to play a part in revising and scrutinising legislation.
I should add that there has been no attempt to truncate or curtail the timetable for this Bill in this House and that all the time needed to discuss any amendment before the House is provided for. It is of course possible for the House to come back to any part of the Bill for further consideration during Report and again at Third Reading. I see no reason for departing from our normal procedures.
I do not intend at this time to discuss the relative merits or demerits of disassembly. I wish merely to point out to the House the consequences of accepting this Motion on Clause 6, and to invite your Lordships to accept that the usual procedures of this House are

293
more than adequate for further consideration of this Bill; and that any departure from those procedures could have the most serious consequences for this Bill. I must therefore ask you to reject this Motion.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I hope that I made it sufficiently clear at the start that my Motion was in no way a wrecking or delaying tactic. However, one or two noble Lords seem to have had doubts about that. The Motion has to do with the rights of minorities which in a democracy like ours are important. There are many thousands of shooters. A small proportion of the population see their sport in danger of being killed altogether.
As I said at Second Reading, this is a bad Bill. I am trying to improve it by making it more able to be lived with. The general feeling of your Lordships is contrary to my suggestion and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
On Question, Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
4.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Tordoff) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of s.5 of the Firearms Act 1968 to prohibit certain small firearms]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, after ("weapon,") insert ("a single shot weapon,").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 3, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke also to my Amendment No. 7 and, with the leave of the Committee, refer to Amendment No. 19.
The Minister's Amendment No. 19 is very useful to the agricultural community as it will allow the continued use of a shot pistol. I believe that they are similar to a garden gun. They will be used for dispatching vermin such as rats. Ordinary 12 or 20 bore shotguns have the disadvantage that they can damage farm buildings with their power and they are not so convenient for use in confined spaces. However, I wonder whether the Minister is aware of a technique that can be used to alter a shotgun cartridge including the .410 inches applicable to the shot pistol. If molten candlewax or some similar substance is poured into the shot it acquires the ballistic characteristics similar to that of a solid slug or bullet. Thus a shot pistol, merely by a simple technique, can be made nearly as powerful as a full-bore single shot pistol.
My amendment would permit the use of a single-shot full-bore target pistol. These are used only by very serious target shooters. They are not attractive to those who don the trappings of combat. These guns are also
294
unattractive to criminals for two reasons: first, they have very sensitive trigger actions, which could cause a criminal inadvertently to fire his gun; secondly, as the gun would fire only a single shot, he could be vulnerable until he could reload. Most of them can be dismantled, a point that we shall debate later.
There is one further point to be made about criminal use of single-shot weapons. I, as do many others, have modest engineering facilities. I could easily make a smooth bore single-shot pistol by the end of this weekend. It could be made to fire a solid bullet or shot, and it could be devastatingly powerful. There is therefore no point whatsoever in imposing draconian restrictions on shot pistols or single-shot target pistols as it would penalise legitimate users while not impeding criminals at all.
I think I have briefly shown that the shot pistol could be very similar in terms of power. However, there is one extra difference. The shot pistol can be double-barrelled: two shots can be fired with a shot pistol, whereas only one can be fired with a target pistol.
I am grateful to the Minister for her amendment. I hope that she is able to accept mine. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, I shall refer only to Amendments Nos. 3 and 7. No Member of the House was warned that Amendment No. 19 was to be coupled with these amendments. Therefore I accept with some comfort the words of the noble Earl but will present Amendment No. 19 in its proper order.
The Bill will allow .22 rimfire or other small-calibre handguns to be kept in clubs licensed by the Home Office or Scottish Office, regardless of whether they are single-shot or multi-shot. However, handguns of higher calibre will be prohibited by the Bill.
The question posed by Amendments Nos. 3 and 7 is whether it would be right to make an exception to this prohibition in the case of higher calibre handguns which cannot fire more than one shot without being reloaded. The Government take the view that it would not.
Single-shot higher calibre handguns are uncommon. So an exemption would not benefit very many existing shooters. But by exempting them from the prohibition the Government might encourage their development and sale.
Single-shot higher calibre handguns are just as deadly as multi-shot ones and are as easily concealable. Many might well be models converted from original multi-shot designs. That would open up the possibility that some people might take the opportunity to convert them back to multi-shot, no doubt illicitly.
Lord Cullen concluded, on the basis of the expert technical evidence that he heard, that when a pistol has been converted from multi-shot to single-shot,
"there was no method which would prevent a pistol from being re-converted with relative ease".
That statement appears in paragraph 9.77 of his report. The Government agree with that assessment.

295
What is proposed would significantly weaken the force of the prohibition and I urge the Committee to reject it.
Lord Monson: Can the Minister say how often single-shot larger calibre handguns have been used in crime over the past 25 years or so?
Baroness Blatch: No, and I do not even think that I can promise to write to the noble Lord. I do not think that that kind of detail is recorded.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. I fully accept her comment regarding her Amendment No. 19.
She mentioned the danger of encouraging the development and sale of a particular type of weapon. I accept that argument. However, this particular gun is not dangerous in that sense. I quite accept the dangers of the shot pistol that she will debate later.
The Minister also mentioned the danger of conversion to multi-shot. That is a valid complaint in relation to my amendment. I shall read her words carefully and possibly redraft the amendment for a later stage so as to consider a weapon specially designed, originally constructed to be single-shot, which would therefore make it extremely difficult to convert to multi-shot use. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1. line 15, leave out ("a small-calibre pistol,").
The noble Lord said: This amendment represents the only major difference between ourselves—or rather between myself and those of my colleagues who agree with me—and the Government on this Bill. We have a free vote, and it is to be taken seriously. It is important that at every stage when there is a free vote—I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Stoddart back in his place—nobody should accuse us of trying to browbeat colleagues into a position that they do not wish to take up. I repeat, within the context of a free vote this amendment represents the only major issue on which we are in dispute with the Government.
I pay tribute to the way in which the Government and the Opposition throughout the period, not only since the drafting and progress of this Bill but since Dunblane, have worked together to secure greater gun control. The sight of Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Robertson in their first visit to Dunblane, followed by the sight of the Prime Minister and Mr. Blair, should be enough to convince all noble Lords that there is no party animosity between us on this issue.
There is, however, a difference of judgment in this case. The judgment we make is that the exclusion from the complete prohibition on handguns of .22 small-calibre pistols is a mistake. I do not say that it is a wicked plot or anything of that sort; I merely say that it is a mistake.
What are the Government's arguments for excluding .22s from the full rigour of the Bill? First, they say that these are used in Olympic sport and that to ban .22s would damage that part of Olympic sport.
All those who listened to the Second Reading debate will acknowledge that those who are opposed to gun control have expressed the opinion very forcibly that Olympic sport is already damaged by the provisions of the Bill as it stands. The exclusion now of small-calibre pistols from Olympic sport would not make a very great deal of difference.
I acknowledge and respect the views of those who wish to find some way of retaining the ability of this country to participate in Olympic sport. However, that has to be within the confines of public safety, as I am sure all sportsmen will acknowledge. I put it to those to whom this is a very important and respectable consideration that there is comparatively little difference between a complete ban and the 80 per cent. ban proposed by the Government in this respect.
The second argument put by the Home Secretary in another place was that, were there to be a complete ban on small-calibre pistols, somehow gun clubs would become more attractive targets for criminals. Again in a non-partisan spirit, I pay tribute to the way in which the Bill has been drafted to tighten up on the security arrangements of gun clubs. I believe that in so far as anything can be effective, those arrangements will be effective and therefore they will apply as much without .22s as they would if .22s were excluded from a ban.
After all, what is the difference between small calibre pistols and other handguns so far as concerns public safety? Small calibre pistols are the preferred weapon of the Special Air Service; they are the preferred weapon of Mossad, the Israeli Security Service, which is probably the most effective, and without fear of international incident I would say the most ruthless, security service in the world.
It was a .22 which killed Yitzhak Rabin; it was a .22 which killed Robert Kennedy; and it was .22s which killed at Hungerford and Dunblane. If a .22 can be used as Thomas Hamilton used it to fire 743 rounds to kill 17 people, seriously injure 15 people and then to kill himself in a matter of minutes, can there be any doubt that from the point of view of public safety there is no significant difference between a small calibre pistol and any other kind of handgun?
I realise that the Committee will be referring back to Lord Cullen's report on a number of occasions in the course of this debate. But we must remind ourselves that Lord Cullen said that no system of certification or regulation could be foolproof. That must apply, surely, as much to .22s as to any other form of handgun.
This is a loophole in the Bill that the Government have provided. It is not necessary. There is no consistency in the Government's approach to this particular part of the Bill. The Bill would not only provide a safer environment but would also be easier to

297
administer from the point of view of certification and regulation if this amendment were carried. I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Gisborough: I oppose this amendment. It is important that the pistol should be available for Olympic sport, and I understand that the Manchester Olympics in 2002 were agreed virtually on condition that there would be firing pistols available. The British would not be able to partake fully. As it is, the British will not be able to partake in most events, but at least they will be able to partake in the events involving .22s.
One has to remember throughout the whole debate is that of all the massacres that have taken place, the pistol came into it only once. There was Monkseaton with a shotgun; there was Sullivan with a fire extinguisher used as a flame gun; and there are still things like explosions, chain saws and poison, and many other ways of massacring. Pistols represent just one single method that has been used. There is no justification for singling out pistols, when the only safe way of dealing with this is to leave everybody with a wooden spoon and nothing else, because that is about the only thing that is safe.
Lord Monson: I wonder why the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has so little faith in his fellow countrymen and countrywomen. Almost every other civilised country in the world has more liberal gun laws than the Government propose, and far, far more liberal gun laws than the Opposition propose, and yet their inhabitants seem perfectly happy and safe, and indeed they are statistically safe. I see no sign of British tourists avoiding those countries where, in the majority of them, guns are more freely available. I believe that this amendment is quite unnecessary and goes much too far.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: I do not wish to rehearse the arguments for the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and myself because I believe that they are very largely familiar to the Committee. We discussed them at Second Reading, when your Lordships appreciated that there were really four options.
One option was to concentrate on the regulation of the ownership and use of weapons and on that alone, which is the view which has already been expressed in the House today and no doubt will be expressed again. The second was the option of Lord Cullen, for which there is some support. The third option was the one adopted by the Government. The fourth option was the banning of all weapons because of a lack of distinction, pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, between .22 and heavier weapons.
I recognise the legitimacy of views on all sides of the House for all four of these options, and I do not take the view that those who opt for the better regulation of ownership and use are not themselves deeply concerned about the terrible tragedy of Dunblane. However, what we have to do is apply our minds to the possibility of legislation, and the legislation most likely—we cannot say more than that—to avoid a tragedy of this kind occurring again.
298
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to there being no significant difference in the capacity of a .22 and any heavier weapons to kill. Of course, that is the central question. When we were discussing on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, Clause 6 earlier this afternoon, I reflected on the fact that Clause 6 is in the Bill as prepared by the Government and put before another place because it recognises—Ministers do recognise—that there are dangers inherent in the ownership and use of .22 weapons. Clause 6 therefore is a compromise between a ban of such weapons and leaving them outside the purview of the Bill. The point has already been conceded by Ministers that .22 weapons are dangerous and they could indeed be responsible for a repeat of the terrible offence of Dunblane. In those circumstances, we have to ask ourselves, among other things, whether the Bill as drafted is more likely to be effective in its administration than a Bill which contains a ban on all handguns of whatever kind.
I have to say to the Minister and to the Committee that I believe that if we carry the Bill as at present drafted there will be very serious problems of definition and of administration in applying Clause 6, allowing the use and ownership of handguns but restricting where they are held and not in fact banning them altogether. I have said this once and I say it again: we cannot be sure that whatever measures we take or do not take in this Bill will avoid another Dunblane. However, what we can do—and this is what this Bill is all about—is minimise the risk to human life through the ownership of handguns of every kind. If we learn the lessons of Dunblane and we are bold enough we may save others from the same fate. Nobody has a natural right to own or to use a handgun, but we all have a natural right to life.
In those circumstances, among others, I believe that a total ban on handguns, as embodied in the amendment put before the Committee at this time, is the right course to follow.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I have a very small point I wish to raise. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and I was under the impression that in the course of the argument he was advancing he suggested that Thomas Hamilton had used a .22 weapon and that indeed he shot himself with such a weapon. Is that what he did suggest? I believe that he said that.
In paragraph 3.37 of the Cullen report it is made clear that the weapons he had with him were two 9 mm Browning self-loading pistols and two .357 Smith & Wesson revolvers. It would appear from the earlier paragraphs, such as paragraph 3.5, that he used the 9 mm pistols to kill the children. In paragraph 3.8 of the report it says quite clearly:
"He then released the pistol and drew a revolver. He placed the muzzle of the revolver in his mouth, pointing upwards and pulled the trigger. His death followed quickly".

299
I mention this because I may be wrong, in which case I apologise, but I believe that the noble Lord was using something which was not totally accurate to support his case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. Clearly, from what he read, I was wrong. I did say what he thought I said and I was wrong. I withdraw the statement.
Lord Addington: Perhaps I may say very briefly that the fact about .22s is that when they hit something they displace less tissue. But with a smaller capacity handgun and shells with a magazine, there is the option of putting in another bullet. That effectively is what we are dealing with here. It may be slightly more difficult with a .22 but it is still possible to kill. That is the issue behind this matter.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Of course, all handguns—all weapons—are dangerous. But we should remind ourselves that the danger arises when they are wrongly used by a human being. We should not lose sight of that fact. In every case, as in Hungerford and Dunblane, we find that the individual concerned was a madman. We must always keep that in mind.
If I thought that this amendment would guarantee that there would never be another Dunblane or Hungerford, I would vote for it. But, of course, there can be no such guarantee. I have to say that if this amendment is agreed, Thomas Hamilton will have won. He will have revenged himself upon the people of Dunblane. In addition he will have had a great bonus: he will have revenged himself upon perfectly innocent shooting people—people who care to shoot for a sport. He will have had his revenge on them as well because they will be wiped from the face of the earth in exactly the same way as he wiped from the face of the earth 14 young lives and one adult. Is that what we want? Should we say that because of the actions of that one madman we should take away the rights that many decent, respectable people who are not criminals have enjoyed? Do we believe that we should take away those rights completely? I believe not.
My noble friend spoke about systems of control. I must remind the Committee that if the existing controls had been properly carried out, Thomas Hamilton would not have had the weapons with which he killed those people. It was not a failure of the present control system. It happened not because there were .22 pistols available, but because Thomas Hamilton was allowed to have those guns when he should not have been allowed to have them. The policeman in charge of the investigation of his position had recommended that he should not have them, but he was overruled by the deputy chief constable.
When we talk about taking away people's rights, we must take into account the facts of the situation. I have looked at the evidence and can see no real correlation between the ownership of guns and the homicides carried out. For example, I was struck by the fact that in Switzerland and Norway, where gun ownership is high, the incidence of homicide by guns is very low.
300
But in Holland, where the incidence of gun ownership is low, the incidence of homicide by guns is quite high. We must be extremely careful about what we should do.
I want to make two other points. First, what will be the additional cost of this particular measure? I do not wish to put cost against lives, but we should have some estimate of the cost of destroying a further tranche of weapons. We are entitled to have that information before we finally vote. It may be large or small—I do not know.
I come to my final point. If this amendment is agreed to, what will be the next step? Rifles and shotguns are just as lethal, if not more so, than a .22 pistol. With heavy calibre shot, one can cause mayhem with a double barrelled shotgun. So where do we go from here, if we are to ban the .22 and leave untouched even more lethal weapons?
I ask the Committee to consider this matter very seriously. We have all the sympathy in the world for the people of Dunblane and the little children who were murdered. Nevertheless, in this Chamber we have to consider the realities and the fairness of the matter. We must not impose upon ordinary, decent, law-abiding people a system which is completely wrong and has nothing to do with the matter.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would just confirm that when he refers to "cost" what he means is the additional compensation which would have to be paid and which would run into millions of pounds?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I can confirm that that is precisely what I meant.
Earl Attlee: The noble Lord who moved this amendment is quite right. The .22 pistol is a powerful and deadly weapon in the wrong hands. It is capable of rapid fire and in skilled hands it is reasonably accurate at close range.
However, the noble Lord does not seem to understand one simple concept; namely, that if someone is minded to commit an outrage against society, he can do it at will and he will use the most effective weapon or means available to him. So if he does not have a legal full bore pistol or a .22 pistol or shotgun, he can go to the Continent, particularly toward the East, and buy an illegal one. If he does not want to use guns, there are other options, which are too ghastly even to mention. That is why the noble Lord's amendment in particular and the Bill in general leave a little to be desired.
If we do not adopt dismantling, small calibre shooting may be unviable. For that reason I prefer to delay my decision until a later stage. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hooson: The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said that the Bill cannot provide a guarantee that there will not be another Dunblane or another incident such as we have been concerned about and he is absolutely right. But Lord Cullen, the judge who investigated that matter,

301
had most if not all the arguments put before the Chamber today put before him and adumbrated at much greater length than they have been today.
Members from all sides of the Chamber have referred to Lord Cullen's report. It is just as well if I quote two of its findings. It said that one cannot guarantee that a gun does not fall into improper hands. When Lord Cullen was considering the assessment of risk, he said about licensing—I quote his exact words from paragraph 9.57 on page 119:
"I have already indicated that there are significant limitations in the extent to which the certification system can be relied upon to exclude persons who are unsuitable".
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, virtually implied that the police were to blame that Hamilton got through the net. But Lord Cullen, who had heard all the evidence, concluded that whatever precautions were taken, one could not depend on certification for prevention.
Having heard all the evidence and the arguments regarding the calibre of guns, their use in sport, and so forth, Lord Cullen came to this conclusion at page 120, paragraph 9.61:
"In the light of the evidence I see no good reason for making an exception in the case of any particular calibre of multi-shot handguns".
We have been told from all sides of the Chamber today that we should pay specific attention to the findings of Lord Cullen who, in my view, produced an excellent and carefully considered report. I see no reason why one should not accept his opinion on these two matters.
5 p.m.
Lord Braybrooke: I support the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, because, in my view, he put the situation in a nutshell. This is vexatious legislation. Many Members of your Lordships' Committee and my fellow Lord Lieutenants have received large numbers of letters. In my case not one of them was in favour of the legislation. Many people have written against it and I received one letter this morning which said that no amount of legal circumnavigation around the sizes of barrels and so forth will alter the situation one whit.
The means of stopping the killings is to control illegally-held handguns. My informant told me that 2,000 such guns are imported every week and that there are around 2 million in circulation in the country. This legislation banning specific forms of gun, sadly, will not affect the situation one iota. I have full sympathy with Dunblane. I had a daughter who was killed on the roads in 1980 while riding her horse. It is terribly distressing. But we do not then assume that cars or horses are to blame. It is not guns that are to blame; it is the people who use them.
Earl Peel: The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, raised an interesting point. I believe I am right in saying that Lord Cullen did not distinguish between the two types of handgun. But surely the most important point is that Lord Cullen did not recommend the banning of handguns and it is therefore the Government who have made the decision to distinguish between the two types.
302
I should like to make again a point I made at Second Reading and one about which I feel strongly. I am convinced that if 1 million or 1.5 million people in this country participated in handgun shooting, we would not be discussing at Committee stage today the banning of any form of handgun; we would be discussing means of increasing the security and control of those guns within private hands.
We must accept that point. It is one made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. A number of people in this country—it may be a small minority—have enjoyed their sport for many years. We must bear their position in mind while deliberating these matters. An additional point in relation to illegal guns is that there are around 2 million illegal handguns drifting around this country at the moment. The police should be making a determined effort to contain them.
Security is a point that is well covered in the Bill. Another essential point is the question of the issuing of licences. It is a point we shall be discussing later in Committee and is a point we must look at most carefully. Clearly the present system has not worked and we must improve it where we can. To say that the banning of handguns will have the desired effect suggested by both noble Lords, I fear is not the case. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, if we believed it would be effective, more of us would be supportive of the objectives; that simply will not happen. I say again that we must have consideration for and bear in mind those people who have enjoyed their sport and behaved impeccably over the years.
Lord Hooson: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I can make a point. He mentioned Lord Cullen. Lord Cullen's recommendation 24 states that the availability of guns should be restricted in one of two ways; either dismantling,
"or, if such a system is not adopted, by the banning of the possession of such handguns".
Earl Peel: Dismantling is something we will be coming onto at a later stage.
Lord Hooson: My point was in relation to the banning of such guns.
Earl Peel: I accept that.
Lord Marlesford: Further to the point the noble Lord has just made. In paragraph 9.113 Lord Cullen says clearly,
"I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified".
That is relevant to the point being made. It is a spurious distinction. My noble friend said that Lord Cullen did not distinguish between different calibres of guns. He did not; but equally he did not recommend that any be banned for the purpose I quoted.
Earl Russell: I am familiar with the argument that guns do not kill people; people do. As far as it goes that argument is perfectly true. On the other hand, it must be

303
conceded that people can kill people much more easily than they can with most other methods; they can also do it a great deal quicker.
I should like to tell the Committee about one incident that was reported in the Evening Standard, I believe in November 1994, which did a great deal more to persuade me of the virtues of the case for gun control than anything that happened at Dunblane. It does not concern a madman; it concerns a respectable American householder. He and his wife went out to dinner to celebrate their silver wedding anniversary. They left their daughter, aged 14, at home. During the evening she became somewhat bored and when her parents came back, around midnight—very happy and perhaps just a little merry—the daughter retired into a cupboard and leapt out at them exclaiming "Boo!". The householder, hearing an interruption, believed he was being ambushed by a burglar. He drew his gun out of his pocket and shot. Before he knew what had happened, his daughter was dead. If he had used any other weapon—even a knife or a glass bottle—he would, before the fatal moment, have realised what he was doing. That to me in a nutshell is the case for gun control.
I heard what the noble Earl, Lord Peel, said about people who, for many years, have enjoyed their sport. What he says is true. I am happy to concede that the overwhelming majority of them are innocent, decent, law abiding citizens who have been enjoying what has always been a lawful and innocent recreation. But it does not follow that we should not legislate against their interests if we believe, as I do, that by reducing a culture in which it is acceptable to have guns, we may save a considerable number of lives.
There is precedent for that line of argument. In 1626, in another place, a Member dealing with expiring laws continuance pointed out that a whole profession had been wiped out by the Reformation—the profession of running what he described a little discourteously as "holy water shops"; what are now called in North London, "Catholic repositories". Clearly, that was economic ruin to a group of innocent people. But it seems to me to be reasonable that the country could not decide on its religion on the grounds of the economic interest of this one particular group. Where these people have a very strong claim to be heard and where we on these Benches have heard them very strongly, is on the issue of compensation and on that we intend to press very strongly indeed.
Essentially, the case of those who are now arguing for guns is that they are doing something which is culturally acceptable and so, hitherto, they have been. But cultures change. It used to be culturally acceptable for every gentleman to carry a sword. It used to be acceptable to come into this House wearing a sword. The House decided that that was unacceptable in 1621 in the face of great protest. I believe that there are very few of us now who believe that that decision was mistaken. There are very few of us now who would go back to a world where every gentleman wears a sword. The cultural
304
change that we are now considering is of equivalent magnitude. With regret for those who will suffer from it, I nevertheless hope that it will go forward.
Earl Attlee: It is always a pleasure to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, but does he agree that the tragic story from the United States which he has just related is a particularly good argument in favour of dismantling?
Earl Russell: I understand that dismantling is to he discussed at considerable length later on. The questions here are about feasibility, security and practicality. On those questions I am willing to listen to argument and I look forward to doing so.
Lord Torphichen: There is a point that worries me about the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the gentleman who unfortunately shot his daughter. In the story that he related, the man was not carrying a sporting pistol. I am sure that he was not using the gun for sporting purposes but for personal protection. Has it not occurred to the noble Earl that there would still be many thousands of guns—
Earl Russell: I beg the noble Lord's pardon, but I am unable to hear what he is saying.
Lord Torphichen: Is the noble Earl aware that if this Bill is passed in the form the noble Earl wishes, there will still be many guns in use in this country for the same purpose as that mistaken citizen was carrying his gun? This law does not ban all handguns.
Earl Russell: I am well aware that this law does not ban all handguns. If it comes into force I believe that it will be the most stringent gun control law in the West, which I would welcome. I am also aware that there will still be guns which are possessed illegally. However, from the police point of view it is a great advantage to be able to prove the offence of illegal possession. Just as with the law against offensive weapons, we would now use it against anyone who went about the West End wearing a sword. The cases seem to me to be analogous.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am very interested in what the noble Earl has said about the carrying of swords. Until 1920 people could carry pistols legally if they wished to do so. But is it not the fact that fencing—in other words, sword play—still goes on in sports clubs and other venues quite legally and that in fact it is an Olympic sport? That is all that the shooting fraternity want to do.
Earl Russell: I am well aware of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, makes. We have a question here about security. I fenced when I was a young man. The foil is a pretty supple instrument. I do not see it as being particularly suitable for use by a gang of bandits or robbers. In a world where there is a security risk arising from a great many people with terrorist inclinations, I do not believe that there is a real

305
prospect of raiding stores for foils used for fencing. However, there appears to be such a risk with guns, so I do not believe that the cases are on all fours.
Lord Milverton: I shall be unable to support this amendment. I am not one who does pistol shooting or anything like that, but I have great sympathy for those who do. We ought to show them that we have some feeling that they have integrity and honour in their sport. I have not been persuaded by the argument here or by any reading that I have done, about the need to have this complete ban for which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is asking. Therefore, I shall not support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may go back to the amendment for just a moment. I am at a loss to understand why the Opposition are so keen on this amendment because, surely, if this legislation comes into operation there will be very few clubs left, if any. I have heard a policeman say that all the clubs would be shut down. If that happens there will be no legal .22 pistols.
Lord Stallard: I must be one among many in the Committee at the moment who is considering how to vote or how one should consider the whole issue. Our natural instinct is to do everything that we can to prevent any further incidents or even the use of firearms. Once or twice I have been bemused by references to Lord Cullen's report because we did not debate it. I believe that there has been a great error in the programme since Dunblane in that we have not debated that report. If we had done so we would not be in the position that we are in now where people are picking from the report the parts which suit them and quoting them for and against the arguments.
Perhaps I may give an example. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, mentioned Lord Cullen's report. But he could also have mentioned paragraph 6.64, which concluded that the chief constable of Central Scotland Police should have revoked Hamilton's firearm certificate and he went on to say that had he done so, it was unlikely that Hamilton would have carried out the massacre. That appears in paragraph 6.69, which could have been mentioned as well. In mixing up the Cullen Report with this Bill we can get into a situation where we are vying with each other as to which paragraph we consult.
I have never had a more professional lobby than I have had on this gun Bill. I have received a number of letters about it which were well thought out and professional. I started by saying to myself that I was opposed to all guns and that was an end to it, but having read all these letters and having replied to them, and having had some replies to my replies, I am a wee bit worried now that I may be going over the top a bit and that I should be looking further into Lord Cullen's report. I would have liked to have had a debate on that report to justify it.
He is quite rightly saying that had the acting chief constable listened to the people in his own police service then Hamilton would never have had a licence. Through
306
my correspondence quite a number of people have linked the acting chief constable and Hamilton with another organisation who may well have influenced the decision of the acting chief constable. The fact that he left is an aspect of the matter which has not been discussed and it means we have missed out through not discussing the Cullen Report. If we had done so, we would have discussed the actions of the acting chief constable. Therefore we are in a wee bit of trouble in constantly referring to specific and chosen passages in a report that we have not discussed.
Lord Hooson: Does the noble Lord appreciate that when he refers to paragraph 6.64 of the Cullen Report he is referring to what Lord Cullen found while considering the evidence? But I have been quoting Lord Cullen's conclusions and recommendations. Having made all his findings about the Chief Constable and the others, he has come to certain conclusions and made certain recommendations to the Government. Those are the important matters that the learned judge has concluded after hearing all the evidence.
Lord Stallard: That is exactly what I said. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, said that I should have looked at paragraph 6.64. I say to him that he should go a further five paragraphs and look at paragraph 6.69 where Lord Cullen said that if the matters he mentioned in paragraph 6.64 had been listened to, it was unlikely that Hamilton would have carried out the massacre. Why was that not repeated? The danger of not discussing the Cullen Report is fast becoming obvious in this debate.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I believe that this amendment aims to diminish the number of crimes in which firearms are used. Since 1988 the number of applications for firearms certificates has reduced by 25 per cent., but the number of crimes in which firearms are used has risen.
Lord Vinson: The point that I wish to make is fairly small and has already been broadly raised. If the amendment were passed, it would effectively put an end to the existence of gun clubs in this country. We need to remind ourselves that in past years many of those gun clubs were encouraged and developed in order to create a cadre of people who understood weaponry for the defence of the realm. Although, thank God, after 50 years of peace, that may no longer be necessary, that was what lay behind the foundation of many of those clubs which are full of some of the finest and nicest citizens in this country.
We should also bear in mind the lesson that I was taught at school: that the democracy in which we live is not only for the enforcement of majority will but also for the protection of minority rights.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I rise to support the amendment and, in doing so, to call for a total ban on the legal private ownership of handguns on the British mainland. I did not move my amendments relating to such a ban in Scotland earlier because I am in greater

307
support of this amendment. My "Scotland-only" amendments might be a valid fallback position if this amendment is not accepted.
I believe that there has been a significant cultural change in Scotland and probably in England and Wales also with regard to the legal private ownership of handguns. I believe that that was latent until 13th March last year, but that it has become vested since then. I freely admit that on 12th March last year only a few committed people spoke about the abolition of the private ownership of handguns. Clearly, the terrible events at Dunblane Primary School have brought about a desire to remove or excise handguns from Scottish and British culture and community. I assert that the silent majority—certainly in Scotland—favours a total ban. I wish that I had the referendum figures to prove it.
The Dunblane Snowdrop petition was widely supported by several hundred thousand people and I hope that noble Lords will weigh that against the many letters that we have received from pistol shooters. I have 55 such letters on my desk at present. The Dunblane Snowdrop petition expressed a revulsion against handgun ownership and the associated gun culture, together with the desire for a handgun-free society. I conclude by expressing my belief that a future Scottish Parliament will enact a total ban on handguns.
Baroness Blotch: As has been clear all the way through the passage of this Bill, both here and in another place, there are a very wide range of views on the fundamental question of where the line should be drawn on the banning of handguns.
As I said during the Second Reading of this Bill, the dreadful tragedy of Dunblane placed on the Government an inescapable duty to consider what controls there should be on the ownership and possession of handguns. We have undertaken that duty and introduced a Bill which we believe will protect the public but still allow some legitimate use of pistols. I believe that a complete ban is unnecessary and inappropriate.
It is important to recognise that target shooting has had a long history in this country and although we propose to ban high calibre handguns, we believe there is a way for target shooting to continue safely in this country, albeit with lower calibre pistols.
The shooting of .22 pistols has had an honourable place in Olympic competition since 1896. Tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens of this country enjoy this activity perfectly legitimately. I am reminded at this point of what the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said earlier when he spoke to the Motion and of his reference to disabled people who enjoy shooting as a sport. But by allowing this sport to continue, we intend that it should be able to continue only under the strictest possible conditions and shooters will not be able to keep their pistols at home. Pistols will have to be kept under stringent conditions in licensed pistol clubs. The clubs will have to meet rigorous security standards and satisfy the police that they are run properly and are secure. Shooters will not be allowed to shoot with a .22 pistol until they have obtained a firearm certificate from the police.
308
No pistol would be allowed to be removed from the club except for certain very limited circumstances which are set out in the Bill. When they are removed the owner will have to get a special permit from the police and, when in transit outside the club, pistols would have to be transported by a third party whom the police had approved. I believe the pistol club system can work safely and securely.
I also think that if handguns were banned altogether there is a real danger of driving target shooting underground. That would not help to protect the public. I believe that that is a very real possibility and consider that it is much better that target shooting should be allowed to continue under very strict control.
The Bill which we have introduced will reduce the number of handguns in this country by up to 80 per cent. and remove them from people's homes altogether. It will give Britain some of the toughest gun controls in the world. I believe it will give the public the protection they need and deserve, while still allowing some limited target shooting to continue.
I welcome the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the co-operative working between Members of this House and another place and between the parties on this issue. I have every confidence that that will continue until the passing of this Bill into legislation. I was also pleased that the noble Lord withdrew his comments about the use of .22 pistols at Dunblane. Not only were .22s not used at Dunblane; they were not used at Hungerford. The self-loading 9 mm. pistols used at both Dunblane and Hungerford were concealable yet they were able to produce high fire.
Again, I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I have been reminded that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to Hamilton firing 743 rounds. Hamilton had 743 rounds but fired 106 rounds-105 at the children and the young teacher and one at himself. I make no point about that other than to put the matter right for the purpose of the record.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked particularly about cost. My understanding is that it would cost between £180 million and £190 million to include the other 20 per cent. of guns, given that the 80 per cent. costs £150 million.
I turn now to the exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and my noble friend Lord Peel about Lord Cullen's conclusions. It is perhaps worth quoting rather more fully from paragraph 9.113 than did my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The paragraph states:
"If for any reason that course is not to be followed"—
that refers to the issue of disassembly. Those of us who have read the report know that Lord Cullen had some reservations about the practicability of disassembly. Lord Cullen continued:
"I see no alternative to considering the more draconian alternative of a ban on multi-shot handguns. However, in such circumstances I would suggest that the ban should be directed to the possession of such handguns by individual owners rather than the possession of handguns by shooting clubs, since it is through possession by individuals that the risk, in so far as there is a risk, of homicide or serious injury arises. Thus I do not consider that the banning of

309
handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified. I have no particular recommendation as to the legislative means by which effect would be given to such a ban".
There is very little difference between what Lord Cullen recommended and the conclusion reached by the Government. However, unlike Lord Cullen, we believe that possession of handguns is very important to shooters. The way in which a shooter uses a weapon for target shooting is very personal and relates to the shooter's handling of that gun, the shape of the gun and the moulding of the handle to that shooter. We have come to a compromise under which the shooter owns the gun but it is held securely in the premises of a gun club. That was the conclusion reached by Lord Cullen.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: I apologise for interrupting my noble friend, but my noble friend says that there is very little difference. Surely there is a big difference. Lord Cullen proposes in the paragraph that has been quoted that handguns should be held only in clubs and not by individuals, but he does not propose that calibres above .22 should be banned. That is a significant difference. I suspect that had the Government followed that recommendation there would have been much less objection from the shooting lobby. I still do not fully understand why the Government did not follow the logic of Lord Cullen in that paragraph which my noble friend has read so articulately.
Baroness Blatch: At the beginning of my response to this amendment I said that the question was where the line should be drawn in the sand. The debate today is about where that line should be drawn. The Government have come to a particular conclusion and they will defend it in the course of this debate. The amendment before the Committee is much more akin to a total ban on handguns, and for that reason I hope that noble Lords will reject it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The difference between my noble friends and me and the Government, as I hoped I made clear at the beginning, is relatively small. I accept that the direct effect of the Bill as drafted is to remove 80 per cent. of legal handguns not only from circulation but from existence. I also accept that the very tight restrictions on gun clubs mean that a considerable proportion—no one knows quite how many—of the remaining 20 per cent. will disappear. That may be an advantage to the Government. They will disappear because there may be nowhere where they can be kept legally and no compensation will be payable. I am always conscious of that slightly cynical point.
However, the debate in the main has not been about that but has returned to the more atavistic dislike by many noble Lords of the Government's proposal. That is a pity. I would have hoped that the Committee could have restricted itself to my narrower point of disagreement with the Government. Having listened to some of the contributions to the debate, I rather suspect that my noble friend Lord Stoddart, had he been around
310
in 1621, would have been opposed to the rule of order that disallowed the carrying of swords in this chamber. To put it as neutrally as I can, he is a traditionalist.
Be that as it may, the difference between myself and the Minister is relatively small. It is, however, significant in the sense that the effectiveness and public understanding of the law will be very much greater if there is a total ban on handguns. If every time we see a handgun we know that it must be illegal because the law does not allow a handgun to be carried or used in this country, that recognition must be of assistance to the police in carrying out their duties. I appreciate that the carrying of handguns in the street will not be allowed, and never has been allowed. But if no one is trained to use handguns or has the experience of shooting at targets with handguns, the possibility of an individual using small calibre pistols to kill people will be ever so marginally reduced.
I refer to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. There is no guarantee that legislation can prevent a Dunblane or a Hungerford. No one denies that the legislation proposed by the Government is very stringent, but it could be that much better if the amendment were carried. I put the Question to the Committee.
5.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 81; Not-Contents, 215.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Addington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hollick, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hooson, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hughes, L.

Blackstone, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Calverley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Carlisle, E.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kennet, L.

Carter, L.

Kilbracken. L.

Castle of Blackbum, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Clancarty, E.

Layton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lester of Heme Hill, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNally, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller.]

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Eatwell, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Mishcon, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Morris of Castle Moms, L.

Gallacher, L.

Newall, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Peston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rea, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Richard, L.

Haskel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

311

Russell, E.

Tordoff, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Serota, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Simon, V.

Whitty, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Symons of Vemharn Dean, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Thomson of Monitieth, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Digby, L.

Addison, V.

Dilhome, V.

Ailsa, M.

Dixon-Smith. L.

Aldenham, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Alderdice, L.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Aldington, L.

Donegall, M.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Downshirc, M.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Annaly, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elles, B.

Attlee, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Balfour, E.

Elton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton. L.

Eme, E.

Belstead, L.

Erroll, E.

Blaker, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Blatch, B.

Falkland, V.

Blyth, L.

Feldman, L.

Bowness, L.

Feners, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Feversham, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Brain, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Braille of Wheatley, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Braybrooke, L.

Gibson, L.

Brightman, L.

Gisborough, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Goschen, V.

Bumham, L.

Habgood, L.

Burton, L.

Haddington, E.

Byford. B.

Haig, E.

Cadman, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Harlech, L.

Camarvon, E.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Camock, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hemphill, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Henley, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hertford, M.

Clanwilliam, E.

Hogg, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Holdemess, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

HomPatrick, L.

Clinton, L.

Home, E.

Cobbold, L.

Hothfield, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Howe, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Howie of Tryon, L.

Coleridge, L.

Hylton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Congleton, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Inglewood, L.

Courtown, E.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Cowley, E.

Kimball, L.

Cox, B.

Kintore, E.

Craig of Radley, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Knutsford, V.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cross, V.

Lawrence, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Lindsay, E.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Liverpool, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Long, V.

Daventry, V.

Lucas, L.

Davidson, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

De Saumarez, L.

Luke, L.

Denbigh, E.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L.

Lytton, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

312

McConnell, L.

Rochester, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecicnish, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

St. Davids, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Sandwich, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Selborne, E.

Marlesford, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Marsh, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Massereene and Fen-ard, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Spens, L.

Mersey, V.

Stallard, L.

Methuen, L.

Stockton, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Milverton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Minto, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Monson, L.

Suffield, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Swansea, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Swinfen, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Taverne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Tebbit, L.

Munster, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Thurlow, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Tollemache, L.

Nelson, E.

Torphichen, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Trefgame, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Norfolk, D.

Tryon, L.

Norrie, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Northesk, E.

Ullswater, V.

Norton, L.

Vemon, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Vinson, L.

Oliver of Aylmerton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Waterford, M.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Weatherill, L.

Peel, E.

Westmorland, E.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Wharton, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Wigram, L.

Prior, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Wilcox, B.

Rathcreedan, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Reay, L.

Wynford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Yarborough, E.

Renton, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert (", for the words "24 inches" there shall be substituted the words "60.96 centimetres" and for the words "40 inches" there shall be substituted the words "101.6 centimetres".").
The noble Earl said: When the 1968 and 1988 Acts were passed we were still using imperial measure. Amendments Nos. 6, 83 and 92 are designed merely to incorporate into the legislation the exact measurements in centimetres. It is important that these measurements should be exact because it is illegal under the legislation as it stands for any barrel of any gun to be reduced to less than 24 inches.
With this group of amendments is Amendment No. 8 in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I should like to take the opportunity to ask her whether she is

313
aware of any air pistols with barrels bigger than .22. If they are only compressed air, they would be weak. I beg to move.
Lord Burton: I wonder whether I might make one comment to my noble friend. I am not sure that it is right to suggest that the barrel lengths should be 60.96 centimetres or 101.6 centimetres. If one has that definition of the various weapons in the Bill it will ban various weapons which it is not intended to prohibit.
Some Members of the Committee may well have started to shoot with a folding 410. Those would be prohibited. Certain larger calibre rifles such as the double-barrelled weapons used for boar shooting or bear shooting on the Continent would be banned. A number of people in this country may well have those in their houses. Of course I do not expect a reply from the Government today, but it is yet another point which has reared its ugly head, which many Members of the Committee may feel should be looked at again.
Lord Monson: I declare an interest as a patron of the British Weights and Measures Association. I oppose the amendment. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, may remember that, graciously, our lords and masters in Brussels allow us to use the mile as well as the pint, that airline pilots the world over measure the height of their aircraft in feet and not in metres and that we talk about 12, 16, 20 and 28 bore guns. Therefore, there is no reason why we should use metrication for the purposes of the Bill and I oppose the amendment.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I am confused about a matter relating to measurements and perhaps the Minister can help me. The .22 pistols are to be allowed but the. 32 pistols are to be banned. However, .32 pistols have a great deal less power than .22 pistols. If necessary, I have documents from Birmingham proof house which illustrate that.
Baroness Blatch: I intend to address the amendments before the Committee and I hope that we shall not get into an argument about metrication versus imperial measures. Nor do I wish to return to the debate about the difference between .32 and .22 firearms, except that the Cullen Report refers to the distinction in terms of firepower.
Perhaps I may first address my noble friend's three amendments which deal with the vexed question of metrication and imperial measurement in the firearms legislation. I believe that the three amendments are unnecessary. The effect of the Units of Measurement Regulations 1995 is that references to imperial measures in legislation prior to 1995 shall be construed as though the indication of quantity in imperial were expressed in metric terms. I believe that it would be far simpler to convert these firearms references in the course of a consolidation of all the firearms legislation rather than in a Bill of this kind. The Government will consider the need for such consolidations after this Bill. Therefore, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
314
My Amendment No. 8 ensures that currently certificatable air weapons which fire pellets of 5.5 millimetre (.22 inch) or smaller can be treated in the same way as other small calibre pistols and be kept and used in licensed pistol clubs. These air weapons, although required to be held on a firearms certificate, are lower in power than .22 rimfire pistols and we believe that it is appropriate for them to be treated the same as small calibre pistols. Those air pistols which fire pellets of a higher diameter will become prohibited.
I therefore hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment and await consolidation. I invite the Committee to accept the Government's Amendment No. 8.
The Earl of Balfour: I am happy with my noble friend's explanation but I am intrigued that page 1 of the Bill refers to 30 centimetres and 60 centimetres instead of to 12 inches and 24 inches. That is the only matter than I am surprised about because we are muddling up the two measures.
Baroness Blatch: I am no expert but I understand that legislation made after 1995 must refer to metric measurements. There is a great deal of legislation on the statute book and there is a case for consolidation. That will be considered after the passing of this Bill.
The Earl of Balfour: I am grateful for that answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment and I shall not move the other amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("; or

(b) an air pistol to which section 1 of this Act applies and which is designed to fire .22 or smaller diameter ammunition.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 15, at end insert ("; or

(b) a pistol chambered for use with a centre fire cartridge which is not more than one inch in length inclusive of the missile and which uses a missile not more than .32 inches in diameter.").

The noble Lord said: The Bill prohibits all calibres of pistol above .22. However, there is an important calibre which is used in international competitions, not in the Olympics but in the Commonwealth Games and other international events. It is the .32 wadcutter, which is a centre-fire cartridge fired from a semi-automatic pistol. The wadcutter bullet is square ended and punches a clean-cut hole in the paper target. That cartridge is fairly low powered being fractionally more than that of the .22 rimfire. The cartridge is generally loaded by the owner to a low velocity in order to produce the minimum recoil. The energy is just sufficient to operate the mechanism of the pistol. It is a very popular calibre and is used in international competitions.
If the cartridge is loaded with a round-ended bullet, that would project beyond the mouth of the case. However, the wadcutter bullet is seated so that the whole bullet is within the case and does not project beyond the end. A round-nosed bullet would project beyond the end and would exceed the dimensional limits laid down in the amendment. Furthermore, it would not function effectively in a semi-automatic target pistol for which it is designed. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: While I am reluctantly prepared to accept that .22 pistols are primarily for target shooting purposes, does the noble Lord agree that as regards larger calibre weapons their stopping power rather than their accuracy is the attraction?
Lord Gisborough: I understand that the .32 Smith and Wesson long target wadcutter cannot, without blowing up, be given the power to produce the same effect as a .32 Harrison and Richard magnum, which is a different weapon altogether. The Smith and Wesson can not be upgraded. I understand that the muzzle velocity energy is 115 pounds FP—whatever that is—whereas the .22 is 105 pounds and 140 pounds. The velocity is 710 pounds, which is less than any of them. There is a distinction between the wadcutter and the magnum, but the wadcutter pistol cannot be made to fire the larger charge without blowing up, and therefore it is quite safe.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The Winchester .22 magnum rimfire has a muzzle energy of 194 foot pounds and the .32 wadcutter has a muzzle energy of 130 pounds. The noble Lord mentioned stopping power, so that the actual penetrative power of the wadcutter is considerably less than the .22, which will be legal.
6 p.m.
Lord Kimball: Will my noble friend the Minister consider holding out some hope to the shooting community? I suspect that one of the problems of the amendment is that it deals with a centre-fire bullet. My suggestion would mean adapting all pistols, but perhaps it may be possible for it to be a rimfire cartridge rather than a centre-fire cartridge. In that way, we may hold out some hope to the pistol shooting community. A rimfire version of the .32 wadcutter would and might be acceptable because that is the calibre that is needed for most international competitions. When you come to measure the bullet hole by tenths of a centimetre, you realise how important it is to have a really accurate hole. I hope that the noble Baroness may be able to give us some hope on that front.
Lord Monson: There are three important points about this amendment to which I have put my name. First, the muzzle velocity and range of a .32 pistol chambered in that way is no greater than that of the average .22 pistol. Other Members of the Committee have mentioned that and I believe that that answers the concerns raised legitimately by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. It is as dangerous as a .22, but no more so.
316
The second point is that the Government's own expert advisers confirm that there have been no recorded crimes of any sort committed with this weapon for at least 25 years and probably longer, although records do not stretch back any further. That is a very important point.
Thirdly, acceptance of the amendment would permit United Kingdom competitors in that discipline to take part in the Commonwealth and similar games. The idea that uniquely in the Commonwealth and Europe, British competitors cannot be trusted with those pistols is insulting in the extreme as well as being contrary to logic and common sense. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
Lord Torpichen: If this amendment is not accepted, will my noble friend give an assurance that if people in this country are not allowed to use that particular type of pistol, it will not be possible for anybody from overseas to come to this country and compete with a pistol in any future games or be allowed simply to bring the weapons into the country because he believes that it is legal?
Lord Brain: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, about the possibility of having rimfire cartridges. Is not one of the advantages of a centrefire cartridge that it can be reloaded by the individual whereas a rimfire cartridge must be specially prepared and then, if it is to be loaded by the individual, which I believe is very much the point of some of the pistol shooting experts, it is already primed? You do not load it when it is in an inert state.
I support the amendment. I realise there are difficulties. The Minister may be able to give us sufficient assurance to enable the amendment to be withdrawn and the matter to be reconsidered at the next stage.
Baroness Blatch: Amendments Nos. 9 and 78 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swansea and supported by my noble friend Lord Kimball and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and other noble Lords, would exempt .32 calibre centre-fire handguns from the general prohibition on handguns. The Government have given great consideration to the distinction between the lower .22 rimfire calibre and higher calibre handguns.
Under the Government's proposals, British competitors will still be able to compete in all the Olympic shooting events and four out of the five Commonwealth shooting events. As the Home Secretary said in another place, the holder of his office of the day would have the power to grant special permission for the .32 event to take place at the Commonwealth Games, if the games authorities decide to include that event.
I understand that there are serious target shooting competitions outside of the Commonwealth Games which use this higher calibre of weapon. I also understand that when they are used for competition shooting they shoot low powered ammunition for the purpose of accuracy. However, the guns remain capable of using much more powerful ammunition without

317
modification. It is a fact that handguns chambered for .32 rounds, such as pocket pistols, are frequently used in crime.
By contrast, as the table in paragraph 9.49 of Lord Cullen's report shows, a .22 rimfire calibre round is some four to six times less powerful than a high calibre round. And the power is limited by the nature of the ammunition it uses.
I am afraid that the noble Lord has borne out my noble friend Lord Kimball's prediction at Second Reading of this Bill when he said:
"I do not think that the arguments will prove very convincing about centre-fire ammunition".—[Official Report, 16/12/96; col. 1316.1
The Government remain of the view that there is no good reason to exempt anything other than pistols chambered for .22 or smaller rimfire cartridges.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Kimball that I always consider very carefully what has been said in Committee between now and the next stage of the Bill. Without prejudice to the outcome, I shall re-read what my noble friend said and respond either before Report stage or on the Floor of the House at the next stage.
As I understand it, the amendment would allow pistols of between .22 and .32, small .32 inch revolvers and other similarly calibred weapons which regularly feature in crime, as I have already said. I hope that Members of the Committee will not support the amendment.
Lord Torpichen: It sounds as though at the next Olympic Games in this country, if that ever happens, or Commonwealth Games, there could be two people travelling on a train from the Channel Tunnel to wherever the games are held. One is a resident of this country who thinks he is perfectly entitled legally to carry his gun to the competition but has unfortunately slipped up as regards the paperwork in a very small way and therefore could be turfed off the train and put into gaol. Alongside him is a foreigner with a piece of paper, which may or may not be authentic, for his use of the gun and reason for carrying it and presumably it will be a foreign piece of paper which will not be verifiable by the police in this country. However, the piece of paper held by the home countryman will be verifiable.
Baroness Blatch: I regret that I cannot give my noble friend an answer in relation to the person from another country coming to this country, but I shall write to him about that.
However, it would not be a minor slip if somebody was carrying his own gun in this country, having been given special permission to compete in the Olympic Games by the then Secretary of State of the day. It would be quite an important slip if he were carrying his own gun because the movement of a gun from one place to another must be done by a special permit and by an authorised person, and that person must be a third person, not the person who actually owns the gun.
Lord Monson: The Government's adviser, Mr. Warlow, has stated that the striking energy of the bullet
318
fired from the specific type of .32 pistol as provided in the amendment is comparable with the striking energy of a middle of the road .22 rimfire loading.
Is it also not the case that a pistol chambered in that way can be used only with relatively low velocity ammunition and cannot be adapted for use with higher powered .32 cartridges?
Lord Torpichen: At the risk of pushing my luck, perhaps I may ask that if special permits are given to foreigners to bring guns into this country which citizens of this country would not normally be given, that the foreigners who wish to carry those guns must, by some means or other, obtain exactly the same permission or certificate as a resident of this country.
Baroness Blatch: I remind my noble friend that I said that I should have to delay answering about the particular criteria which would apply to someone from another country coming to this country for the purpose of competitive shooting. However, I said that it would not be possible, without breaching the criteria, for the owner of a gun, having received special permission to compete in a .32 event in this country, to be carrying his gun, regardless of the authority that he has, because he should not be carrying that gun himself. It should be moved from one part of the country to another by a third person who is authorised by means of receiving a permit to do so.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I believe it was mentioned that people were wondering whether it was possible to reload a .32 to make it more powerful. I should just like to quote a few words from the Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof House which was asked such a question:
"It was found not to be possible with either round nose or wadcutter bullets, to produce muzzle energies which exceeded the .22" LR rim fire in the .32" … long centre-fire with loadings that did not exceed the highest mean service pressure for that cartridge".
Those words come from the actual proof house.
Baroness Blatch: I did not respond to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and I apologise for that omission. However, perhaps I may take the noble Lord's point and that just made by my noble friend and couple them with the other promises that I made. I promised to take such matters away because they are technical issues upon which I need to take expert advice. I shall either address those points by letter in the course of the next few days or, if not, I shall certainly refer to them during the next stage of this Committee.
Lord Brain: I should like to ask the Minister a rather similar question before she sits down. When a pistol is proved there are specific limitations put on its proved strengths and on the sort of cartridge that can be fired from it. This could be put on the certificate authorising the use of the weapon so that specific ammunition, and only specific ammunition, could be purchased or used for that weapon.

319
I get a message from the wording of the amendment which refers to,
"not more than .32 inches in diameter".
That could be amended to read,
"weapons up to .22 and .32 only",
with certain specific conditions. It is not necessary for the Minister to respond at this stage and say that she will consider the matter. I accept what she has already said in that respect.
Baroness Blatch: I have but one further point to make. One of the things that we have to consider as a Government is the scope for circumvention. Of course, one can write almost anything on a certificate as a limitation on the use of a weapon. But if it is easily convertible and if, illicitly, other ammunition can be used, my understanding is that one of the risks to consider is the scope for circumvention. If the scope is relatively easy, that would be one of the reasons why we should not go down that road. But again I should like to couple the noble Lord's points with others that have been made and return later to such matters.
Lord Swansea: I believe that we have had our money's worth with this amendment. I am very grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I shall not press this amendment but will return to it at a later stage. In the meantime, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consult all the authorities that she can because I should like her to know that the point I made about the power of the cartridge is a perfectly valid one. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Races at athletic meetings]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Attlee: In opposing the question that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 10 which is tabled in my name. On Second Reading I drew the attention of noble Lords to the so-called "starting pistols" used at athletic meetings. In due course I received a letter from the Minister designed to reassure me. It did not. We need to remember that we are here today as the result of a tragedy which occurred at a school, yet the Minister intends to allow what she calls starting pistols to be used at athletics meetings. Obviously such meetings involve young people.
We are not talking about blank firing pistols, as no licence is needed for them, or for the ammunition, provided that the diameter of the ammunition does not exceed 1 inch. What we are talking about are items such as fully serviceable Webley .455s which will fire live rounds. The dangers are obvious. No matter how careful and responsible the officials are, the guns could be stolen by skilful criminals. The officials, and indeed competitors, could become vulnerable to attack.
320
As I pointed out on Second Reading, you can kill someone with a blank if the muzzle is pressed against the head. That could easily happen with horseplay among youngsters. I accept that that has not happened yet, but it could happen and it is unnecessary. The Minister will tell us, in the way that she does so well, why it is necessary. She will explain that a large flash, a loud bang and plenty of smoke are necessary so that the back-up timekeepers can see when the race starts. But it is the blank ammunition that does that and I have no problem in that respect. You can get all those effects by using a proper blank firing gun which cannot fire a projectile and, therefore, is outside the scope of the Firearms Act.
I believe that I can anticipate the Minister's response to my amendment, but what about that of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh? My amendment would strengthen the Bill and remove handguns from close proximity to youngsters when they have no choice in the matter. Presumably the noble Lord's aim with this Bill is to improve the safety of the public. If that is so, the noble Lord will support me and urge me to pursue the matter at a later stage.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has opposed that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill. If Clause 4 were not part of the Bill this would prohibit the use of handguns for starting races at athletics meetings.
The noble Earl raised the matter on 16th December during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill; but, unfortunately, I did not have an opportunity to respond at the time and, as he has already said, I wrote to him on the subject and placed a copy of that letter in the Library for the notice of other noble Lords.
However, it may be helpful if I explain to the Committee, for the sake of the record, the Government's reasoning for allowing this exemption from the general prohibition on handguns. Clause 4 provides that a person does not need the Secretary of State's authority under Section 5(1)(aba) of the Firearms Act 1968, as inserted by Clause 1 of the Bill, to possess, purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a firearm that is held on a firearm certificate with a condition that it is only to be used for starting races at athletics meetings. The clause also provides that a person such as a race official other than a certificate holder may possess a firearm at an athletics meeting in order to start races.
Most starting pistols—the ones used at most schools sports days—do not have an open barrel and are simply designed to make a bang. They are not classed as firearms and the legislation would not affect them anyway.
We understand from the British Athletics Federation that major athletics events require starting guns which are classed as firearms. For technical reasons, BAF starters require a gun which can produce a very loud bang and a highly visible flash from the muzzle end of the gun. Special blank ammunition is used for this purpose. The visible flash is required to notify the manual timekeepers who are required to act as a back-up in case the electronic systems fail. Such accurate

321
timekeeping is only essential for races where international, national or regional records will be set and such records are only recognised when a BAF starter is present. We understand that a .22 pistol would not be suitable for that task. It would not produce either a bright enough flash or a loud enough bang.
A firearm certificate for a starting gun will not allow possession of bulleted ammunition. Race starters, of course, only require blank rounds, as the noble Earl said.
In these particular cases, we believe it right that the chief officer of police should have the discretion to grant Section 1 certificates to these people. The chief officer will be able to assess each case on its merits. We consider that it would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to require these people to obtain the Secretary of State's separate authority. Starting pistols are generally blank-firing handguns and their construction determines whether or not they are subject to firearm certificate control.
The Forensic Science Service conducts examinations of production models of blank-firers to determine how easily they can be converted. Those which are so designed or adapted that they could readily be converted to firing live ammunition with ordinary tools—for example, by drilling out any obstruction in the barrel—must be held on a firearm certificate. Most starting pistols of the type encountered at school sports days, as I have said, are not readily convertible. Neither the proposed nor existing legislation bites on these.
Some athletics race starters use conventional revolvers of the type which the Government intend to ban. Long before Dunblane we had been in correspondence with the British Athletics Federation about the continued use of those guns. The BAF has made a plausible case, we believe, for the retention by some of its starters.
Any concern that such an exemption would be open to abuse is countered by the fact that firearm certificates for these handguns will not allow the possession of bulleted ammunition. In addition, the only individuals who will be able to make a case for retaining a handgun will be those approved by the BAF as starters. The BAF has indicated that it has only around 300 starters in the United Kingdom, and that not all of these require firearms. I hope that reply is slightly more reassuring, but I am not sure that I have added a great deal to the letter that I wrote to the noble Earl before the Committee stage.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Earl challenged me in his opening speech to respond to him on the grounds that this measure represents a strengthening of the Bill. Of course he is quite right, but I thought it better to wait for the Minister's reply before responding directly to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I must confess that I was unconvinced by what the Minister said. With modern technology it cannot be beyond the wits of those who design electronic instruments to produce something which produces a loud bang and makes a vivid flash without being in the form of a pistol of some kind. That seems to me to be
322
very old fashioned in technological terms. I was not convinced that the noble Earl had an adequate answer to the case that he made. I would rather see as few exceptions as possible. I doubt whether the noble Earl will press this matter to a vote, but I confirm to him that what he says sounds reasonable.
Lord Hooson: Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the requirement of a firearm for starting national races is an international requirement? If it is an international requirement, it seems to me we should go along with it. However, if it is simply a British requirement, surely it could be modified.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know the definitive answer to that question, but my understanding is that the British Athletics Federation operates to national and international standards. I need to take advice on whether there is a comparable standard for the starting pistol, and report back to the noble Lord.
Lord Torphichen: If I am to understand that Thomas Hamilton was already involved with boys' clubs, and could have gained the weapons he needed by becoming interested in athletics and becoming a starter, please let us have this measure.
Earl Attlee: I appreciate that my provision would cause inconvenience as regards sport. However, the general principle of the Bill will cause much inconvenience to people who compete in shooting matches at international level. Is the Minister aware that in the aftermath of the Dunblane disaster the Amateur Swimming Association decided that blank firing pistols were inappropriate and that it would stop using them? If the Minister is aware of that, what conclusions does she draw from that decision? Can she confirm my assertion that firing a revolver using blank ammunition can kill someone?
Baroness Blatch: I do not believe that firing blanks would kill someone, but I am no expert on the matter and therefore I do not know. However, a good case was put to us by the British Athletics Federation. It needs to maintain a high standard of accuracy, and it has convinced us that this clause is needed. It has also convinced us that it has rigorous standards as regards accepting people to become starters. I would say to my noble friend that if Thomas Hamilton had become a starter, if he had used a gun with bulleted ammunition he would still have been in breach of the law. We have accepted the federation's case. We believe this is a highly controlled activity and that the British Athletics Federation has made a good case. We have decided to support the federation. However, I shall read what has been said in this debate, and we shall no doubt continue to debate the matter until we reach the end of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This sounds like the case of early cars or early steam engines being designed to look like horses as that was a more familiar sight to

323
people. The form of a pistol has nothing to do with making a loud noise or making a flash. That is quite illogical.
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's comments on this measure. I may return at a later stage with a more tightly worded provision, perhaps referring to applicants having to be BAF starters.
Baroness Blatch: For the record, I should say that I have said the measure is confined absolutely to BAF starters. That was the whole point of the exemption.
Clause 4 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Earl Attlee Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause
EQUIPMENT FOR SHIPS AND AIRCRAFT
(" . The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have a firearm or ammunition in his possession if he is otherwise entitled to do so under section 13 of the 1968 Act.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment covers a small but important point. We are a trading nation and ships come from all over the world to our ports to trade and use our facilities. The master, in order to defend his ship from attack by pirates on the high seas, will often have a small armoury. Under Section 13 of the 1968 Act, that is no problem. However, a police permit is required if the guns are to leave the ship for maintenance, repair or transfer. Handguns will be involved in this and they would be caught by the Bill. If my amendment were accepted, the status quo would be maintained. Clause 13 of the 1968 Act is perhaps a little loosely drafted. However, I cannot envisage people rushing out to buy a merchant ship in order to keep their handguns. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I take this opportunity to mention a point which is just within the scope of the amendment. The rubric of the amendment refers to,
"Equipment for ships and aircraft".
I refer in this connection to small boats and canoes. At present there are available some desirable mini flare guns which can be used to attract rescue when one is in distress. At the moment canoeists and dingy sailors are debarred from using such useful distress signals. Certainly those in the canoeing fraternity believe that one requires a firearm licence to own such a device. I believe that is a breach of common sense, albeit perhaps not a breach of the law. Perhaps the Minister can help me on that point. I accept that as the matter is wide of the amendment the Minister may choose to write to me.
Baroness Blatch: The Bill does nothing to prevent the use of signalling apparatus on ships or at aerodromes. As for the use of high calibre guns on ships, the Government have consulted with the shipping industry and there were no calls to exempt persons on board ships from the general ban. Even if we had been faced with such calls, we could not envisage that such a blanket exemption for those
324
people who are affected by Section 13 of the 1968 Act could be in the best interests of public safety. Therefore I do not wish to accept this amendment.
Earl Attlee: I thank the Minister for her reply. I shall have to study it and consider the matter more closely. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Clause 5 [Trophies of war]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I call Amendment No. 12. If the amendment is carried I shall be unable to call Amendments Nos. 13 and 15 owing to pre-emption.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 43, leave out from ("which") to ("before") and insert ("was acquired as a trophy of war").
The noble Baroness said: As the Committee will know, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough. My ministerial colleague the right honourable Ann Widdecombe undertook to table a government amendment on this point at Committee stage of the Bill in another place on 19th November 1996, reported at col. 866.
Clause 5 as currently drafted does not allow for handguns being passed as valuable sentimental mementoes to a widow or other heir of someone who acquired a trophy of war before 1946. This amendment would make it possible for the trophy to remain in the family. The heir, like his parent or ancestor, will have to hold a valid firearm certificate. Therefore I invite the Committee to accept this amendment.
As noble Lords will see, the other amendments put forward on this clause would achieve broadly the same effect as the government amendment. My noble friend Lord Gisborough may be pleased to see that the government amendment will allow spouses and other family members to inherit, not simply close blood relatives as my noble friend proposes. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will accept that the government amendment is preferable. I invite the House to accept it.
Lord Gisborough: I am grateful to the Minister for activating what was promised as an amendment. I shall not wish to move my amendment.
Lord Monson: I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness. Her amendment achieves in a much simpler form what I set out to do. I welcome her amendment.
Lord Renton: There seems to be a mistake on the Marshalled List. Page 2 does not have a line 43. Presumably the amendment refers to line 33 or 35.
Baroness Blatch: There are 45 lines on page 2.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
FIREARMS OF HISTORIC INTEREST
(" .—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer a firearm which—

(a) was manufactured before 1st January 1919; and

(b) is of a description specified under subsection (2) below,

if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have the firearm in his possession, or to purchase or acquire it, subject to a condition that he does so only for the purpose of its being kept or exhibited as part of a collection.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument specify a description of firearm for the purposes of subsection (1) above if it appears to him that—

(a) firearms of that description were manufactured before 1st January 1919; and

(b) ammunition for firearms of that type is not readily available.

(3) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer a firearm which—

(a) is of particular rarity, aesthetic quality or technical interest, or

(b) is of historical importance,

if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have the firearm in his possession subject to a condition requiring it to be kept and used only at a place designated for the purposes of this subsection by the Secretary of State.
(4) This section has effect without prejudice to section 58(2) of the 1968 Act (antique firearms).").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
SHOT PISTOLS USED FOR SHOOTING VERMIN
(" .—(1) The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of subsection (1)(aba) of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a person to have in his possession, or to purchase or acquire, or to sell or transfer, a shot pistol if he is authorised by a firearm certificate to have in his possession. or to purchase or acquire, a shot pistol subject to a condition that it is only for use in connection with the shooting of vermin.
(2) For the purposes of this section, "shot pistol" means a smooth-bored gun which is chambered for .410 cartridges or 9111111 rim fire cartridges.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would exempt shot pistols from the general prohibition on handguns in certain limited circumstances. It has been tabled in response to a commitment given by the right honourable Ann Widdecombe in another place on 19th November 1996 reported at cols. 871–872. A shot pistol is a smooth bore pistol which is chambered for .410 cartridges and specifically designed for vermin control inside barns and outbuildings. The relatively low power of the small shot cartridges minimises the damage to the fabric of the building.
There are times when a shot pistol is the most humane and effective way of destroying vermin. If a good reason can be produced for possession of such a weapon then
326
we believe that it should be left to the discretion of the chief officer of police to grant a specially conditioned firearm certificate for that purpose, rather than requiring someone to obtain the Secretary of State's authority.
Of course, anyone applying for a certificate for this purpose will be subject to the new more stringent regime for firearm certificates which is introduced by the Bill, such as having to provide two referees.
Again perhaps I may take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Attlee for his comments on the amendment earlier in the afternoon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Peel Earl Peel moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
LIMITED EXEMPTION FOR DEALERS
(" The authority of the Secretary of State is not required by virtue of section 5 of the 1968 Act for a registered firearms dealer to have in his possession, purchase, acquire, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition which is prohibited by section 1 or section 25 of this Act for the purpose of selling or transferring that firearm or ammunition to a person who may by the provisions of this Act lawfully possess, purchase or acquire it.").
The noble Earl said: This is a small but, we hope, important amendment. It attempts to achieve a simpler process for those individuals referred to as special exemptions under the Bill to acquire the necessary weapons for their various activities. There is a real possibility that dealers faced with the requirement to apply for a Section 5 licence may decide not to bother because of the additional bureaucracy combined with the fact that they may be unlikely to sell many of those weapons due to a low demand. There may be large areas of the country—I think in particular of rural areas—where, for example, vets need special weapons to destroy animals where necessary. They would have great difficulty in finding a dealer to supply them with the various weapons that they need.
Bearing in mind that anyone termed as a special exemption under the Bill would have to apply for a licence, I do not think that this provision would be regarded as a breach of security. I very much hope that my noble friend can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am afraid that I may disappoint my noble friend. I believe that the amendment would create a huge loophole in the general requirement for dealers to have the Secretary of State's authority to deal in prohibited weapons.
We are not prepared to make any concessions for dealers who deal in prohibited handguns. Dealers who wish to sell prohibited weapons of any sort must apply for the Home Secretary's authority to do so under Section 5(1) of the Firearms Act 1968.
I appreciate that it may cause some inconvenience for people who will have to find a dealer with Section 5 authority. But we are not aware that the current requirements cause particular problems. For example, vets are able to get hold of tranquillising weapons.

327
However, we accept that the position is a little different for dealers who sell expanding ammunition, the ban on which will be extended by the Bill. The current Firearms Acts already allow dealers to sell expanding pistol ammunition to those who are authorised to possess it on a specially conditioned firearm certificate. The Bill does not change that. However, we have received representations from dealers who need to use expanding ammunition because they manufacture, test or repair firearms which use expanding ammunition. We are therefore prepared to allow firearms dealers who need to use expanding ammunition for this purpose to have it without the Secretary of State's authority and, again, I promise to bring forward an amendment to this effect on Report.
Earl Peel: I am grateful to my noble friend for what she is doing as regards expanding ammunition. It was causing a great deal of concern. I understand the position that she takes. I believe that there is a real likelihood that difficulties will be caused. I understand the Government's position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Having small-calibre pistol outside premises of licensed pistol club]:
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert ("or

(d) the slide assembly or cylinder has been removed and stored according to the conditions specified in subsection (2A) below.

(2A) Except as permitted by virtue of any provision of this Act, a small-calibre pistol shall be held under the following conditions—

(a) the slide assembly or cylinder shall be held on the premises of a licensed pistol club, and

(b) the remainder of the weapon shall be stored at different premises which shall be specified on the certificate granted for that pistol.").

The noble Lord said: My name is on the Marshalled List and I wish to move Amendment No. 21. This amendment is the so-called disabling or disassembling amendment. It proposes that permitted handguns should be dismantled with only the slide assembly or cylinder being stored at licensed premises. The remainder of the weapon could be kept at home. This would obviously make first-class security at gun clubs very much cheaper, allowing most of them, perhaps all of them, to survive. So the Treasury, or the taxpayer, would save a lot of money that it would otherwise have to pay in compensation. Security would in fact be improved because there would be no arsenals of complete weapons all over the country with their attendant security risk however much is done to protect them.
Since Clause 6 is now not to be considered by a Committee of this House, I trust that your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with the desirability of disassembly in some detail.
The Bill prohibits handguns except those provided for in Clause 1(2) and Clauses 2 to 5. One of the categories included in Clause 1(2) and defined in Clause 1(8) is called a small-calibre pistol. This gun is a sort of half-way house. It is not prohibited, but it is subject to extra controls of a draconian kind. In particular, Clause 6 makes it an offence to possess it outside the licensed premises of a licensed club. It cannot be stored at home or carried from club to club; it will be the only permitted gun not allowed to be kept at home. The purpose of the amendment is to change that offence so that the owner may possess the gun outside the licensed premises provided that its key component is stored there. That is what we mean by "dismantlement". The key component, the slide assembly or cylinder, will be kept at the club and the remainder of the gun at home. That was the option preferred by Lord Cullen.
It should be made clear that this amendment makes no commitment on the desirability or otherwise of permitting only .22 rimfire pistols. There are those who remain opposed to this limitation, believing that there is no justification for the ban on higher calibres. But this amendment does not contribute to that debate. The amendment says that whatever calibre the House decides, whether .22 or higher, dismantlement is the best way of control. There is no reason, therefore, why noble Lords who wish to ban pistols above .22 should oppose this proposal.
Let us look at the Cullen Report and the Government's response to it so far. Lord Cullen states, at paragraph 9.106:
"[The option] which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components".
The recommendation has a number of obvious advantages. It is quicker and easier to implement. It will save expenditure by clubs on increased security and prevent many from closing down. It saves the Treasury money by way of proper compensation. It will diminish the risk of terrorist and criminal attacks on arsenals of weapons. So it is safer than what is proposed in the Bill. The recommendation continues to fulfil the central purpose of the Bill: to separate the owner from his pistol or revolver, except within a club, as a safeguard against another terrible tragedy such as Dunblane.
It is worth remembering the present law on component parts. Buying spares without authority is already illegal. The two parts to which Lord Cullen referred, the slide assembly or cylinder, are already controlled by law. They are pressure bearing component parts of the gun which it is impossible to buy or possess without entering it on your firearms certificate. Any additional slide assembly or cylinder requires the consent of the chief officer of police because it requires him to grant a variation of the original certificate. From the point of view of the present law, there is no difference between buying another gun and buying a replacement slide assembly or cylinder.
I submit that the Government have so far failed to show the impracticality of that suggestion. They began indeed by suggesting that dismantlement was impracticable. Their response to Lord Cullen's report said (at paragraph 24, page 5, on 16th October):
"While removal of key components is feasible for certain types of gun, it is not a practical proposition for others",
At Second Reading in another place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said:
"The Government took advice from the Forensic Science Service on the practicability of disabling multi-shot handguns. It concluded that that way forward was unworkable".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/96; col. (001-009).]
The evidence on which the Government's statement relied consisted of a letter from a Mr. Warlow of the Forensic Science Service. This letter has become somewhat notorious, and is generally referred to as Mr. Warlow's first letter. It was dated 16th October and was made available to the other place on the 18th. Mr. Warlow wrote a second letter, dated 18th November, to which I shall refer later. That is now known as Mr. Warlow's second letter. Both letters are now in the Library of this House.
Mr. Warlow's first letter included the following statements: first,
"The majority of self-loading pistols are designed so as to allow them to be stripped down to their major components without the use of tools";
second,
"In the case of most self-loading pistols the slide can be removed relatively easily";
and, third,
"In the case of the most common design of revolver it would be a most unusual operation to remove the cylinder",
with the small risk that,
"the retaining screw in a sideplate could be easily lost".
Mr. Warlow wrote that the handicaps to disassembly were: first,
"With some fine tuned target weapons care is necessary to avoid damaging their accuracy";
second,
"Some people are better at dismantling and re-assembling than others";
third,
"The removal of the revolver cylinder can lead to the loss of the small screw or to a scratching of the polished sideplate if the right screwdriver is not used".
So in what the Government said earlier, as I quoted, they were not being exactly fair to Mr. Warlow. His first letter does not bear the interpretation they sought to put on it. Nowhere does he say that dismantling is impracticable—a nuisance perhaps; hitherto unusual because unnecessary; at worst, the loss of a 10p screw or a scratch on the polish. Everyone outside the Home Office knows that it is simply not true that this is an impracticable proposal, since, in the words of Mr. Warlow:
"self-loading pistols are designed so as to allow them to be stripped down without the need for tools".
330
Faced with this overwhelming evidence, the Government conceded that dismantlement was practicable. At Committee stage in the other place, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said:
"we accept that there are many varieties of handgun that can readily be dismantled, but there are others for which it is a much more difficult operation".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/96; col. 784.]
About 95 per cent. of handguns can be easily dismantled. The vast majority of centre fire multi-shot pistols can be dismantled. Under this amendment, those guns which cannot be dismantled cannot be retained. But they are a tiny number compared with the many thousands that can be dismantled. I understand that all new models already meet the criterion of dismantlement; and if any manufacturers in future were tempted to market a gun which did not disassemble as required by law, they would not make many legal sales.
Faced with the collapse of their argument on practicality, the Government have retreated to new ground. They raised the non-existent spectre of illicit spares being kept at home. Thus my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in the other place on 18th December:
"it would not be difficult for a gun owner to keep an illicit spare at home. That would enable him to reactivate the gun at any time. It is perfectly true that, in doing so, he would be breaking the law, but he would be unlikely to be discovered until it was too late".—[Col. 784.]
It seems to be common ground that the number of illegal guns in this country exceeds the number of legal guns, perhaps greatly so. But that does not prevent the Government from maintaining a system of legal gun ownership. That, of course, is quite right.
There are any number of ways in which the new law, like the old, can be broken. A gun may, for example, be stolen from a club, taken away surreptitiously, bought illegally or stolen from some other source. The identical questions arise for a component part as arise for the whole gun. In fact, in so far as a part is a less attractive target for theft than a whole gun, the risk of illegality is less for the part than it is for the whole.
So the statement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was simply incorrect if he meant that it is somehow easier to break the law with a part than with a whole gun. It is not true because the legal control on the part is as strong as the control on the whole. A legal spare part cannot be obtained without police permission. Getting the system off to a secure start will rely on exactly the same information; that is, the current certificates, whether we are dealing with dismantled guns or whole guns. All components, as well as all whole guns, which do not conform to the Bill's requirements will have to be surrendered. Illegal components are more difficult to obtain than illegal guns and are probably more expensive. There is also the problem that an illegal spare part may not fit a gun even if it is of the same model.
Finally, it is very difficult to see why anyone willing and able to buy an illegal gun should bother to buy an illegal part.
Faced with those facts, the last refuge of the Government has been to quote a sentence from the second letter of Mr. Warlow, dated 18th November 1996. The obvious inadequacy of Mr. Warlow's first letter was exposed in the debate in the other place on 18th November. The Government had to describe it as:
"a summary of careful consideration by the service. [But] That letter … was not meant to be a definitive answer to every point raised".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee E, 20/11/96: col. 7.]
On 18th November, the same day as the debate on the Floor of the other place, Mr. Warlow wrote his second letter to the Home Office. His letter was described by the Government as:
"as much advice as we are able to release".
Again, that comes from the same standing committee as I have just quoted. I believe that we can therefore regard it as the Government's definitive evidence, unless my noble friend on the Front Bench has anything startlingly new to put before us this evening.
Against Mr. Warlow's opinions, there is a letter which I have also put in your Lordship's Library from a Mr. Colin Greenwood of the Firearms Research and Advisory Service. It is a comprehensive demolition job of both of Mr. Warlow's letters. As far as I can see, Mr. Greenwood is every bit as qualified as Mr. Warlow.
Be that as it may, in his second letter of 18th November Mr. Warlow said,
"This procedure, (i.e. dismantlement) would not provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of a pistol by a determined and motivated individual".
That is the phrase quoted by my noble friend on the Front Bench at our Second Reading, but the letter provides no supporting evidence for it. My noble friend did not answer the point I put to her at Second Reading that a determined and motivated individual will find it far easier and cheaper to acquire a whole weapon illegally than a spare part. I would invite her to see if she can answer that point this evening.
All Mr. Warlow's objections are met once it is recognised that at the commencement of the Act all pistols will be subject to assessment by the police. A complete inventory of pistols and component parts exists today on firearms certificates. All pistols not conforming to the Act will have to be surrendered and removed from the certificate. Exactly the same applies to component parts. Thereafter, all that is required is for the police to notify the club of any changes in a member's certificate.
There are at least seven other statements in Mr. Warlow's second letter which can easily be shown to be irrelevant or plainly wrong, but at this late hour I will not weary the Committee with them. I may, I suppose, be forced to debate them if my noble friend prays them in her aid when she comes to reply. I have to say that I hope she will not do so.
I very much hope that what I have said will convince the Committee that this amendment would produce a safer, cheaper, more reasonable solution than is proposed in the Bill. It would allow many thousands of
332
people to continue with their sport; it would do nothing to frustrate the purpose of the Bill. I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench can therefore accept it.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to make two points. First, I would prefer that the slide assembly be taken home and the rest of the weapon be retained at the club. Secondly, I believe that this is unduly onerous on club officials who will have to supervise these operations at the end of every single session.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may support my noble friend on this amendment. On this question of disassembly which, after all, is a highly technical one, I feel that it is a pity that it did not go to a Select Committee so that experts could have been questioned on it. However, that has not happened, so once again I draw your attention to Lord Cullen's conclusions. He gave great thought to the matter and there are several pages on it. I do not think this passage has been quoted yet from his report, although there have been many others. On page 129, paragraph 9.106 he stated:
"I am satisfied that of all the measures which stop short of a ban the one which is open to the least objection on the ground of practicability is the temporary dismantling of self-loading pistols and revolvers by the removal of major components. It has the merit that it does not require clubs to accommodate the handguns, with the various accommodation and security problems which I have already mentioned".
In the course of the evidence given to Lord Cullen, ACPO Scotland—the top Scottish policemen—disagreed with ACPO England and Wales on this point.
Mr. Warlow has said one thing, but other eminent experts, both mentioned by my noble friend, and also Colonel Meade, who is the top expert on this kind of thing, all categorically disagree with Mr. Warlow. This is a technical matter for technical experts, but one outstanding objection for keeping weapons in an arsenal is security. However strong the store may be, nothing would be really impregnable, and the stores would be most tempting targets for any wrongdoer. As the secretary, keyholder or whoever it may be who has methods of getting in left the building, there could well be very little problem in robbing him or her. There are any number of illegal weapons in this country and, as my noble friend said, it would be very much easier to get an illegal weapon rather than an illegal part.
Last week a Welshman drove from Wales to Liverpool, collected a pistol, drove back to Wales and shot himself. He had no difficulty in getting a weapon. This morning I made the point when I went to get my hair cut of asking the barber if he knew where I could get a pistol and he told me of two places, no problem. I tried the taxi driver. He asked what I wanted it for, but he thought that he could probably find one. There is no difficulty in getting an illegal weapon. Indeed, the police know where many of these illegal weapons can be bought. My noble friend Lord Peel said earlier on that he thought there were 2 million illegal weapons.
Who would be the club officials who hold the keys? I cannot envisage any club existing on that basis alone, because no one in their right mind would be the person

333
responsible. His family could be threatened, apart from the enormous risk that he would take himself. I am certain that the answer is to have disassembly so that one does not put all the weapons in the one place.
Lord Monson: This is an extremely important amendment. It might well be described as the Lord Cullen amendment. Earlier this afternoon the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the perennial question of whether guns kill or people kill. Actually, neither guns nor people kill in a literal sense. It is the bullet propelled from the cartridge case which actually does the killing. Without loaded cartridges, without ammunition, a gun is no more than a rather clumsy and inefficient blunt instrument, much less lethal than a cricket bat, to say nothing of a baseball bat.
Ideally, guns and ammunition should be kept totally separate, except when the former is being used for target practice. However, there are a number of disadvantages to that. The alternative is dismantlement or disassembly—however one wishes to put it—which is almost totally foolproof.
I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I briefly repeat what I said approximately three hours ago about the advantages of disassembly. The prizes would be enormous for everybody concerned. There would be no losers. Tens of thousands of respectable, law-abiding men and women would be able to continue with the sport. Tens of thousands of the Government's natural supporters would no longer be alienated. The taxpayer would save tens of millions of pounds and, above all, the public would be much safer because as the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has said, disassembled guns provide no attraction to thieves. There are many burglaries and thefts of guns throughout the world even from the best guarded places. When guns are disassembled, I repeat, they have very little value. So, far from weakening the safeguards for the public, acceptance of this amendment would strengthen the safeguards for the public. I urge the Committee to accept the amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: totally agree with this amendment. The discussion will be a repeat to a degree of what has been said with regard to the Forensic Science Service evidence given to the Cullen Report, which the Committee has heard read out. Much of the evidence given to Lord Cullen has been described by a gentleman who works at Fulton's in Bisley as "absolute rubbish" and an embarrassment to anybody who knows anything about firearms.
If anybody in the Chamber has a shotgun—I am sure many Members of the Committee have one—or small arms, he will understand that one has to dismantle guns regularly for cleaning purposes, whenever they are used. So it becomes very easy to take the pieces apart and put them together again, contrary to what is said in the report.
334
The noble Earl, Lord Marand Kellie, was absolutely right. Instead of the barrel staying at the firearms club, it is the frame which should be there. What use are several different barrels, if the frame is absent? Absolutely no use at all.
Let me return to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. We give our children pistols and rifles which we can obtain from shops and which look very realistic; and no matter what firearm we may have, it is the bullet which is the most important part. We have debated items to do with shooting being allocated to separate places. It is vitally important that we have ammunition and storage places. Having been in the Armed Forces for quite some time, I know about the armoury and where ammunition is stored. When ammunition is drawn out, it is signed out, and any excess unfired ammunition is signed back in. One knew very well that before leaving the range one had to confirm that one had no live rounds or empty cases in one's possession. Exactly the same should apply to all firearms clubs. Every single empty case should be collected and destroyed. That will be a disappointment to those people who can fill their own empty cases but it reduces the risk of exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. The risk is that the bullet can be fired out of a weapon. If we eliminate that risk, the chances of any further damage are vastly reduced. I support the amendment.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: I should like to support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Pearson. The problem for many of the shooting clubs is that there are no current facilities for adequate safe storage of handguns. There are literally thousands of clubs, small clubs particularly, which are not in a financial position to find the funds to upgrade their storage facilities.
Unless this amendment is agreed to, many of those clubs will have to close down. I do not believe that that is what my noble friend the Minister wishes. If clubs are forced to close down, the compensation payable by the Government could escalate. Therefore, by accepting the principle of disassembly, tens of millions of pounds could be saved in compensation payments.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We debated the amendment to Clause 6 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, before we entered on Committee stage. I had rather expected that the noble Baroness and the Government would have accepted that amendment. It would have given them the opportunity to get off this particular hook.
As we have seen this afternoon in this debate so far, there is disagreement. We were told during the earlier debate that in Committee we could sort out such disagreements. We were told that we did not need experts to tell us what to do and that this Chamber could do it very well. But in fact it seems that there is some conflict between the experts. That is why I supported the amendment earlier. I thought that perhaps a little delay in a Select Committee would make it possible to resolve those problems.

335
In his excellent address when moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, raised many matters indeed. It seems to me that the objections to dismantlement raised by the Government—by the Home Secretary—could be described as trivial. There is no question but that the suggested system of dismantlement could work to very good effect. But what are we told? We are told that the Government are concerned about illicit spares. But, as has already been explained, the fact is that those spares would indeed be illicit and would have to have been illicitly obtained. Therefore, there would be two people breaking the law. I am not at all sure that gunsmiths would want to do that.
The other area, of course, is the handmaking of spares. But that is an extremely expensive matter which very few shooters would be able to afford, if indeed any shooters would wish to do it anyway. So far as I can see or know, the shooting fraternity is one of the most law-abiding sections of the community. It consists of policemen, retired policemen, army officers, retired army officers and professional people such as solicitors and accountants, for example, as well as ordinary factory workers. Indeed, one of the most poignant letters I have received came from an AEEU shop steward who was very much concerned that his sport was to be destroyed, not only by the Government but by Her Majesty's Opposition. There are many such people who are very concerned that their sport will be destroyed in that way. They are not the kind of people who are likely to disobey the law. Indeed, they are the most likely people to obey the law. In any event, the penalties could be set so high as to be a very strong deterrent.
It seems to me that this is a way forward which would satisfy the recommendations of the Dunblane inquiry. I believe that it would satisfy most people up and down the country. It would be very much fairer to the shooting fraternity, which, after all, has a point. They are innocent people. They have enjoyed this sport over a very long period of time.
Let me warn the Committee that we are not just talking about 57,000 people. There are probably another million people who enjoy shooting of one kind or another. They are watching what is going on and may be afraid that they will be the next in line. So, for their sake, for the sake of the sport, for the sake of fairness to 57,000 shooters who will be involved in this matter, I urge the Government very seriously to consider accepting this amendment; or, if they will not accept the amendment, to consider it very carefully and take it away to see whether something can be done with it that can satisfy everybody.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I make only a short intervention. I find myself in some difficulty because I consider the whole conceptual basis of the Bill to be flawed. I do not agree with it. I take the view that these guns are freely available and any lunatic can obtain one. The Bill is a bad Bill.
336
Having said that, on the merits of what has been said by Members of the Committee I suppose it is honourable, notwithstanding my views, to support the amendment as the best that can be done in these sad circumstances.
Lord Marlesford: I do not intend to become involved in the technical aspects of the amendment; I am not an expert. I listened carefully to my noble friend Lord Pearson and found his arguments to be convincing. Also, I read the correspondence dealing with these matters that many of us received.
I support the amendment on a different aspect of the Bill. It is my deep regret that the Government, in not following Cullen, have committed themselves to public spending of, we are told, at least £150 million in compensation. That is public spending the details of which I suspect they had not worked out at the time they took the line that they took of rejecting Cullen. It is expenditure which could rise considerably because we are aware that many in this Chamber—I have some sympathy with them—will be introducing amendments to increase the terms of compensation.
I hope my noble friend, when she tells us why the amendment is to be rejected, will tell us how much money would be saved if it were accepted. The opportunity cost of these enormous sums cannot be justified by the marginal, if any, increase in risk that may result from accepting the amendment. It is therefore on a purely pragmatic, financial basis that I urge the Committee to accept it.
I almost wonder whether Mr. Gordon Brown, who I know has hopes of having some responsibility for the public finances of this country himself in a few weeks, would not, if he were here in spirit, be hoping to use those millions of pounds for a better purpose than is proposed under the Bill as drafted.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Ernest Bevin, when told that Herbert Morrison was his worst enemy, said, "Not while I am alive, he ain't". I can assure the noble Lord that while I am here, Gordon Brown is here is spirit.
Lord Brain: I disagree with two points made earlier in the debate. But I wholeheartedly support the amendment. If the main part of the pistol is stored in an individual's home, that individual is then able to keep the other parts, if he wishes, in two separate clubs. I believe that side by side pistol shooting is one of the aspects of competitive sport and he can therefore shoot against two different groups of people.
If the amendment should be adopted in any form at a later stage, I hope the fact that storing the weapons in one specific way will not necessarily inhibit their use at more than one club when, if they were stored in a different way, that would be prohibited.
Lord Swansea: I support the amendment. The principle involved—the principle of dispersal—is one I fully advocate—I practice it myself with rifles. I do not shoot pistols, but I own a number of rifles. They

337
are stored with their bolts removed and the bolts kept elsewhere. It is a sensible idea which many people follow and I recommend it.
The amendment states that,
"the slide assembly or cylinder shall be held on the premises of a licensed pistol club, and … the remainder of the weapon shall be stored at different premises which shall be specified on the certificate granted for that pistol".
One could easily do that the other way around and have the slide assembly or cylinder remain in the possession of the owner and the remainder of the weapon stored in a safe place on some club premises.
The proposal to impel pistols to be stored assembled in a central store is ludicrous. The cost to a club would be enormous and it would not be able to afford it. It may well have to close down. The amendment provides an infinitely preferable way and, as I said, one that I practise myself. I hope that the Government will accept it one way or the other.
If one removes the slide or cylinder from a pistol, one is left with two lumps of metal which are useless individually. The only way one could hurt somebody with them is to throw them at them. On their own, disassembled, they are harmless and I therefore support the amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: First, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to the full discussion of this issue being heard on the Floor of the House. In this very debate there are experts in the Chamber and some of us who are not experts but who have taken expert advice before coming to this stage of the Bill and, indeed, I continue to take expert advice. We will all go away and read what has been said today and will continue to do that throughout the course of the Bill. It will not be the first time that experts have disagreed about a single subject. Taking the debate off the Floor of the House and inviting a variety of experts to come in and debate it will not necessarily guarantee that they will come to different conclusions.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford referred to costs. I do not have a precise answer for him because we have not produced a costing of the option put forward to me by my noble friend except to say that, unless we were to reduce the security of the gun clubs considerably—in other words, make them easy targets to walk into and obtain disassembled barrels or sliding parts of a gun or to obtain the deactivated gun—we would invalidate the purpose of the amendment. If the gun clubs were sufficiently secure to carry parts of the gun, there would have to be set up a considerable bureaucracy to police on a daily basis the management of parts of guns being outside the club and other parts being inside the club and the people with multi-membership of clubs. That would be at considerable cost. However, I take the point being made by my noble friend. He believes that there would be considerable savings; I do not.
We do not deny that many pistols can be disassembled by removing some essential component such as the slide or cylinder. However, as Lord Cullen said himself at paragraph 9.86 of his report:
338
"in the case particularly of many high precision .22 pistols the removal of the slide was not recommended unless the gun malfunctioned and required disassembly for cleaning. Repeated disassembly involved disruption of carefully tuned components and would very quickly impair the accuracy for which they were designed. Such pistols were not developed for military service and the ease of dismantling played little if any part as a consideration in their design."
Under the Government's proposals it would be the high precision .22 pistols which were stored at clubs.
However, it was not primarily for that reason that we rejected the option of storing component parts of pistols at clubs. The main reason for rejecting this option was that we do not believe that any form of disassembly would provide a guaranteed measure of assurance against the possible misuse of the pistol by a determined and motivated individual.
As the Committee will be aware, we have received advice from the Forensic Science Service on the subject of disassembly and copies of two letters of advice have been placed in the Library of the House. I have noted what a number of noble Lords have said about that advice, but I would like to quote again from the second of those letters for the benefit of those Members of the Committee who have not had the opportunity to read it. It says:
"Some individuals will possess more than one set of barrel and slide components for their pistol, or will possess components which will allow the calibre of the weapon to be converted by the simple substitution of components. Unless the [pistol] club employs a qualified armourer to confirm the bona fide of items at the time of transfer for storage who is also fully aware of the extent of ownership of such accessories by their membership, a person could still possess a complete weapon at home even after complying with the regulations.
A pistol owner intent upon misusing his pistol for a criminal act could obtain major components which would pass general inspection standards prior to secure club storage. The purchase of an officially deactivated firearm of the same make and model as that held on his certificate could be done without the need for police authorisation and would provide outwardly convincing components to be substituted at the time of purchase.
The frames of some pistols are specifically fabricated so that the owner can purchase a comprehensive range of barrels of different lengths and cartridge chamberings, which can be simply substituted and fitted at the will of the user. This again could lead to the situation where a person would be in the possession of a complete fireann after appearing to comply with club regulations".
The Government believe therefore that disassembly does not provide an adequate safeguard for the public. It is interesting to note that in his speech at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Kimball, while being initially attracted to the idea of disassembly, no longer supported it. I refer to the Official Report of 16th December at col. 1317.
Allowing this amendment for .22 pistols, my noble friend has suggested, is bound to lead to calls for disassembly for high calibre guns as well. Because of the arguments set out I believe that that would be an unacceptable escalation towards what I regard as an even more dangerous position for the public. For these reasons, we are unable to accept the amendment.
I repeat what I have said throughout the course of this debate. I shall continue reading the pages of Hansard and what has been said throughout this debate. I shall continue

339
to take advice and talk with colleagues, officials and experts on these matters. I hope that that will be a continuing process until the Bill passes into statute.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken, all of whom, except for the very brief and somewhat perplexing contribution of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and possibly that of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, supported this amendment. The noble Earl said that he feared that this amendment might produce an unduly onerous situation for club officials. He would have preferred to see a part of the pistol kept at the club and the weapon kept at home. No doubt that is something that one could consider. But I put it to the noble Earl that the inconvenience of enforcing the kind of security arrangements which the clubs are facing when forced to look after a whole arsenal of arms would be very much more onerous than the situation which this amendment provides. There would also be the inconvenience of having to close the clubs down because they simply could not afford the security arrangements which appear to be required.
I believe that I was encouraged to hear my noble friend Lady Blatch say that she would go away and read what has been said. I need to press her a little further on that. Will she go away and read what has been said with a view, possibly before Report stage—which I believe is to be on 4th February—to meeting me and others in the meantime to move some way towards accepting this very sensible amendment? For instance, will she have the Warlow versus Greenwood correspondence referred to the Firearms Consultative Committee in the meantime, which I understand is the independent advisory body to the Home Secretary?
If my noble friend cannot move some way in the direction that I have mentioned, in view of the unanimous support which I have received from Members of the Committee, for which I am extremely grateful, I can only say to her that this amendment is far cheaper, far safer and allows thousands of people to go on shooting. Will she reply to the points that I have made?
Baroness Blatch: I have to say to my noble friend that I cannot go as far as he wishes. I will do all that I have promised between this and the next stage of the Bill. I will meet anyone who wishes to discuss matters with me, as I have always done on Bills. I shall do all this without prejudice to the next stage of the Bill. That is all I can promise.
Noble Lords: That is fair enough.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: A number of noble Lords have said "That's fair" and I very much hope that it is. I shall certainly return to this matter at Report stage. In the meantime, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving this Motion, may I suggest that the Committee meets again at twenty-five minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Ex-servicemen's Welfare
7.25 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the case for establishing a special unit within the Ministry of Defence, with a designated Minister, responsible for the care and welfare of ex-servicemen and women and their dependants.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords taking part in the debate may wonder why I, with my trade union background, and certainly a non-service one, feel so strongly that I have put this Question down on the Order Paper this evening. I declare an interest. Until a few years ago I knew very little about the Armed Forces. But I was appointed to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, a position that I held with some pride and increasing interest for just over two years. I experienced an increasing respect for the service personnel that I came to meet in my work as a member of that body.
There was a debate in this Chamber on the issue in May 1994 initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Haig. Noble Lords who spoke in that debate have put their names down again this evening. I am indebted to them and to the new speakers in this debate.
This is an issue whose time has come. It is the right time for the Government to review their position and to accept this proposal which has now been discussed quite widely, not just in this Chamber, for some time. It is not a party political issue but one which unites noble Lords across the parties. It is also one which united Members of another place, some 280 of them, in signing an early-day Motion.
I regret that the Government have continually stonewalled the claim for a single unit, a focal point within the Ministry of Defence, with a Minister responsible for our ex-service personnel and their families. I do not know why they have stonewalled. I can only believe that they have some belief in the view that they put forward that the present procedures are quite sufficient. I reject that view, if indeed the Government hold it. I do not believe that the right way to treat our ex-service personnel is to give them the run-around around Whitehall on the problems that they face.
Having a central focal point would be in the Government's interests also. Indeed, it is not a unique or new idea. There are single focal points in Whitehall for other area of public policy and, by and large, they work. For nearly 18 years the Royal British Legion and

341
other bodies representing veterans and service personnel have tried to press home the need for a single focal point. Other countries have similar departments. There is a special government department in the United States. However, I stress that that is not what we are pressing for. Particular factors in the United States relating to healthcare and its funding have called for other arrangements. But Canada, Australia and New Zealand have such departments, and veterans in France, Holland and Germany enjoy a better co-ordination of services than happens in this country, with special sections or subsections in their defence ministries.
The Government here, however, have repeatedly fobbed off veterans with regard to this proposal. They have sometimes implied that to establish such a unit would be to confer a special privilege. I totally and utterly reject that argument. Special privilege indeed! But yes, we do have a special responsibility. The nation has such a special responsibility and it is up to the Government to take the nation's responsibility on board and ensure the future of those within our community who, at the core of their service, knowingly put their lives at risk. As part of their commitment to this country, our ex-service personnel were knowingly prepared to pay the ultimate price that anyone could pay.
Survivors of the Second World War and the Korean War spent years away from their families. Many of them spent many years in hospital and, when their service commitment was over, were often unable to return to a full and active life as a result of the damage that had been done to their health. How many families and how many lives have been torn apart in that way? The Government, however, have consistently argued that a single focal point is not necessary. Our argument is not based on emotion. Our case is supported by arguments of efficiency and because we have a duty and a responsibility as a nation to treat our ex-service personnel honourably. That responsibility must be honoured.
Some say that we are talking about a diminishing group of people. I question that and ask whether the issues have gone away. Looking back over the past three or four years, I would say that the issues have become more complex. Who could have imagined the long-term fall-out of the Gulf War in terms of the health problems which, it is contended, have been caused to our service personnel who took part in it? That issue was long denied by the Government, including in this House, leading to a government apology being issued both in this House and in another place—but too late, in my view. In fact, the apology was dragged out of the Government line by line by Members of both another place and this House. Notable among them has been the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for her unstinting work. For how long did the Government assert that there was no such thing as what had become known as "Gulf War syndrome"?
What about the veterans of Northern Ireland? I have been there as part of my work on the pay review body. I have spoken to those veterans and to their families, who feel isolated from the mainstream of British life. I am talking about an area that is close to these shores
342
and yet one can think of few more inhospitable places in which to do one's duty, with the possibility of a bullet or a bomb around the next corner to end one's life. That is not emotive; it is a fact.
Another argument that is used against establishing a special unit is that it would create bureaucracy. I do not accept that. In fact, I suggest that such a unit would help government by bringing together those involved.
I suggest that events since our last debate on this subject have undermined the confidence which many ex-service personnel, their families and organisations have long had in the ability of the centre, Whitehall, to look after their affairs. The pensions issue is but one such example—the allegations in the media derived from the so-called Red Book and the Budget. There are reported to be planned savings of £15 million in pension payments to ex-service personnel. I do not know whether that is a fact. I know what I have read, however, and I know what our ex-service personnel feel about it. They no longer have confidence that the Government will meet their responsibilities in this area.
We have read that ex-service personnel will no longer be issued with reminders to claim their benefits. We have read allegations that those who appeal will no longer be referred to the Royal British Legion. That is perhaps because the legion has been so successful in helping people to claim benefits. I hope that in his reply the Minister will categorically deny that there will be any reduction in pensions funding and that he will deny those two allegations. I hope that he will say that people will continue to be referred to the Royal British Legion and that they will continue to receive the reminders that they have received in previous years.
As I have said, I am grateful to noble Lords who are to participate in this debate. Perhaps I may say in conclusion that we all know—this has often been demonstrated—that the Government do not always know best. This is one such occasion. In refusing to establish a single focal point, I suggest that they are standing on an island by themselves. The case is supported by Members of this House, by a record number of Members of another place and by representatives and organisations of ex-service personnel—all of whom base their support on their practical knowledge and experience and as a result of having spoken to the many thousands of ex-service personnel who all feel strongly that the best way to deal with their case is to establish a single focal point, with a Minister to oversee the issues affecting them. That does not mean that the issues will not be discussed across Whitehall. Of course that will happen, as is the case with other special units such as those for the regions or issues affecting women.
Ex-service personnel need a single focal point to which they and their representatives can go. I think that establishing such a unit is a small price to pay for the fact that, while in the services, those personnel faced a reduction in the democratic rights that we all take for granted. I am proud to have tabled this Unstarred Question.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for raising and for introducing so clearly a subject of concern to many of us. My name was the first and only one on the list of speakers—along with that of the noble Baroness—four weeks ago, but this week the wide interest in the matter was demonstrated by the addition of so many other Members' names that we are all limited to three minutes each.
I spoke in the debate two-and-a-half years ago and have studied carefully the reply given then by my noble friend Lord Cranborne. Today in a brief speech I must limit myself to one point together with a strong recommendation.
I must declare interests. I am a war pensioner having been severely wounded 52 years ago and have been involved since in disability organisations which include many ex-service people. I also succeeded the late Lord Lovat in his position in the Normandy Veterans' Association.
Much misunderstanding arises from the description "war pensions". A large proportion are compensation payments for injuries during service with no connection with a war. In a Written Answer to me, the Government recently stated:
"The War Pensions Agency does not maintain a statistical breakdown of awards due to war and other service".—[Official Report, 13/1/97; col.WA 3.]
So, I can only guess the proportion. From my own knowledge and experience I suggest that it is now about half the total number being paid. The media and the public do not know that. I have tested them by asking many in recent weeks, and in reply they assume that all war pensioners were damaged by the enemy in a war. Misleading impressions have thus been given to the detriment of various categories of ex-service people. The term "war pension" is inaccurate and misleading in its present use. My recommendation is that it should be changed to "armed forces disability pension" with a similar change to what is now called the "War Pensions Agency".
The term is also emotive, as it was on 5th December last in the episode started by the Guardian. That morning I received telephone calls from national newspapers seeking my comments; one asking me to contribute an article. In the event, I was able to brief them and so cool down uninformed reactions. Some of them thanked me for my briefing on the following Monday and for my explanations which had saved them from a wild goose chase. The Guardian was good enough to publish a letter from me only five days after its original report. Some of the letters that I then received from the public were from people who were in receipt of war pensions. They had served for short periods in peace time only and in Britain. They thanked me for pointing out in my letter that their pensions had rightly been awarded as compensation for injuries. They had suffered impaired hearing from firing their weapons on practice ranges. This damage was caused by our own friendly cordite propellant, not by high explosive or enemy action.
344
In 1942, half-way through World War II, as a battery commander I insisted that the relevant soldiers who manned my field guns wore ear plugs. After the war I was told that I was among the first, if the not the first, to do so. Later it became compulsory. That kind of ear injury is different from the serious damage that can be inflicted by high explosives. The blast from enemy shells bursting very close by sometimes broke or perforated ear drums. The effect was serious because it could also expose the brain to damage.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I must tell my noble friend that he has been speaking for over four minutes. I am sorry but I must interrupt him.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Green Paper entitled Government Direct describes a vision of a one-stop shop for the delivery of government services. Can we press the Government tonight through that open door for a one-stop shop for veterans? Current policy which deals with veterans on the same basis as other members of the community fails to acknowledge the debt we owe to those who have taken up arms to fight and, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives. Government and the nation should never cease to treat servicemen and women in later life in a special and privileged way. We rely on volunteers to man the Armed Forces.
Recruiting and early retirement figures indicate that the forces no longer attract the same degree of support that they once did. This is a worrying and damaging trend. If it is allowed to develop further, there may come a day when the only way to find people to man the services will be to return to a form of compulsory service. We have a worrying example of this trend in the defence medical services. There was a time when the services took great pride in the commitment and calibre of their medical services. They may not have been as stretched in peace time as their equivalents in the NHS, but they were always there in emergency and war, giving marvellous care and attention to those who were wounded or traumatised in battle. In peace time they helped veterans and their families. What the services once had but have no longer was a form of private medicare which was responsive and directed to services' needs. The NHS with its wider community responsibility cannot match that. Servicemen, and the medical services themselves, recognise this departure from a standard and a lowering of clinical services. Other examples of less than special consideration for veterans and their dependants abound. For example, post-1973 war widows do not retain their Armed Forces family pensions for life if they remarry.
On its own, each step that further integrates servicemen and women, and their longer term interests as veterans, within the wider community may seem insignificant. But, like a straw on the camel's back, there comes a point when the collective impact is so clear and detrimental that it can be recognised by all. Then it is too late. We need a constant stream of able-bodied and committed volunteers. If we no longer give them and their forebears special recognition, they will not come

345
forward. Those in mid-career will not stay. We now see this in the medical services. They are in danger of losing their minimum critical mass as a regular service.
I hope that the Government will take heed of these warning signs. A willingness to treat veterans in a special way would be a welcome change to a worrying policy. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and others who are unable to contribute to this limited debate, feel as I do. I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Dean on her fine speech. I am delighted to follow the noble and gallant Lord's speech. It has all been said by my noble friend Lady Dean and the Royal British Legion in its splendid briefing, which no doubt the Minister has read. I should like to make two short points. First, I believe that account must be taken of the changing nature of war. We are all aware of the injuries to soldiers in past wars that are exacerbated by age. We are now becoming aware of the injuries sustained in the recent Gulf War. Goodness knows what lies ahead given the changes in the method of war. We do not know what other kinds of injuries our forces will suffer in future. What we do know is that knowledge, expertise and understanding are required. Without that, we will not be able to deal with either the old injuries or the new ones.
Secondly, whenever in the past I have campaigned against the Ministry of Defence I have found it to be ambivalent. Sometimes it is wonderfully co-operative; at other times it is rigidly dogmatic. On too many occasions it opposes progress. On Tuesday we shall be discussing in this House at Question time the issue of war pensions and deafness. In reply to my request to the Minister a few weeks ago for a veterans' association the Minister said "No thank you". He said that it would create bureaucracy. That argument is bogus. I am sure that it will be raised this evening, as my noble friend Lady Dean has anticipated. In this debate, we do not seek bureaucracy but the very opposite. Bureaucracy arises when people do not understand and are not aware of the facts. If the institution that we ask for is set up it will be the opposite of bureaucracy.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept this small and constructive suggestion. I remind him that the "bureaucracy" argument was used when it was suggested that there be a Minister for disabled people. It was then a false argument and it is an equally false argument today. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept our suggestion.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I declare an interest as President of the Earl Haig branch of the Royal British Legion and also as an ex-serviceman and recipient of a disability payment for noise-induced deafness. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for raising this question. I also compliment my noble friend the Minister upon his personal sympathetic and conscientious interest in the whole subject of the welfare of ex-servicemen and women.
346
I believe that a strong case can be made for setting up an ex-service affairs unit. It need be composed of only a small number of civil servants and can be situated in an existing department of the Government's choosing. As a focal point it would co-ordinate government policy and be a point of reference for ex-service people and organisations which represent them in relation to the more than 20 government departments and agencies and local authorities with whom they now have to deal. That will prevent them from being given what is often a very lengthy run-around.
As I understand it, the Legion seeks a partnership with Whitehall. This would entail access to an informed Minister with overall responsibility for ex-service matters. I believe that this would encourage an exchange of views and information on matters of concern to both sides. I also believe that it would be helpful to the Government in formulating measures and legislation. It would reassure the ex-service community, which, after all, forms about a quarter of the population, that its interests are being heeded. And, what is most important, it is likely that real savings in administrative costs could be made and a better service provided. In the light of that, I very much hope that my noble friend and his department will look at this matter again.
7.50 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing this Unstarred Question. I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Territorial Army, although the matters in question do not affect me.
When talking to regular soldiers, one common concern is aired frequently; that is, what happens if they are killed, seriously injured or medically discharged as a result of an injury sustained during operations or training? It is important to remember that an awful lot of very nasty injuries are sustained during training as opposed to on operations. I became aware some time ago of an incident in which a serviceman and a civilian were both injured in the same preventable accident. The civilian was promptly compensated but the serviceman was not. Thankfully, recent changes have alleviated that problem.
I have never been involved in a military operation, but I have worked as a civilian aid worker in an operational zone. One is prepared to take risks but one wants to be confident that one will be looked after if one comes to grief. The noble and gallant Lord referred to the defence medical services, with which there is a bit of a problem. Confidence in assistance is vital if morale is to be maintained, whether one was wearing a green suit or a white one.
The duty of the MoD, however, is to defend the UK's interests. I am not convinced that it should be responsible for these welfare matters. What is important is that our ex-service personnel are looked after properly. Sadly, I expect that we shall never be completely satisfied with the provision of support, whatever the colour of the Government.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I wish, first, to thank the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne. On the many occasions when I have had to raise issues concerning the Royal British Legion, they have always given of their best and helped me and the Legion enormously. I felt it only right to put that on the record.
The Royal British Legion is concerned for the welfare of ex-servicemen and women and their families. We are considering the possibility of creating an ex-service unit to care for these people. That new department would be located within the MoD or the DSS. If created, it could take over all the work carried out by other ministries which deal with ex-servicemen and women and their families.
A unit to co-operate with and advise all departments is a sensible idea. We believe that ex-servicemen who have given of their best to their country should receive the best from it. Appeals for help from the wartime generation are growing and will do so for some years to come. It is difficult for people to understand the difficulties of people who lost their entire homes. They were blown to bits. When I was working on bomb disposal in the East End of London it was not only frightening to have to be there, the most terrifying thing was watching the women defending their children under their skirts while the bombs were falling. The nation does not intend to forget the East End cockneys and their equivalents in other parts of the country. I will not. I shall always mention them whenever I have the chance.
Ex-servicemen and women make up about one-third of today's voting population. I ask the House and the Minister to bear in mind that their wants and needs will increase as they grow older. The wounds they sustained when they were fighting for their country when they were 21 or 30 and which then were not too serious are altogether different when they are 60 or 70, when the wound starts to play them up. Our ex-servicemen and women gave of their best for the land they loved. Let us give our best to them through our Parliament.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for initiating this debate tonight. The Royal British Legion has drawn attention to the serious difficulties some ex-servicemen and their dependants experience in dealing with the various ministries in charge of their welfare.
There seem to be three core problems. The first arises because the Ministry of Defence is quite naturally more concerned with the urgency of the Armed Forces' current activities and the importance of shaping the military's future. Veteran affairs relate to the past, so quite understandably—and not because the MoD wishes it so—ex-servicemen's issues are inclined to be given a lower priority.
The second problem is the diversity of government departments involved in the affairs of ex-servicemen. At present there are 17, ranging from the MoD itself to local authorities. For example, in relation to their war-disabled pensions, an ex-soldier or war widow will
348
have to deal with, first, the War Pensions Agency; secondly, the Ministry of Defence; and, thirdly, the Department of Social Security. This can become confusing, especially for older people; there is no obvious focus of attention.
The third problem is the over-secretive and over-protective nature of the Ministry of Defence (and therefore the Government). The MoD has been extremely unresponsive to a number of unresolved and distressing issues, such as Gulf War syndrome, which it is only now addressing, and only because it has been forced to by publicity and weight of evidence. This is not how serious problems should be addressed.
What is needed is an independent body that can not only consider the merits of ex-servicemen's problems but have the authority, and ideally, the resources to deal with them. A Minister who was nominally responsible for the welfare of ex-servicemen, would just be a "front" man, a post box to whom everyone went, with no power to do anything except listen, because he would have no authority for policy, and he would have no money. Indeed, he would act to the disadvantage of service and veterans' organisations by acting as a buffer and holding these organisations away from the Minister or person responsible. Moreover, if the unit called for by the Royal British Legion were part of the Ministry of Defence, it would be briefed by exactly the same civil servants as now brief the ministry, and the same stereotyped approach and over-defensive arguments would continue.
What might better serve veterans' interests is an ombudsman: an independent regulator, someone who understands and has a degree of expertise in service affairs. Everyone would recognise the function of such a new focus, as we are all now familiar with this type of body, through such examples as the Chief Inspector of Prisons, Oftel and Ofgas.
The advantage of this scheme is that it would be independent of the Ministry of Defence and central government, and it would be approachable. It would also be free of a cumbersome bureaucracy, and therefore of excessive cost. It would look at the fairness and justice of a particular issue in the context of military practice, and then, importantly, call for appropriate action.
7.58 p.m.
Earl Haig: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness for enabling us to debate this important question. In 1994 I asked a somewhat similar question. Hers is more modest in that she seeks a unit within the MoD rather than a sub-department. A co-ordinating point is proposed with a Minister responsible for co-ordination, not for handling cases which would only add to bureaucracy. A Minister would be able to guide cases in the right direction.
The aim would be to improve communications and enable ex-service personnel to know where to go. There is a need to provide sympathetic guidance to help people through the right channels. That need for co-ordination has emerged because few Ministers and few civil servants have ever worn uniform. In some cases there is

349
an unawareness and even a lack of sympathy on the part of officials called upon to deal with the problems of ex-service personnel.
After the first war my father was keen to appoint men who had suffered or been wounded to fill administrative appointments relating to pensions and the welfare of survivors of that war. According to The Times of 2nd July, 1919, in his evidence to the Select Committee on Pensions he asked that the medical boards be reconstructed so that an officer could be appointed to each board as an assessor. He asked for greater generosity on the part of the state. He asked for the appointment of a single authority to co-ordinate the work of Ministers. He asked for improvement in the machinery that has been set up and is now working laboriously but too slowly, and in many cases unsympathetically.
Since that time a complex and efficient system linking government departments with ex-service organisations has evolved. Any alterations to that system should be made only provided that they do not endanger the present system of co-operation between the Government and voluntary organisations. There have been misunderstandings by the Government about difficulties suffered by ex-service people. It is for us to improve the liaison so that difficulties are overcome rather than undermine the structure. I agree with the Government that it would wrong to change the system by channelling too many problems directly to one Minister.
There is a need for improvement and to that end it is important to support the idea of a special unit in order to bridge the communication gap for ex-service people, used to the warmth of service life, returning home after years spent outside Civvy Street. They are men and women who are suffering withdrawal symptoms which are made more painful when they face housing or other difficulties. I know ex-servicemen who are wandering the streets unable to find the help which is available if only they knew where to find it. I support the plan and I hope that the Government accept it.
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, there should be no greater respect in life than that accorded to those who served this nation and fell in time of war fighting for the just cause of freedom. This respect must be extended to their spouses.
This evening has touched on differing matters relating to the Royal British Legion. I hope that I might be forgiven for saying a few words about the War Widows' Pilgrimages Programme. In 1984 the Legion was asked by the Government whether it would administer the scheme with Ministry of Defence funding. The programme serves those who lost their spouses during the two world wars or subsequent campaigns by enabling visits to graves abroad, once, at a cost of one-eighth of the market rate. Even then, should that amount not be possible to fund the Royal British Legion will assist further.
The first group left the United Kingdom in 1985. Since then more than 3,000 have visited the graves of their loved ones in more than 43 countries.
350
Arrangements have been made also for visits to places where tourists are strongly discouraged or denied access; for example, to South Burma or Kohima in North East India. Furthermore, it has to be said that three widows have visited graves from the Great War, those visits taking place some 70 years after their bereavement. The majority will confirm that the visit represented the single most important event of their lives. Indeed, firm bonds of friendship have been forged out of these unique visits. One issue is abundantly clear; they are all grateful for the opportunity and the grant in aid.
I shall turn to my concerns. The level of funding has varied and recently reached its lowest level at approximately £90,000 a year from a peak of £220,000. In December 1995, the Prime Minister in addressing a pilgrims' reunion spoke of the courage of relatives, especially widows, and announced a fourth and final extension of the programme to March 1999. It is with regret that there is no extra money to fund the period 1997–99 so the MoD merely reduced the current level by 50 per cent. to pay for future expenditure.
It is nigh on impossible for the devoted and compassionate team in the War Graves Pilgrimage department to remain within budget. Any overspend is borne by the legion with the effect that fewer widows will have the chance to visit final resting places. I understand that additional funding has been considered. Is the Minister able to offer positive news in that regard? To what degree has allowance been made for those whose names are on the list to travel but have not been called? What if 1999 arrives and they have not travelled? Equally relevant are those who have not travelled to Libya due to circumstances beyond their control. What is to happen to them? If the Minister is unable to respond, will he undertake to give the matter his attention?
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I apologise to the House and to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for speaking in the gap. Although in the Whips Office on Monday I put my name down to speak, for some unaccountable reason it was left out.
I should like to thank the noble Baroness for initiating the debate and for what she said. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, who have so kindly spoken on behalf of the war widows.
The War Widows' Association of Great Britain, and all its splendid ladies whom I am so proud to represent, does have difficulty in some cases under the present system. This is nothing to do with the extremely warm and friendly relationship which we enjoy with both my noble friends Lord Howe of the MoD and Lord Mackay of the DSS and their helpful and friendly staffs. It is just that we do not always know to whom we should apply. Pre-1973 war widows apply to the DSS; post-1973 war widows apply to the DSS and the MoD. It can be most confusing for those ladies.

351
The War Widows' Association has also from time to time found itself in a similar maze, wondering to which lucky Minister it should apply. The amendment brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, on the forces family pension under the Armed Forces pension scheme, though not alas moved, is an issue about which we have been arguing with Ministers from various departments for some years. We believe that because the pension is attributable it should be paid for life, regardless of future marital status. We now know that it comes from the Ministry of Defence. We also know that the Bett Report fully supported what we have been arguing for years. The Bett Report came out two years ago. We are still waiting and hoping for implementation of this issue.
On the question of a separate ministry for ex-servicemen's problems, there are as I see it two very important points. The first is the importance to the nation, and the supreme importance to all our ex-servicemen and women, of their wives, of their widows, of their children. We all owe them much. The second is that there can be confusion with the multiplicity of Ministers. It would be nice to have someone somewhere where the buck stopped.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I welcome the debate and modest proposal which I hope that the Government will be able to accept. We are not asking for extra Ministers, thank goodness, but for a reorganisation of responsibilities which will ensure that there is a unit which deals specifically with issues relating to ex-servicemen.
We know that in recent years in the Ministry of Defence there have been problems in dealing with ex-servicemen and with serving soldiers and airmen. The question of Gulf War syndrome has clearly shown all the problems of over-secrecy and a resistance to accepting that there are problems which date from an involvement in military service. Perhaps I may speak briefly about the second of the two problems with which we are dealing.
Previous speakers have concentrated mainly on those who served in the last war. I believe that important issues relate to those who are moving in and out of peacetime services, often for short periods, necessarily as volunteers and some as reserves who are called up. Many reserves have been called up to help in Bosnia, and I see many of them when they return to education. The peacetime services will need such people. Recruitment is not as good as it should be and a servicemen's unit must consider encouraging young people to give short service and then to carry on as reserves, which we shall continue to need. They will risk their occupations and their health in the number of limited military occupations which are likely to occur.
If we are to maintain such military capacity on a necessarily highly flexible basis we shall need to be able to guarantee to people who move in and out of the services and who are exposed to risks in training and in operations that they will be well looked after in the period after service. Therefore, on behalf of my
352
party, and personally, I support the argument for an ex-servicemen's unit, and the Government will do so too.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to my noble friend Lady Dean for raising this question at this particular time. It is important and I have no doubt that the noble Earl has studied all the papers that have been produced by the Royal British Legion to that effect.
I do not wish to go into the matter of war pensions which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised. That is an issue which I prefer to leave. Nevertheless, it is true that ex-servicemen and women have to deal with 17 different departments, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, pointed out. That does not seem to us to be really quite right.
I am not convinced by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about an ombudsman but I am convinced by the Royal British Legion's campaign and we are committed to establishing a unit with the Ministry of Defence under the responsibility of a single Minister to co-ordinate matters relating to veteran affairs. I am simply announcing something that my honourable friend in another place announced on 7th November last.
There has been inadequate consultation between the MoD and voluntary organisations on matters affecting ex-servicemen and women and we should like to see that all concentrated into one unit within the MoD, responsible to a single Minister, in order to co-ordinate all matters relating to veteran affairs.
I have now spent two minutes explaining what is my party's policy. I have only another 30 seconds but I hope very much that, before the Government change, they will adopt the suggestion advanced by my noble friend Lady Dean.
8.13 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I begin by commending the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. It has provided me with the opportunity to explain the Government's position.
I am aware that provision of welfare and practical support to the ex-service community as a whole has received a justifiable high profile in recent years. The Royal British Legion, in common with ex-servicemen's organisations, such as the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen and Families Association, the Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations, the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society and others, have carried out sterling work on behalf of their members, many of whom are now elderly. The Royal British Legion has been successful in gaining widespread support from many influential people, including a number in your Lordships' House and in the other place.
Before I respond to some of the points raised by noble Lords, perhaps I may emphasise to the House that the Government continue to place great value on both past

353
and present service given to the United Kingdom by members of our Armed Forces. The fact that our country has been untouched by major conflict for over half a century is a direct result of the efforts of those who have served as members of the forces, whether as regulars or as national servicemen.
They are owed an immense debt of gratitude by the society they protected during their time in the forces. It would be wrong to suggest that their efforts have been forgotten. The commemorative events which took place in 1994 to mark the 50th anniversary of the D-Day landings, and those which took place in 1995 in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War were visible demonstrations of the appreciation of the whole nation, albeit that they centred on the events of the Second World War.
Those commemorative events were, by their nature, transitory affairs. In contrast, the welfare of the ex-Service community, and of their dependants, is a permanent concern of the Government.
In recognising the country's considerable debt to all ex-servicemen and women, the Government acknowledge their particular needs. I believe this is demonstrated by the administrative arrangements which the Government already have in place. The Government take the welfare of the veterans' community most seriously.
The various existing arrangements available to war pensioners and those leaving the Armed Forces are both comprehensive and adequate. It may be helpful if I outline some of the major elements of what is already available.
First, there is the War Pensions Agency. The special needs of the war disabled and war widows are catered for through the war pensions scheme, the War Pensions Agency and its dedicated welfare service. Through a network of offices around the UK, the welfare service provides disabled war pensioners, war widows, their dependants and carers with personal confidential advice, help and support. Whatever the problem facing the client, the welfare service will try to help that person cope better and ensure that they are receiving all monies to which they are entitled in terms of pension, allowances and other benefits and the necessary help from other statutory or voluntary bodies. Staff work closely with ex-service organisations such as the Royal British Legion and SSAFA. I should explain that the War Pensions Agency is an agency of the Department of Social Security, and not of the Ministry of Defence.
My department fully supports the work of the War Pensions Agency to provide an even better service for all those who have need of it. I am aware that to this end, in 1995 the agency undertook a major restructuring exercise. There are now dedicated teams dealing with nearly all aspects of cases from the initial claim to the implementation of a pensions appeal tribunal decision. This means that there is no longer a need for case files to be passed from one group to another for different actions to be taken. The agency has also moved into purpose built accommodation and has introduced a new computer system. Those steps will enable the agency to
354
provide a better service, which is more integrated and easier for war pensioners to use—a concern raised by a number of noble Lords this evening.
Information about war disablement pensions and war widows pensions, and the procedure by which these can be claimed, is contained in documents issued under standard procedures to all service personnel on discharge from the Armed Forces. The service records of those invalided out of the Armed Forces are forwarded to the War Pensions Agency so that entitlement to a war pension can be considered automatically.
It is important to remember that all war disablement and war widow's pensions payable under the very preferential war pension scheme are completely tax free. All pensions and allowances are paid at preferential rates in comparison with their social security counterparts. A severely disabled single ex-Serviceman could be entitled to a total war disablement pension of almost £380 a week. A 70 year-old war widow is currently entitled to over £148 a week. Provisions under the war pension scheme compare more than favourably with those of other countries. Per capita expenditure under the UK scheme is greater than that of Germany.
The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, referred to the War Widows' Pilgrimage grant-in-aid scheme. As I believe he mentioned, that scheme has been extended to 31st March 1999, and I can tell him that the Ministry of Defence is actively considering a request from the Royal British Legion to increase funding over the next two years.
My noble friend Lady Strange referred to the Bett Review and its proposals for widows' pensions. The Government are considering the recommendations made by Sir Michael Bett for a new Armed Forces scheme. All his recommendations are being given careful consideration and detailed evaluation before any conclusions are reached about them. My noble friend will know better than most how complicated an exercise that is but we hope that we shall reach a conclusion before too long.
Another aspect of our continuing concern for those in receipt of War Pensions, is that they are entitled to priority treatment under the National Health Service for pensioned disablement, subject only to the exigencies of emergency cases or others demanding greater clinical priority. Where beds are available, admission to a service hospital or facility can be arranged. I should stress that those are advantages not available to any other group of pensioners. From time to time, this matter has been brought to the attention of my noble friend Lord Mackay. He has therefore arranged for the NHS to issue periodic reminders to the medical profession to ensure priority treatment is available.
As noble Lords will know from our debate on the subject last month, extensive support is given to those leaving the Armed Forces to help them make a smooth transition to civilian life, and support continues to be available after they are discharged. The Services Employment Network maintains a "SkillBank", which provides a comprehensive job-matching service and a weekly jobs bulletin. After leaving the Armed Forces,

355
eligible personnel may remain on the SkillBank register for up to 12 months. A full range of Employment Service training and job finding provision is also available to them, and some qualifying requirements are waived for ex-servicemen and women.
Finding accommodation is also an area of concern for those leaving the services as my noble friend Lord Haig pointed out. In making the break from service life back to the civilian world, they need support and advice. For that reason we have taken a number of initiatives to encourage home ownership within the services and to help with the needs of those leaving. Advice and information on the complex range of housing options open to service leavers is provided by the Joint Service Housing Advice Office. Its role is to act as a focal point for a huge range of housing information to all service personnel, in particular those about to return to civilian life and to ex-service personnel who are still in service family accommodation.
In those brief remarks I have tried to describe some of the ways in which the Government care for the needs of the ex-service community. My department and that of my noble friend Lord Mackay have, however, been aware of proposals made by the Royal British Legion for an ex-service affairs unit, for some little time. Indeed, in September 1994 the Prime Minister wrote personally to the national chairman of the Royal British Legion explaining the Government's position. Shortly afterwards, in November that year, Ministers from the MoD and the DSS met legion representatives to discuss proposals which envisaged a separate department or sub-department assuming direct responsibility for all welfare provided to ex-servicemen and women by the public sector, including healthcare and social security. We came to the view then that this would be unnecessarily bureaucratic, as well as socially divisive.
I am aware that in other countries veterans departments exist. Such special provision tends, however, to centre on medical programmes for veterans and is intended to ensure that veterans have access to facilities which would not otherwise be available. That is particularly the case in Australia and in the United States where there is no National Health Service as we would recognise it. In the United Kingdom ex-service personnel and their dependants have access to the full range of healthcare and social security facilities available to the population at large.
Despite what many British veterans believe, as I have already indicated, provision in the United Kingdom for war disablement pensioners and war widows compares favourably with that in other countries. Often it is much better—UK expenditure per capita exceeds that of Germany, France and Italy. We continue therefore firmly to believe that welfare provision for the ex-service community should continue to be integrated with that of the rest of the nation.
Similarly, the establishment of a special unit to deal with inquiries from individual ex-servicemen and women, and their dependants, would merely add a new and unnecessary tier of bureaucracy to the current arrangement whereby individual departments handle inquiries within their areas of responsibility. The War
356
Pensions Agency already has a special unit to assist war pensioners with any welfare matter, including directing them to any statutory or voluntary body which may be of assistance in working towards a lasting and constructive solution.
It is our understanding now that the Royal British Legion does not see the proposed ex-service affairs unit being established to deal directly with the specific problems of particular individuals, but rather that it would be available to its representatives, and to those of similar organisations, as a co-ordinating point on behalf of appropriate ministries, enabling them to raise and discuss problems.
I stress that to a large extent this already happens. Ministers do consult ex-service organisations on a range of issues. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is the Minister responsible for war pensions and meets regularly with organisations which represent the interests of former servicemen and women who raise a wide range of issues with him in addition to the war pensions scheme. The views of ex-service organisations are always given the fullest consideration.
The latest proposals of the Royal British Legion are, however, of a different kind from earlier ones. I am happy to tell the House that, as a result, the Government are considering the matter further. Naturally we will consult the Royal British Legion, and other service organisations, as part of that process.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he say whether he is able to respond to the three specific points that I made in my contribution relating to pensions? I asked, first, whether it was the intention to cut back on £15 million in pension payments, as has been reported. Secondly, I asked whether it was the intention not to send reminders for claims. Thirdly, I asked whether it was the intention no longer to refer pensions matters directly to the Royal British Legion so that it could represent individuals. If the Minister is not in a position to answer those questions tonight, I would welcome a later response in writing.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I did of course note her points. However, because of the time, I do not feel that I can answer them this evening. Nevertheless, I shall write to the noble Baroness with the answers to those questions.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 7 [Firearm certificates to be subject to special conditions]:
[Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 3, line 45, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This amendment is a very simple one because the Bill as framed states that a breach of the conditions relating to pistols should be

357
treated as having been committed in "an aggravated form"; in other words, the penalty is doubled. Compared with penalties for breaches of other regulations, that seems most unfair and quite out of proportion. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: the Government have made it an aggravated offence to break any of the mandatory conditions of a firearm certificate issued for a small calibre pistol for target shooting only. That increases the level of penalties which may be applied by the courts for this offence. The amendment would reduce the level of penalty available.
If a person were found guilty of breaking any of the mandatory conditions set out, we propose that the maximum sentence on conviction or indictment should be seven years and a fine. If the amendment were passed, the maximum sentence would be six months' imprisonment on summary conviction.
It is one of the primary objectives of the Bill that all handguns should be banned from private possession. Higher calibre handguns will be banned altogether and small calibre pistols will only be able to be kept under the strictest conditions at a licensed pistol club. As the Government have made clear, the measures announced and contained in the Bill are the minimum conditions which will allow pistol target shooting to continue in Britain. To underline the seriousness with which we view the need to keep pistols out of the public domain, we believe that an aggravated offence for breach of the conditions of a firearm certificate for a small calibre pistol is appropriate. It is important that severe penalties are available to the courts for those who breach the conditions. Of course, it will be for the courts to decide in each individual case what level of penalty should be imposed. I should remind Members of the Committee that they are, of course, maximum penalties and, therefore, a sentence could be anything within that range.
However, the level of penalties which the Government are providing for those offences show that we regard breach of the statutory controls as a serious matter. I would, therefore, urge Members of the Committee to support that approach and I ask my noble friend not to press his amendment.
Lord Swansea: That is more or less the answer that I expected. Nevertheless, it seems very unfair to have a double penalty in such circumstances. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: I have a question on this matter. I understand that the issuing of firearm certificates is decided by the local chief constable. That is fair enough, but what happens if a person's club is in a different police area to the one he lives in? In which place should his certificate be held?
Baroness Blatch: That is an interesting question. I am trying to think of someone who lives on the border
358
of a county area, and who may belong to a club in one area but live in another. My understanding is that the relevant criterion is where the person lives. However, the certificate is sent to the owner of the gun and not to the club. My understanding is that the relevant authority is the authority where the owner of the weapon lives.
Earl Attlee: I believe the Minister is right on that. I have an amendment that addresses a similar concern which we shall debate at a later stage in the Committee.
The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful for those comments.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Permits to have small-calibre pistols outside licensed pistol clubs]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 4, line 10, leave out ("apply") and insert ("make an application in the prescribed form").Page 4, line 10, leave out ("apply") and insert ("make an application in the prescribed form").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 25, which stands in my name, is grouped with Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28, 29 and 87, which stand in the names of noble Lords too numerous to mention. I shall first discuss Amendment No. 25.
This amendment will ensure that an application for a permit to remove a small calibre pistol from a licensed pistol club is made in a prescribed form. The information which the police will require before granting a permit will be the same in each case. It is therefore sensible to have the permit in a standard form which will be prescribed by the firearms rules.
If the Committee will allow me, I hope I may venture an initial comment on the other amendments in the group in advance of noble Lords speaking to them, as I think that may save time. There seems to be no objection to that and therefore I shall continue.
We considered carefully whether a pistol outside a club on permit should be transmitted by its owner or by a third party. We concluded that unless there were wholly exceptional circumstances, transport should be by a third party. In most cases, therefore, pistol and owner will be quite separate when in public. One of the primary objectives of the Bill is that handguns and pistols are banned from the public domain. This is something which underpins the whole Bill. I do not believe we can make any exceptions to this requirement, even for members of the national squad.
I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 28 put forward by my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch. It is our intention that the Government should consult with the governing bodies concerned. However, I believe it is proper that the final decision on such matters in the interests of public safety should lie with the Secretary of State, and that he should not be bound by the advice of other parties.
Amendment No. 29 would introduce a right of appeal against a refusal by the chief officer to grant a permit. The criteria surrounding the granting of permits under Clause 8 are clear. If a case is made which falls within the proper purposes in subsection (3), then, providing the chief officer of police is satisfied, he would issue a

359
permit. At the same time, the chief officer must retain the discretion to refuse to grant the permit. Unlike the grant or refusal of the certificate itself, the refusal to grant a permit will not deprive the firearm certificate holder of his ability to shoot a small calibre pistol in the club at which he is licensed to keep it.
It is also worth pointing out that such an appeal would probably not be heard before the occasion for which a permit has been requested. This would make it of little practical use. If concerns about the chief officer's decision were sufficiently serious, the possibility of judicial review would still exist. I have no reason to believe that chief officers will exercise their discretion in anything other than a sensible manner.
For those reasons I invite the Committee to reject the amendments. However, I am conscious that I have spoken to those amendments ahead of those who are proposing them. I beg to move.
Lord Howell: Amendment No. 27 lies within the grouping we are discussing. I had hoped that the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, might have spoken on this first, but in order that we do not allow the matter to go by default I shall take up the cudgels. My name is added to the amendment. I take up the cudgels because there has been a total paucity of debate on the effect of these measures on the sport of shooting, on our Olympic Games participation and on our Commonwealth Games participation. The Minister for Sport has not said one word on any of these vital matters. I compliment the noble Baroness on being the only person who replied to an interjection of mine on Second Reading. I am grateful to her for the courteous manner in which she replied. However, I think even she would agree that she was not on that occasion attempting to involve herself in the major principle of whether shooting as a legitimate sporting activity in the Olympic Games and the Commonwealth Games should concern this Chamber.
I must declare an interest, in that I am the president of the 49th Rifle Club, which I helped to establish in my former constituency in some disused swimming baths. It has been a splendid club. It is situated in a basement in the middle of Birmingham. The police make extensive use of it for the lawful purpose of shooting practice. There has not been the slightest bit of trouble and the club has produced for the country some shooters of great distinction.
I hope I may have the tolerance of the Committee for a few minutes. If I may say so, I do not see why I should not, in view of the speeches everyone else has made. I wish to recall two vibrant memories in the field of shooting. The first concerns the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I was present at the Commonwealth Games of, I believe, 1966, which were held in Jamaica, when the noble Lord won a gold medal for Wales. I can still picture him now on the rostrum as the band tried to play the Welsh National anthem. Having played Land of Hope and Glory, God Save the Queen and other anthems, the noble Lord stood erect and motionless and refused to move from the rostrum, in spite of all the attempts of the Jamaicans to remove him, until Land of my Fathers was played. That is a wonderful memory
360
for me. I can still picture him in my mind. Therefore I understand the passionate belief in his sport held by the noble Lord.
The second memory is of the first Olympic gold medal that I ever saw someone from Great Britain win. That was in the Mexican Olympics. I went to watch the shooting event with Sir Walter Winterbottom as the shooters had complained that no government Minister ever took any notice of them. That was the Olympics of 1968. A referee from Staffordshire named Bob Braithwaite invited us to watch the clay pigeon shooting. The competitors shot at 25 clay pigeons at a time. We reached the event after the first round of 25 clay pigeons had been shot at. The competitor had missed three of them. We still thought that was pretty good. The competitor said, "I am so glad that you have come. Now that my sport is recognised by the Government, I shall not miss any more". He hit the next 175 and won a gold medal. So my experiences in the Commonwealth Games and the Olympic Games lead me to believe that the sport is being short changed.
The Government have to make a hideous decision. We all recognise that. My criticisms apply equally to views expressed by my noble friends on this Front Bench. I have not voted against any provision that the Government or my noble friends have put forward. I have abstained because I understand their motives. Thanks to the fact that we have annunciators in our offices, I was able to hear my noble friend speaking about the sport. I know that he recognises the position that I take, as I recognise the position that others take. However, we should be in no doubt that these are matters of great importance.
The Commonwealth Games venue has been awarded to Manchester. We nearly lost it. The Government and the Sports Council made some concessions to seek to retrieve the situation, but they now are in a ludicrous and illogical situation. In this country .32 shooting will be totally unlawful. But for the purpose of the Commonwealth Games the Home Secretary indicated in Hansard of 18th November 1996 at col. 745 that he will make an exception to allow that event to be held. The Manchester Commonwealth Games would not take place unless he made that exception.
However, the extraordinary situation now is that no British marksman can practise for those games. Fifty countries will take part in the shooting events at the Manchester Commonwealth Games. Britons allowed to take part are in very difficult circumstances as regards the .22 sport and in impossible circumstances with regard to .32s. Because it is unlawful for them to exercise their skills in training and practice, they are being allowed to take part in an event for which the Government say they cannot practise. Can there be a more ludicrous proposition to put before the nation? But that is where we are now.
As regards the Olympic Games—we on this side of the Chamber support the Government; we want to attract the Olympic Games here—there are more nations taking part with even more shooters; and we shall have to go through this ludicrous pantomime once more. It will make us the laughing stock of the world.

361
I wish to ask the Minister to consider this one point. Can those shooters coming from the nations involved in the Commonwealth and Olympic Games be said to be more responsible than British shooters? Alternatively, can British shooters be said to be more irresponsible than other shooters? It is not a proposition that can be sustained for five minutes. But that is what the Government put before us.
In Amendment No. 27 the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, seeks a way out by providing that we should have regard to the squad system. If people are selected for a squad, the Home Secretary should make exceptional arrangements. That does not get us over the problem of how people qualify for a squad. Nevertheless, it is a half-way house. I shall not put this matter to a vote tonight, but I was much encouraged by what the noble Baroness said earlier. She said that she would consider carefully everything that has been said and see whether she could meet the point. The Government should not set out to try to destroy a perfectly legitimate and noble sport which has served this country well for many years. That is the effect of the situation at present.
I hope that the noble Baroness will give us the same undertaking. I believe that she will because I know that she tries genuinely to meet the will of the Chamber. I hope that she will consider the problems of British sport, will take further advice and will consider in consultation whether it is possible to protect British dignity and common sense. In that spirit I rest the case that I put before the Committee.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Burton: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. He said that his club was in Birmingham. I believe that I had a letter from one of the members saying that he was frightened that the club was likely to close. Does the noble Lord believe that it will close?
He said that policemen used to practise at that club. Where will they practise in future?
Lord Howell: I am advised that the club will be in great danger. They will try to keep it open because that is the sort of people they are. But there is the danger that it will close.
As regards the police, unless they take on board all the costs of running the club—the police gain a good deal from it at present because the club effectively arranges the finance for it in conjunction with the city council, which leases the premises—they will have to practise elsewhere. I do not know where because there is no similar range that I can suggest.
Lord Monson: I fully share the indignation of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, over the position of our competitors in the Commonwealth Games and allied matters. I shall speak to Amendment No. 26. However, first, I wish to apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for not having been present to move Amendments Nos. 22 and 23. I was under the impression that we would be granted an hour's rest from
362
our labours. In fact we were given 57 minutes and I missed the deadline. The Committee rose at 7.28, or something like that.
To incorporate into the Bill subsection (2) of Clause 8 as it stands will be disastrous for competitive pistol shooting. Subsection (2) decrees that a permit will not be given to the owner of a gun other than in exceptional circumstances. That means that every shooter who in the normal course of the sport wishes to shoot in another club or range for competition purposes must have a third party to take the gun for him. That third party must have a permit from the police. As I understand it, the kind of third party envisaged is Securicor or even Group 4, an organisation not always noted for optimum efficiency.
This modest amendment removes that obligation on the part of the police but still allows them to impose whatever conditions they think appropriate for the safe carrying of a pistol. Indeed, they will have an obligation so to do. Since the police will have that discretion, it is unnecessary and damaging to restrict the grant of a permit to a law-abiding owner. The amendment allows for the permit to be given to the owner, to the secretary of the club or to the organiser of the competition, who can transport the guns to the competition on behalf of the participants. If the Government are serious about wishing the sport of .22 shooting to continue—there have been forecasts today that it may not be able to continue if disassembly is not allowed—they have to take account of the practicalities. The amendment provides one way in which that could be done.
Earl Attlee: The noble Baroness's amendment is perfectly acceptable. I do not intend to delay the Committee long at this late hour. However, within this group my amendment addresses a simple point concerning the right of appeal against a decision by the chief officer of police. The right of appeal under Section 44 of the 1968 Act appears in many places in legislation. Police policy with regard to the administration of firearms law is not consistent across the country, as we well know. Perhaps more importantly, the intention of the Government to allow competitive .22 shooting could be thwarted by local police policy. If there is a right of appeal, it may not need to be used very often but it would be in place as a deterrent against arbitrary action. The point does not very much matter, as the system for competitions and the like is so impractical that in fact the situation will not occur.
I wish to make a brief point about transport by third parties. The people transporting weapons to a range will be extremely vulnerable to attack by criminals: when a TNT or Securicor vehicle turns up at a range it will be obvious what it is carrying.
The noble Lord's point about Group 4 security seems a little unfair. As I understand it, the Prison Service used to lose more prisoners than Group 4.
Finally, I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, regarding qualification for the national squad. I believe that this point applies generally in relation to whether someone needs, or does not need, to have his or her own firearm. It is a matter of the skill

363
that the shooter can demonstrate. If it can be shown that he or she can achieve a certain grouping and get into the national squad, that person can be qualified. That can quite easily be measured: can the shooter get six rounds in a 50 millimetre circle at a certain range?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the remarks made in relation to these amendments. I welcome the intervention of my noble friend Lord Howell. He quite rightly said that we have not previously discussed the sporting aspect. Perhaps many of us were waiting for him to enter the debate. I mean that very sincerely. My noble friend has great expertise and experience in these matters. If he tells me that the sport of shooting is in danger, then I know that that is his belief. I also believe that he must be correct because of his background, his contacts and his expertise. If, as he believes, the restrictions being put in place under the Bill will impair the opportunity of sportsmen to practise and to move their weapons to places where they can practise and compete, it is a very serious matter—particularly since, as I understand it, the British do extremely well in this sport.
We talked quite a lot about expertise earlier in the debate. I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will take very seriously the points that my noble friend made. He knows the sport; indeed, he knows sport generally. I believe that what he says is absolutely right and to the point. I hope that the Minister will accede to his suggestion in order that our sport of shooting can continue, at least to some degree, unimpaired.
Baroness Blatch: I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has spoken in the debate. I should like to think that he has recognised that one of the tensions being addressed in the course of today's deliberations has to do with the Government's recognition that we want to do something to preserve the right of sportsmen to practise their art of shooting. We have not gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, would like; we have gone much too far according to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh; and we have certainly not gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, would like. That is the stuff of the debate. Shooting is an honourable sport. It has been going for a hundred years and it is our intention that it should continue. I do not deny that it will be something of a challenge to envisage how it will continue when the Bill passes into law. The challenge is to make sure that the clubs survive, and in a way that allows our sportsmen and women to continue to take part in the sport.
The Commonwealth Games pistol competition to which the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred comprises four .22 rimfire events and one higher calibre centre fire event. It is for the city hosting the games to decide precisely which of those events shall be included in the competition. The Government are prepared to discuss with Manchester which disciplines it wishes to include. It would, if necessary, be possible to give special authority to participants in the centre fire competition if that was Manchester's wish, and if it were capable of guaranteeing that the guns would be handled with the necessary security measures in place. I can go no further than that on the detail since discussions are continuing. However,
364
I give the noble Lord, Lord Howell, an absolute assurance of the same promises I made earlier in the day. I will continue to read all that is said; I will continue to discuss the Bill in my department and with experts; and I will continue, without prejudice to the outcome, to be as open-minded as I possibly can while all these matters are being discussed.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Before my noble friend proceeds, when she comes to consider these matters will she be so good as to consider the question of practice, and how the British Olympic team will be able to practise in clubs up and down the country, which will have been closed if she continues to refuse what was my Amendment No. 21? You cannot simply turn up in Manchester and beat the world.
Baroness Blatch: That is precisely what I just said. That is the challenge. It is for clubs to find a way of existing under the new arrangements in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was kind enough to say that the decision has not been at all easy. The lines in the sand have been drawn in different places by different people. But the Government have the present responsibility to respond to the situation. We have chosen where to draw the line. However, I gave an indication that we want to be flexible, and we will continue to discuss matters with Manchester.
Perhaps I may finish my point on a third party carrier. It could be an accredited member of a pistol club; it could be an individual whom the police would be content to trust with the safe carriage of a pistol being moved from one place to another. It is customary practice for that to be contracted out if a number of pistols are being moved. The only example that springs to mind is where one club is competing against another and therefore a number of weapons need to be moved. The police allocating the permit would need to be convinced of good reason for pistols to be moved from A to B in the first instance, and then of the suitability and fitness for the purpose of the third person who would be permitted to do the carrying of the weapons from A to B.
Lord Howell: I am very much obliged to the Minister for confirming that she will examine all that has been said. I express my appreciation. Perhaps I may make one small point in relation to her remark about consulting Manchester. It is not a matter for Manchester. Manchester had to give undertakings to the British Commonwealth Games Association. The association had to give undertakings to the Commonwealth Games Federation before the vote that shooting would be included. So everybody is committed. Whatever Manchester may want to do at the behest of the Government or anybody else, we are committed to holding all those events in Manchester. A question therefore arises regarding the conditions that British shooters need in order to take part and to practise. I hope the Minister will bear the matter in mind. I thank her very much indeed for the generous spirit in which she responded to this amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 4, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) A person who is certified by the recognised governing body of the sport to be a person who has been invited to be a member of the group from which national competitors at international competitions will be selected may be granted a permit under subsection (1) to which subsection (2) shall not apply; and such permit shall be granted for one year and be renewable while membership of the group continues to be certified.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is extremely important. It deals with competitors or potential competitors in international competitions—for example, in the Olympic Games, the Commonwealth Games, and so on. The Committee has seen the wording of the amendment. The effect is to permit the chief officer of police to grant a year's permit to people chosen to be members of the national squad (and who live in his area) in order to represent the country in international competition. The permit would only be granted while they were members of the squad. The effect of the permit is to give the shooter the right to possess his or her gun at home and outside the confines of a specific licensed pistol club.
For international competitions of this kind, daily access to a pistol is essential. A competitor has to be able to get at it every day for tuning and maintenance, for dry firing and for live firing when needed. That may require access for anything up to five or six days a week. It is essential for the competitor to keep himself and his pistol in top trim building up to a competition.
These men and women represent their country with great personal commitment. A refusal to accept this amendment would mean that Parliament is prepared to accept that sacrifice and enjoy the national benefit of them winning international competitions, but is not prepared to trust this small number of highly motivated competitors, who are identified at the end of a long process, not to commit an outrage such as Dunblane. This would not only be implausible, it would also be insulting. These people work very hard to represent their country. They have to keep themselves in top trim.
The Government's commitment to sport was attested to by its White Paper Raising the Game, which announced the creation of a new British Academy of Sport. Complementing that, Virginia Bottomley, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, announced on 14th November last that £50 million of National Lottery funds are to be made available to fund individual sportsmen and women. The Government are providing the facilities and the finance needed by competitors at an elite level in order to allow them to become champions. The least they can do in this case is to make it as easy as possible for our top competitors in target shooting—a sport which was invented in this country and which the British have dominated in international competition for many years.
For Britain to secure a place at the Olympic Games in Sydney it must succeed in the preceding national games. To compete in Sydney, a British shooter must gain one of only 20 quota places. Not every country is allowed to compete, however good their competitors. The quota places are allocated on the basis of the results
366
in the six World Cup UIT Championships, European and World Championships and the Commonwealth Games.
Like every other sport, the medal winners develop through a network of competition and coaching. This begins at club level. Competitions for the national squad are held throughout the country and from the national squad only those who reach further levels of excellence are chosen to compete overseas.
The margin between a medal and no medal is no less fine than in any other sport, requiring years of exacting, disciplined training and equipment equal to that of any competitor of rival nations. Serious competitors need to practise four hours' dry firing, six hours' live firing and at least six hours' physical and mental training per week. All UK squad shooters work full time and train in their spare time. The present restrictions on taking guns out of clubs make it impossible for effective training at international level. We should be in no doubt that if the Committee permits the Bill to go forward unamended we shall be destroying British participation in Olympic and other international shooting. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: We covered much of this amendment in the main debate on the group of amendments, so I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not come back in any great detail on the points that he made. I would invite him to read Hansard. Perhaps we may discuss some of these points at the next stage of the Bill.
I wish to pick up two points. My noble friend introduced the notion of the lottery, and lottery money being made available. In principle the lottery money is available. The lottery has a sports section, and shooting is not exempt or excluded from an application to the lottery. In fact, I said that at Second Reading, but it is worth putting it on record again.
Secondly, just to remind my noble friend, all the sports events in the Olympic Games will be supported (because shooting clubs will be allowed to continue) and four out of the five events in the Commonwealth Games, as I have mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, with particular attention to two matters that we are discussing today, one of which is the higher calibre event and the other is the practising for that event and the pool from which the future talent will come for the squads. I would ask my noble friend to read what has been said in Hansard, because much of this was covered in the earlier debate.
Lord Swansea: I can hardly describe my noble friend's reply as encouraging. In any event, I do not propose to press this amendment, but I hope that my noble friend will take it away and give it deep consideration. I may return to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 5, line 24, after ("order") insert ("on the advice of a recognised governing body of the sport").
The noble Lord said: I regret to say that I feel that this amendment should be taken outside the grouping. I was telephoned this morning by the most charming sounding young lady from the office of my noble friend on the Front Bench to see whether I agreed with this amendment being grouped with the rest of the amendments. At the time I thought that I might, but when we come to it, I am afraid I cannot.
The Bill provides that the chief of police may issue a permit to take guns away from the club where they are licensed to be stored so that they may be used in a recognised target shooting competition. Subsection (9) then gives the Secretary of State power to designate such competitions as he thinks fit as recognised target shooting competitions. But these competitions have been organised and developed for some 150 years without the dread interference of the state.
I submit that it is really not appropriate that the Home Secretary should now distinguish between competitions he approves of and those he does not. If people apply to attend tin-pot competitions of no standing, the police will not grant permits. There is, therefore, no need at all for this subsection and that should be the preferred option. Indeed, one could say the same for the whole of this wretched Bill.
But this amendment does not go that far. It requires the Home Secretary to take the advice of the shooting organisations which know about these competitions before designating or not designating any competition. This is, therefore, another entirely reasonable little amendment which will do much to help the sport without damaging the very doubtful aims of this flawed and unnecessary Bill. So I hope that my noble friend can accept it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: I am in some embarrassment at this point. I responded quite specifically to Amendment No. 28 before my noble friend re-entered the Chamber after his supper. But he might be warmed by what I had to say in his absence; namely, that I had a lot of sympathy with the amendment and with what he said.
It is our intention that the Government should consult with governing bodies concerned. It is important that the Secretary of State makes a decision. By all means he should be advised and listen to that advice, but at the end of the day he should not in fact be bound by that advice. But we are entirely happy with the idea that he will take it into account in coming to a decision.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am warmed by what my noble friend said from the Front Bench. I apologise if I was two minutes late for the start of proceedings after the dinner break but by my calculation they started three minutes early.
All I can say to my noble friend is that I very much hope that she will be able to consider what was Amendment No. 21 tonight in the same spirit with which she has received this amendment. Obviously,
368
I shall read in Hansard what she said and if it goes far enough I shall not bring back the amendment at Report stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swansea Lord Swansea moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a chief officer of police to grant a permit under this section or by any condition imposed on such a permit may, in accordance with section 44 of the 1968 Act, appeal against such refusal or condition.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for a right of appeal against the decision by a chief officer of police not to grant a permit. It is against the principle of natural justice. It is something that should be put right. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I invite my noble friend to read the account in Hansard. This is another amendment to which I referred when discussing this group of amendments. I hope that he will read Hansard and if perhaps he remains concerned will come back at a later stage of the Bill.
Lord Swansea: I am grateful to my noble friend for that answer. I shall certainly study her comments in Hansard. I may come back to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Surrender of prohibited small firearms and ammunition]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 31, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31 and 32. This is rather a different issue from that debated in the past few hours. It is a practical concern and I hope that it can be dealt with reasonably speedily.
The concern has been expressed by those who are worried about the international gun trade and in particular about the possibility that the enforced disposal/illegality of handguns in this country could lead to increased exports of handguns, particularly to countries where they might be misused. I am not quite sure what misuse of a handgun is for these purposes, but so be it.
Amendment No. 30 provides that the Secretary of State "shall" make arrangements:
"to secure the orderly surrender … of firearms or ammunition".
I am sure that that is the intention of the Government and I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that.
Amendment No. 31 provides that in addition to securing the orderly surrender of firearms or ammunition, the Secretary of State shall make arrangements:
"for the secure disposal of such firearms and ammunition".

369
Again, I am sure that that is the intention of the Secretary of State and the Government and I hope it will be confirmed in an answer.
Amendment No. 32 adds to Clause 10 the provision that there shall be no export licences granted after this Bill receives Royal Assent. The Minister will be aware that there has already been concern that the number of applications for licences has been increasing since the Bill was published and could continue to increase unless action is taken—I do not ask for retrospective action—to ensure that there is no increase in exports of handguns.
I am aware of course under existing procedures—this was confirmed by a Minister in another place in a Written Answer—that all of those exports require licences. But at the same time there is a provision for, for example, dealer to dealer licences which can continue for as long as three years. There is therefore a risk that instead of being securely disposed of, exports of handguns may take place which, while possibly reducing the crime rate in this country, may increase crime rates or civil disturbance in other countries.
The question was raised briefly in Committee in another place. However, I would be grateful for assurances from the Government that they are aware of the problem and will do everything in their power to deal with it. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Monson: I cannot support Amendment No. 32. In introducing the amendment the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said that he did not know what "misuse" was. He was quite right to be dubious. Indeed, what misuse could there be?
Other countries do not have hang-ups about handguns—or pistols, as I prefer to call them. Other countries do not have the same strict controls for the most part, and therefore why should not guns be exported if they are no longer to be allowed here? Target shooting weapons are not suitable for crime on the whole because they have too long a barrel or are too heavy. They are not generally the sort of weapons in which criminals are interested. I would have thought it was desirable that, instead of being bought by the Government at large expense to the taxpayer, they should be exported whenever possible.
My Amendment No. 41, which I had understood would be grouped with Amendment No. 30 and to which we shall no doubt come on Tuesday, provides for that situation. I therefore oppose Amendment No. 32.
Earl Attlee: Both Members of the Committee are wrong. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is wrong to try to stop us from saving as much money as possible by restricting the export of weapons that we no longer
370
require and my noble friend Lord Monson is also wrong. Most of the handguns about which we are talking are not target pistols; they are ordinary revolvers—.38 Smith and Wessons—which are perfectly saleable overseas.
The Earl of Balfour: I am afraid that I must go back a little in history to when we were taking the 1988 Bill through this House. At that time a firearms dealer lived very close to me. He showed me some of the amazing catalogues of firearms sales that took place—many of them in Birmingham—around four or five times a year at which people seemed to sell machine guns and all sorts of other weapons which under any previous firearms legislation none of us would have been allowed to hold. I have no reason to believe that those sales do not still go on.
Many of the sales were between firearms dealers of different countries. I feel that where the necessary export licence exists, the sales should be permitted to continue. It is big business in this country. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, seeks to restrict private sales. But I have the impression that the inclusion of the words,
"No export licence shall be granted",
will be detrimental to the big firearms dealers who deal in all kinds of weapons. I feel that firearms dealers with export licences already should be allowed to continue in the future.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I can respond to my noble friend Lord Balfour first. The specific weapons he mentioned are not the subject of the amendments addressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. The concern of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—if I may be permitted to put words into his mouth—relates to those people who will be disenfranchised of the ownership of the guns and who choose not to surrender them to the state in this country but wish to sell them abroad. My noble friend refers to rather larger and more dangerous weapons.
If my noble friend looks at Section 5 of the Firearms Act 1968, he will see that anybody trading in the weapons about which he is talking requires a Section 5 certificate. There is no question of inhibiting exports abroad if it is a bona fide dealer with a Section 5 certificate. But there would have to be an export licence for the approval of any transaction abroad.
I come back to the particular amendments in the Marshalled List. There have been firearms amnesties in the past when firearms have been prohibited and they have been required to be surrendered. But the Government fully take the point that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is making that the compulsory surrender of handguns which is envisaged by the Bill is on a different scale from previous exercises of this kind which have been conducted. I can assure the noble Lord,

371
Lord McIntosh, that we are very much aware of all the possible difficulties and that we are actively working on the detail of what will happen with the police.
It is not the Government's intention that guns and ammunition which are surrendered will be sold or exported. In previous amnesties and surrender exercises, such as the one we organised last year, the guns involved have invariably been melted down, except for a few of particular interest which were taken into museum collections or, very occasionally, retained for police armouries. Ammunition was disposed of safely and that is what will happen this time, too.
We recognise that some of those who currently possess higher calibre handguns may want to sell them to someone in another country where such handguns will remain lawful rather than surrendering their weapons to the police and receiving compensation under the scheme, which will be made under Clause 11. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is absolutely right. There will be a great variety of these weapons. Many of them will fall into the category mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and others will fall into the category mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee.
Those who want to export their firearms will need to obtain an export licence from the Department of Trade and Industry. So we envisage that the practice will continue, but under licence. Obtaining such a licence takes a little time for obvious reasons because the application must be checked for accuracy and omissions. Checks may be made, if necessary, to determine that the intended recipient of the firearm in another country has whatever authorities are required in that country to receive and to possess the firearm. Checks may also have to be made to make sure that there is no other reason why it would not be in the public interest for the firearm to be exported to the intended destination.
Clause 10 of the Bill enables the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to make the arrangements that they think fit to ensure that the handing in is conducted properly. There is no need to amend the Bill as envisaged by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to require them to do so or to require them to ensure that guns and ammunition which are surrendered for compensation are disposed of safely and are not exported.
These amendments have allowed us to put on record important aspects of a practical nature of receiving this quantity of ammunition and disposing of it safely and securely and also in making absolutely clear that there will be no objection in principle to weapons being sold abroad as long as they are subject to export licence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am most grateful for that response. In particular I am grateful for the assurances given as regards Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 that the Secretary of State will take the action which is permissive in Clause 10 and which I was proposing should be mandatory. I am grateful for the assurance
372
about Amendment No. 31—my first reference was to Amendment No. 30 and I correct that—that there will be proper arrangements for secure disposal.
As regards the third amendment, Amendment No. 32, I suppose that, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I should learn not to be untypically tactful. When I said that I did not understand what was meant by "misuse", to be honest what I really meant was that I do not understand what is meant by "lawful use". It seems to me that very few handguns which are to be exported will be used for sporting purposes. Most will be used to kill people, which is what they were designed for. I do not in any way retract from what I said about the undesirability of our gun control legislation contributing to the international gun trade.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: May I ask the noble Lord whether he sees any similarity between what he has just said about the guns which are to be exported being used to kill people and the vast number of illegally held guns in this country and the purpose for which they are held?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If, by passing laws, we could control the holding of, or trading in, illegal guns, we should be a remarkable legislature. We clearly are not. We have to do what we can within the confines and the possibilities of the law to restrict opportunities for crimes using guns. That is what the Government are doing in this Bill with the support of some of us. Nobody is claiming that we are going to remove the problem of illegal guns, but we are saying—
Earl Attlee: Has the noble Lord considered another problem on which the Minister may be able to help us? If a UK citizen is able to obtain a permit from the authorities in France or Germany, where the regulations are much weaker than ours, will that person be able to own a handgun on the Continent? How will this Bill affect the ability of someone to take their currently legally held weapon from here and then to join a gun club or to take the necessary action to have a permit in France?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not think that that point is covered by the amendment. However, as one who has a house in France, perhaps I should say that it has never occurred to me that, if I had any weapons, I would take them over to France because of their weaker controls. That is not least because I assume that I would be stopped by airport security or by some other security at the port of exit. I hope that at least there would be some means of stopping me moving weapons around by air or by ship or train, which is what I actually use.
The issue of the export arms trade is qualified by the fact that I recognise that, although the Minister did not say so, one consideration in the granting of an export licence is the conditions in the country to which it is proposed that

373
the gun should go. If it were proposed to send guns to, for example, Rwanda or Burundi rather than to France, there might be considerable objections to an export licence being granted. On that basis, I certainly do not want to pursue Amendment No. 32 to a vote.
The Minister said that it has been valuable to have such matters discussed. I agree that this has been a valuable discussion and I have found it helpful to have the assurances that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 30.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
House resumed.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-nine minutes past nine o'clock.

  Treaty on European Union: Anti-discrimination Proposal
  Treaty on European Union: Anti-discrimination Proposal
  Treasury Building: Redevelopment
  Treasury Building: Redevelopment
  Xenotransplantation: Report
  Xenotransplantation: Report
  Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill
  Community Care (Residential Charges) Bill
  Gulf War: Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons
  Gulf War: Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons
  Sex Offences: Review of Penalties
  Sex Offences: Review of Penalties
  Voter Numbers
  Voter Numbers
  Sustainable Use of Soil: Royal Commission Report
  Sustainable Use of Soil: Royal Commission Report
  Arable Area Payments
  Arable Area Payments
  Marine Safety Agency Fees
  Marine Safety Agency Fees
  Air Traffic Control Services: Location
  Air Traffic Control Services: Location